A post I made about Shelleys Frankenstein turned into a discussion about the origins of science fiction in the comment thread, and it might be worth repeating myself (and Al Rotundo and Joe Loya). I suggested Gernsback as the line of demarcation, while Al went with Gilgamesh, and Joe suggested an even earlier source. Ahem. Its a matter of how inclusive you want to be -- theres something to be said for definitions that are specific enough to be useful. One of the purposes of literary criticism is to break things down into small enough chunks to let you eat the elephant one bite at a time. I will say that when I identified strongly with the world of SF and fantasy, I preferred the broader definitions, because they gave me a sense that my interests were legitimate and linked to larger cultural concerns -- and that was useful to me. I feel strongly that the literature of the fantastic is the primal literature, and that most folklore and scriptures may safely be placed on the same shelf as, say, The Lord of the Rings. (Of which Im not fond, but who cares?) If you define SF as an attempt to imagine the future or speculate on the possibilities of the worlds workings, then Gilgamesh and Gor of the Flagum tribe both qualify. If you take the definition I laid down a little earlier? Youd have to leave Verne and Wells out of the canon -- which would make me smirk, and I like a good smirk, which is why I enjoy using the specialty magazines as a boundary.
Posted on: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 16:46:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015