Of course Lewis loved Animal Farm more than 1984, for Lewis always loved good stories with animals more than those without. Or so I say tongue in cheek. ;)
Distopyan might be accompanied more generally by Anthropological SF: using the vastness of future and space as a broader canvas to depict humand and societal aspects. 'Three Body Problem' and 'Dune' are examples of the most political/sociological, and Cordwainer Smith's stories an example of the more psychological side.
Distopyan or Anthropoligical can both degenerate into Fiction of the Displaced Persons if done incorrectly.
I think the suggestion of ‘Anthropological SF’ is a great addition. Along with your examples, we could cite pretty much all of Ursula K Le Guin, notably The Dispossessed and The Left Hand of Darkness, and more recently Becky Chambers. And in other media much of Star Trek (and most of its more interesting output), from the tension between Spock’s logic and McCoy’s emotional reactions to Data or Seven of Nine struggling to understand what it means to be human.
The more I think about it, the more this seems to encompass a very large part of what I love about SF… and it looks to me as if Lewis missed it.
Indeed it's the part of SF I enjoy the most too. Science fiction provides the widest canvas for a writer to explore these topics: endless planets, races, societies, conditions, devices, tech.
With regards to the question of a trope or sub-genre/species being overwritten (In Sub-species III, “however good they were they would still kill each other by becoming numerous”), I kind of suspect the answer is *yes, but*.
I think there’s a cyclical pattern to the readership. It seems to me that we the readers will pick up a work that explores say, speculative travel, and it can create this voracious appetite - where one simply wishes to drown oneself in experience and possibility, from as many angles and perspectives as one can. And it leads to the consumption of an abundance of material that is a genuine pleasure to experience. And then the draw wanes, and perhaps the reader might step back from such material, only to pick up books from time to time, including newly written works, with a fond nostalgia. Or at least, that’s my experience.
To which point I would tentatively agree with Lewis, but argue that he’s not taking into account the pleasures of a new voice in a nostalgic read.
As a massive sci-fi fan and CSL fan, both for his fiction and non-fiction, I can’t believe I’ve never read this essay. Thanks for writing about it. Your analysis is excellent.
Of course Lewis loved Animal Farm more than 1984, for Lewis always loved good stories with animals more than those without. Or so I say tongue in cheek. ;)
Lol right? The most obvious Lewis comment ever.
Distopyan might be accompanied more generally by Anthropological SF: using the vastness of future and space as a broader canvas to depict humand and societal aspects. 'Three Body Problem' and 'Dune' are examples of the most political/sociological, and Cordwainer Smith's stories an example of the more psychological side.
Distopyan or Anthropoligical can both degenerate into Fiction of the Displaced Persons if done incorrectly.
I think the suggestion of ‘Anthropological SF’ is a great addition. Along with your examples, we could cite pretty much all of Ursula K Le Guin, notably The Dispossessed and The Left Hand of Darkness, and more recently Becky Chambers. And in other media much of Star Trek (and most of its more interesting output), from the tension between Spock’s logic and McCoy’s emotional reactions to Data or Seven of Nine struggling to understand what it means to be human.
The more I think about it, the more this seems to encompass a very large part of what I love about SF… and it looks to me as if Lewis missed it.
Indeed it's the part of SF I enjoy the most too. Science fiction provides the widest canvas for a writer to explore these topics: endless planets, races, societies, conditions, devices, tech.
With regards to the question of a trope or sub-genre/species being overwritten (In Sub-species III, “however good they were they would still kill each other by becoming numerous”), I kind of suspect the answer is *yes, but*.
I think there’s a cyclical pattern to the readership. It seems to me that we the readers will pick up a work that explores say, speculative travel, and it can create this voracious appetite - where one simply wishes to drown oneself in experience and possibility, from as many angles and perspectives as one can. And it leads to the consumption of an abundance of material that is a genuine pleasure to experience. And then the draw wanes, and perhaps the reader might step back from such material, only to pick up books from time to time, including newly written works, with a fond nostalgia. Or at least, that’s my experience.
To which point I would tentatively agree with Lewis, but argue that he’s not taking into account the pleasures of a new voice in a nostalgic read.
As a massive sci-fi fan and CSL fan, both for his fiction and non-fiction, I can’t believe I’ve never read this essay. Thanks for writing about it. Your analysis is excellent.
Interesting stuff, and I dare say it’s helpful to critics. But is it helpful to writers?