The Role of Science Fiction

Weißhampel, Stefan

The Role of Science Fiction

Asimov & Vonnegut - A Comparison

von Stefan Weißhampel (Autor:in)

Amerikanistik - Literatur

Zusammenfassung

Inhaltsangabe:Abstract:
Since Kurt Vonnegut passed away aged 84 earlier this year (11th April 2007), his life and work received considerable media recognition. While FOX-news could not refrain from expressing rather hostile criticism in their Vonnegut obituary, admirers of Vonnegut's works reacted with angry comments to the aforementioned programme. All over the internet bloggers expressed their regrets and wrote their own obituaries commenting on Vonnegut's life as well as his books. Why does the death of an 84 year old author leaving a body of 14 novels, three collections of short stories, one compilation of fictitious interviews with dead celebrities, four works of non-fiction, five plays and one requiem lead to public reactions which differ so widely? How can the works of an author who persisted to write his last book on an old typewriter be so relevant for the technophiles of the blogosphere?
These questions alone justify the continuation of an academic discourse on the works of Kurt Vonnegut which has been going on four almost forty years following the publication of Slaughterhouse-Five in 1969. Ever since that novel, critics rarely fail to mention the considerable influence of science fiction on Vonnegut's writing. Man's relationship to technology and the effects of technology on inter-human communication are central motifs in science fiction: hence, the web 2.0 generation's reaction to Vonnegut's death provides an extraordinary indication that the problems pondered upon in Vonnegut's science fiction are still relevant today.
However, it has to be said that most critics' references to science fiction elements in Vonnegut's works remain limited to a surface level and evoke the impression that either the scholar is not well informed about the implications of the term 'science fiction' or fails to name his or her references. The effect of such an approach is that the works on the subject will either seem to be apologetic annexions of Vonnegut's novels by science fiction buffs and space opera fans or attempts to minimise the role of science fiction in the works of Kurt Vonnegut to mere parody. Neither impression is adequate for a thorough understanding of the role of science fiction in the works of Kurt Vonnegut. Therefore, in this paper a coordinate system discussing the implication of the term science fiction will be set up, in which Vonnegut's works can be located. In order to find a valid reference point, a fixed set of aspects will be […]

Leseprobe

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Stefan Weißhampel

The Role of Science Fiction

Asimov & Vonnegut A Comparison

ISBN: 978-3-8366-1006-3

Druck Diplomica® Verlag GmbH, Hamburg, 2008

Zugl. Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Deutschland,

Staatsexamensarbeit, 2007

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begründeten Rechte,

insbesondere die der Übersetzung, des Nachdrucks, des Vortrags, der Entnahme von

Abbildungen und Tabellen, der Funksendung, der Mikroverfilmung oder der

Vervielfältigung auf anderen Wegen und der Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungsanlagen,

bleiben, auch bei nur auszugsweiser Verwertung, vorbehalten. Eine Vervielfältigung

dieses Werkes oder von Teilen dieses Werkes ist auch im Einzelfall nur in den Grenzen

der gesetzlichen Bestimmungen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes der Bundesrepublik

Deutschland in der jeweils geltenden Fassung zulässig. Sie ist grundsätzlich

vergütungspflichtig. Zuwiderhandlungen unterliegen den Strafbestimmungen des

Urheberrechtes.

Die Wiedergabe von Gebrauchsnamen, Handelsnamen, Warenbezeichnungen usw. in

diesem Werk berechtigt auch ohne besondere Kennzeichnung nicht zu der Annahme,

dass solche Namen im Sinne der Warenzeichen- und Markenschutz-Gesetzgebung als frei

zu betrachten wären und daher von jedermann benutzt werden dürften.

Die Informationen in diesem Werk wurden mit Sorgfalt erarbeitet. Dennoch können

Fehler nicht vollständig ausgeschlossen werden und der Verlag, die Autoren oder

Übersetzer übernehmen keine juristische Verantwortung oder irgendeine Haftung für evtl.

verbliebene fehlerhafte Angaben und deren Folgen.

http://www.diplomica.de, Hamburg 2008

Printed in Germany

Acknowledgement

First and foremost, I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Wolf Kindermann for super-

vising this paper. Thank you very much for our motivating conversations on the

subject and your advice. In this context I would also like to thank my second

supervisor, Dr. Martin Meyer.

Furthermore, I would like to thank those people who were willing to discuss

aspects of science fiction with me over the last four months. I appreciated com-

ments, suggestions, and questions. To a considerable extent the topics dis-

cussed in this paper arose in these conversations.

Last but not least I would like to thank my parents for supporting me during my

years at university.

iii

Abstracts

--English--

In this thesis the author argues that important differences between the role of sci-

ence fiction in the works of Isaac Asimov and Kurt Vonnegut can be found. While

for Asimov progress and the promotion of the latter are the motivation of his sci-

ence fiction writing, for Vonnegut science fiction functions as an enabling device

for welding together widely different subjects of morality and ethics.

Similarities between the two authors can be found on the general level of as-

suming that technology and progress as shaping influences on Western society

should be represented in fiction. Differences in this field concern the nature of

technological progress and its effects on Individuals' lives. These differences

stem from the authors dissimilar habits of thought. While Asimov's writings are

deeply rooted in a late nineteenth century understanding of science and

progress, Vonnegut's works appear to be postmodern.

--deutsch--

Der Autor dieser Abschlussarbeit argumentiert, dass sich nicht zu vernachlässi-

gende Unterschiede im Einsatz von Stilmitteln und Motiven der science fiction in

den Werken von Isaac Asimov und Kurt Vonnegut nachweisen lassen.

Während für Asimov Fortschritt und das Werben für den selbigen Hauptinhalt

von science fiction sind, stellt science fiction für Vonnegut ein Mittel zum Zweck

dar, um unterschiedlichste moralische Fragestellungen in einem organischen

Ganzen zu diskutieren.

Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen den besprochenen Werken beider Autoren be-

schränken sich auf die zu Grunde liegende Erkenntnis, dass Technologie und

Fortschritt in belletristischen Texten adäquat repräsentiert sein sollten, da ihr for-

mende Einfluss beider auf die westliche Gesellschaft dies nahe legt.

Die Meinungen beider Autoren gehen jedoch, die konkreten Auswirkungen

von Fortschritt auf das Leben Einzelner betreffen, auseinander. Die Unterschiede

beruhen auf unterschiedlichen Denkweisen: Während Asimovs Denken in einer

Wissenschaftsethik des späten neunzehnten Jahrhunderts verwurzelt ist, er-

scheint Vonneguts OEuvre postmodern geprägt zu sein.

Die Arbeit ist in englischer Sprache verfasst.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ... 7

2 Towards a Definition of Science Fiction ... 13

2.1 Science Fiction and its Criticism: A Historical Overview ...14

2.2 Defining Features/Features of Definitions ...24

2.2.1 A Scientific Fiction?... 24

2.2.2 Science Fiction & Scientific Romanticism ... 26

2.2.3 Science Fiction and Epoch... 28

2.2.4 The Science Fiction Mode... 31

2.3 Consequences for the Discussion...32

3 Science Fiction: Implications & Effects ... 34

3.1 Vonnegut and Asimov as Science Fiction Writers ...34

3.2 The Space Opera ...37

3.3 Sciences and Science Fiction...45

3.4 The Novum: Fiction as a 'What-If' Game ...53

3.5 Progress ...59

4 Non Science Fiction Motifs in Science Fiction... 70

4.1 Religion & Myth: Comforting Concepts vs. Handicaps of Progress ...70

4.2 Free Will and Determinism: How Much is There to Decide?...78

5 Postmodern Science Fiction ... 84

6 Resumee... 90

7 References... 94

Table of Illustrations

Illustration 1: original cover of the first edition of The Sirens of Titan ... 39

Illustration 2: original cover of the first edition of Foundation. ... 42

NTRODUCTION

1 Introduction

Since Kurt Vonnegut passed away aged 84 earlier this year (11

April 2007), his

life and work received considerable media recognition. While FOX-news could

not refrain from expressing rather hostile criticism in their Vonnegut obituary, ad-

mirers of Vonnegut's works reacted with angry comments to the aforementioned

programme.

All over the internet bloggers expressed their regrets and wrote

their own obituaries commenting on Vonnegut's life as well as his books.

Why

does the death of an 84 year old author leaving a body of 14 novels, three collec-

tions of short stories, one compilation of fictitious interviews with dead celebrities,

four works of non-fiction, five plays and one requiem lead to public reactions

which differ so widely? How can the works of an author who persisted to write his

last book on an old typewriter

be so relevant for the technophiles of the blogo-

sphere?

These questions alone justify the continuation of an academic discourse on

the works of Kurt Vonnegut which has been going on four almost forty years fol-

lowing the publication of Slaughterhouse-Five in 1969. Ever since that novel,

critics rarely fail to mention the considerable influence of science fiction on Von-

negut's writing. Man's relationship to technology and the effects of technology on

inter-human communication are central motifs in science fiction: hence, the web

2.0 generation's reaction to Vonnegut's death

provides an extraordinary indica-

tion that the problems pondered upon in Vonnegut's science fiction are still relev-

ant today.

However, it has to be said that most critics' references to science fiction ele-

ments in Vonnegut's works remain limited to a surface level and evoke the im-

pression that either the scholar is not well informed about the implications of the

term 'science fiction' or fails to name his or her references. The effect of such an

approach is that the works on the subject will either seem to be apologetic annex-

ions of Vonnegut's novels by science fiction buffs and space opera fans

or at-

"Fox News Obituary Trashes Kurt Vonnegut." YouTube: Broadcast Yourself. 13 May 2007.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SiVasR2Gzo>.

Cf. Blog Sisters. "Vonnegut Dead at 84: You're Free, Uncle Kurt." Were Men Can Link But They Can't

Touch. 13 May 2007.

<http://blogsisters.blogspot.com/2007/04/vonnegut-dead-at-84-youre-free-uncle.html>.

3 Vonnegut,

Kurt.

A Man Without a Country. London: Bloomsbury, 2006. 57.

One such incident is the immediate overhaul of the Wikipedia Vonnegut-page. The section on the

author's death was added already on the 12

April. Cf. "Kurt Vonnegut." Wikipedia. 13 May 2007.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurt_Vonnegut&offset=20070414011146&limit=100&action=h

istory>.

In this context W

ILLIS

ELLY

's "Kurt Vonnegut as a Science-Fiction Writer." has to be named as a

prime example of pigeon-holing Vonnegut as a pure science fiction author. Cf. McNelly, Willis E. "Kurt

NTRODUCTION

tempts to minimise the role of science fiction in the works of Kurt Vonnegut to

mere parody.

Neither impression is adequate for a thorough understanding of

the role of science fiction in the works of Kurt Vonnegut. Therefore, in this paper

a coordinate system discussing the implication of the term science fiction will be

set up, in which Vonnegut's works can be located. In order to find a valid refer-

ence point, a fixed set of aspects will be analysed not only in two novels by Kurt

Vonnegut, but also in two works by Isaac Asimov. Asimov's reputation as a distin-

guished science fiction author makes him the ideal benchmark in this matter. In-

cidentally, there are other factors which suggest that a comparison between the

works of Vonnegut and Asimov would be fruitful. Firstly, both have been Honor-

ary Presidents of the American Humanist Association. Vonnegut succeeded As-

imov in that "totally functionless capacity" after the death of the latter. He even

spoke at a memorial service for Isaac Asimov.

Secondly, both started their re-

spective careers as authors of short stories in pulp magazines. While Asimov

wrote exclusively for science fiction pulps, Vonnegut published in magazines

such as Collier's and Saturday Evening Post.

The aim of the comparison carried

out here is to reveal differences in the use of science fiction motifs between As-

imov and Vonnegut.

To ensure a productive mode of comparison, a non-polemic stance towards

science fiction will be maintained in this paper. Consequently, a main aim is to

avoid both science fiction denunciation as an inferior branch of literature as well

as the apologetic stance of science fiction fans that still leads distinguished au-

thors to the assumption that it might damage their reputation and income if their

works are considered to be science fiction. A relatively recent 'victim' falling into

this booby-trap is Paul Auster who is certainly bothered that his novel In the

Country of Last Things has been read as a science fiction narrative. Auster loses

no time in stating that this is a crude misreading.

Assigning the label "science fic-

tion" to a text still proves to be a value judgement and additionally, one which is

hard to handle commercially and in academic discourse. Vonnegut is also not

free from ambiguous feelings about being considered a science fiction author. In

Vonnegut as a Science-Fiction Writer." An Introduction to the Life and Works of Kurt Vonnegut. Eds.

Jerome Klinkowitz & Donald L. Lawler. New York: Delacorte Press, 1977.

6 Especially

ETTERSON

's The World According to Kurt Vonnegut has to be named as an example of

minimizing the role of science fiction in Vonnegut's fiction. Cf. Petterson, Bo. The World According to

Kurt Vonnegut: Moral Paradox and Narrative Form. Åbo: Akademi UP, 1994.

That both authors were avowed Humanists seems to suggest similar outlooks on life which also might

be found in their fiction. Cf. Vonnegut. A Man Without a Country. 80.

Cf. Klinkowitz, Jerome."A Do-It-Yourself Kurt Vonnegut Anthology." North American Review. 262:3

(1977): 83-85, 83.

Naumann, Michael. "Schau zu, dass es besser misslingt." Die Zeit. 1 Feb. 2007: 6.

NTRODUCTION

an interview conducted by the literary critic R

OBERT

CHOLES

Vonnegut explains:

"Well, I wrote a thing in the New York Times last year about this (whether he is a

science fiction author or not--author's annotation), objecting finally because I

thought it was costing me a lot of money in reputation [...]."

Interestingly

enough, the objections raised by both Auster and Vonnegut against the label

science fiction are not based on forthright artistic grounds but mainly on problems

of reputation and income.

Therefore, the approach of this paper will include a detailled discussion of sci-

ence fiction features and their emergence. The aim of such a procedure is to es-

tablish a coordinate system as little biased as possible. As a next step, a detailed

analysis of the four works will be carried out. The aim of a extended discussion of

the term science fiction is to lay out the elements which are to be analysed in As-

imov's and Vonnegut's fiction. Additionally, to explain the derivation of the sci-

ence fictions particularities and its questionable reputation might help elucidate

its particularities. In a second step the selected works of Vonnegut and Asimov

will be scrutinised according to these criteria in order to define the positions of

both in the aforementioned coordinate system.

The choice of the four texts for the analysis, the two Vonnegut novels The

Sirens of Titan and Galápagos and the two Asimov texts Foundation and Robots

and Empire is based on a multitude of reasons. Firstly, for both authors it can be

concluded that the two works discussed in this context were written at rather dif-

ferent stages of their respective careers. Foundation (1951)

a collection of early

stories published in Astounding between 1942 and 1945,

offers an outlook on

Asimov's early writings, whereas Robots and Empire (1985)

marks an example

of his late career during which he tried to pull together the strings of his writing,

aiming at leaving a self-contained body of cross-referential works. By comparis-

on, The Sirens of Titan (1959)

also offers an example of its creator's early ca-

reer as a novelist, however, Galápagos (1985)

can hardly be assumed to be an

attempt to interconnect Vonnegut's oeuvre.

Secondly, The Sirens of Titan (1959) and Foundation (1951) were published in

Scholes, Robert. "A Talk with Kurt Vonnegut, Jr." Conversations with Kurt Vonnegut. Ed. William

Rodney Allen. Jackson: UP of Mississippi, 1988. 119.

11 Asimov,

Isaac.

Foundation. New York: Bantam Dell, 2004. All quotations taken from this edition.

The stories in Foundation where published as one 'novel' in 1951 featuring a new story functioning as

an introduction to the stories published from 1942 to 1945. Cf. Touponce, William F. Isaac Asimov.

Boston: Twayne, 1991. xi-xii.

13 Asimov,

Isaac.

Robots and Empire. London: Grafton, 1985. All quotations taken from this edition. In

following quotations this edition might be referred to as Robots.

14 Vonnegut,

Kurt.

Galápagos. New York: The Dial Press, 2006. All quotations taken from this edition.

15 Vonnegut.

Kurt.

The Sirens of Titan. 5

ed. London: Millennium, 2003. All quotations taken from this

edition. In following quotations this edition might be referred to as Sirens.

NTRODUCTION

relative temporal proximity, which is even more true for Galápagos and Robots

and Empire (1985). This highly interesting temporal setup constitutes a rich and

enlightening body of works, allowing contrasting reading of the works of both au-

thors at a certain stage of their respective careers, as well as a thematic compar-

ison between the works of each author in the early and a later part of their ca-

reers. This should suffice to allow a diachronic scrutiny of continuity and paradig-

matic change over a timespan of about twenty-six years between The Sirens of

Titan and Galápagos and even thirty-five

years between Foundation and Ro-

bots and Empire. Furthermore, a synchronic comparison of the two authors use

of science fiction elements will be carried out.

Themes that are not particular for science fiction texts but which are used in

this context by both authors must have left specific repercussions in the selected

works. To analyse to which extent they are effected by the science fiction

themes will be the main concern in this part.

In a fourth, and last, step dimensions of postmodern artistry and their connec-

tion to science fiction will be examined. Since Asimov has hardly been con-

sidered a postmodernist, a reading of Asimov's works looking for phenomena

discussed under the premisses postmodernism might yield interesting reflections

back upon the scrutiny of the Vonnegut texts.

To underline the arguments proposed in the analysis, a large body of second-

ary literature will be consulted. Especially dedicated to the definition and analysis

of science fiction, D

AMIEN

RODERICK

's Reading the Starlight: Postmodern

Science Fiction

and D

ARKO

UVIN

's Positions and Presuppositions

have to be

mentioned. Both show considerable insight into the particularities of science

fiction writing and reading, while avoiding the often-found apologetic notion in

definitions of science fiction. Nevertheless, it has to be mentioned that Positions

and Presuppositions has to be dealt with carefully, since it is an unusually

ideological book. However, S

UVIN

's ideas about the structural nature of science

fiction remain relevant which can be seen that it is praised by most of the science

fiction critics. Further noteworthy thoughts on science fiction are provided by

DAM

OBERTS

(Science Fiction)

and M

ARK

OSE

(Alien Encouters),

who are

less concerned with theorising about works of science fiction but more with

For this paper the publication of Foundation as one book in 1951 will we considered as authoritative

due to the Asimov's insertion of "The Psychohistorian."

17 Broderick,

Damien. Reading the Starlight: Postmodern Science Fiction. New York: Routledge, 1995.

18 Suvin,

Darko.

Positions and Presuppositions in Science Fiction. London: MacMillan, 1988.

19 Roberts,

Adam.

Science Fiction. London: Routledge, 2003.

20 Rose,

Mark.

Alien Encounters: Anatomy of Science Fiction. Cambridge (Mass.): HUP, 1981.

NTRODUCTION

compiling and evaluating existing models and their consequences when applied

to the analysis of science fiction texts. Additionally, a wide range of secondary

literature will be consulted for the thematic analyses of the four books, ranging

from R

OBERT

ANE

's edition of texts on free will

to F

REDERIC

AMESON

influential essay "Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism"

which--though displaying a rather hostile attitude towards postmodern patterns

of thought--can be seen as one of the key text that guided literary scholars'

interest towards the aesthetic apparatus of postmodernism after it originated in

architecture.

Among others, and in combination with J

EROME

LINKOWITZ

analysis of the postmodern habit of thought

the text will provide a steady

framework for the scrutiny of Foundation, Robots and Empire, Galápagos, and

The Sirens of Titan as (possibly) postmodern texts. In all of these areas

secondary literature on Asimov and Vonnegut will be consulted. As far as Asimov

is concerned the two most important works are J

AMES

UNN

's The Foundation of

Science Fiction

and D

ONALD

E. P

ALUMBO

's Chaos Theory, Asimov's

Foundations and Robots, and Herbert's 'Dune'.'

Although P

ALUMBO

's attempt to

elucidate that Asimov modelled his fiction according to chaos theory is less

relevant in the context of this thesis, he still provides interesting findings on

aspects of Asimov's fiction. These can be considered outside the context of

fractals and the butterfly effects P

ALUMBO

is concerned with. Nevertheless, it has

to be said that the academic discourse about the selected works of Asimov is

relatively rare and the inclusion of science fiction peer-criticism is a rather

dubious undertaking which will be avoided as far as possible.

In contrast to Asimov, the works of Kurt Vonnegut have been discussed ex-

tensively. Therefore, this paper can be based on a multitude of sources of sec-

ondary literature ranging from relatively short articles like R

OBERT

ADEAU

"Physics and Metaphysics in the Novels of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr."

to extensive

monographs like T

HOMAS

F. M

ARVIN

's Kurt Vonnegut

and from relatively recent

Kane, Robert ed. Free Will. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005.

Jameson, Frederic. "Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism." New Left Review. 146

(1984): 53-93.

23 Klinkowitz,

Jerome.

Rosenberg, Barthes, Hassan: The Postmodern Habit of Thought. Athens: U of

Georgia P, 1988.

24 Gunn,

James. Isaac Asimov: The Foundation of Science Fiction. Revised Edition. London: Scarecrow

Press, 1996.

Palumbo, Donald E. Chaos Theory, Asimov's Foundations and Robots, and Herbert's 'Dune'. Westport:

Greenwood, 2002.

Nadeau, Robert L. "Physics and Metaphysics in the Novels of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr." Mosaic. 13:2 (1980):

37-47.

Marvin, Thomas F. Kurt Vonnegut: A Critical Companion. Westport: Greenwood, 2002.

NTRODUCTION

works such as Kurt Vonnegut by J

OHN

OMEDI

to K

LINKOWITZ

's and L

AWLER

edition An Introduction to the Life and Works of Kurt Vonnegut which was

published as early as 1977.

In addition, Vonnegut's works of non-fiction such as

his last book A Man without a Country, Fates Worse than Death

his autobio-

graphical account of the 1980s, and his first work of nonfiction Wampeters, Foma

& Granfalloon (1974)

will be consulted in order to gain deeper insight into

Vonnegut's patterns of thought. But before the detailed analysis of the selected

works will be carried out, an attempt to define decisive features of science fiction

will be made.

28 Tomedi,

John.

Kurt Vonnegut. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers, 2004.

Klinkowitz, Jerome & Donald L. Lawler eds. An Introduction to the Life and Works of Kurt Vonnegut.

New York: Delacorte Press, 1977.

30 Vonnegut,

Kurt.

Fates Worse Than Death: An Autobiographical Collage of the 1980s. London: Vintage,

1992.

31 Vonnegut.

Kurt.

Wampeters, Foma & Granfalloon. New York: Dell, 1989.

OWARDS A

EFINITION

2 Towards a Definition of Science Fiction

Asked to give a definition of science fiction most people will come up with certain

variations on the theme that science fiction is a type of writing or film making that

is based on imagined future scientific discoveries space travel, life on other plan-

ets and so on.

However, should a reader encounter a science fiction story such

as Pamela Zoline's Heat Death of the Universe

which depicts an ordinary day in

the life of a US-American housewife in the 1960s whose burn-out syndrome is

paralleled by the depletion of the sun, the reader will register the limited nature of

the simplistic position given above.

As soon as a reader tries to gain a more complex and sustainable idea of what

science fiction is, huge difficulties become apparent. These difficulties arise from

various quarters. One of the more important ones derives from the historic back-

ground of science fiction which, until the end of the Second World War, was con-

sidered to be nothing but pulp fiction.

As a consequence there was a lack of scholarly discussion about science fic-

tion. A set of definitions about what science fiction is arose from its authors' pre-

faces to their own writings. Definitions of that kind focus on two aspects: the de-

scription of typical features and apologetic claims concerning science fiction's re-

sponsibility.

The second component especially can be seen as deeply rooted in

the genre's collective inferiority complex. As a result, science fiction writers who

are also critics (writers/critics) throughout the twentieth century have tried to an-

nex as much literary world history as possible. These attempts range from the

works of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells to Mary Shelly's Frankenstein (1818),

Swift's Gulliver's Travels (1726) and as far back as Kepler's Somnium (1634).

Some of these apologias even attempt to construct a lineage reaching back as

far as the ancient Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh.

To explain the derivation

of the term science fiction with its present implications a discussion of the history

of the idea 'science fiction' will be carried out next.

Crowther, Jonathan ed. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. Oxford: OUP, 1995.

The Heat Death of the Universe is considered to be one of the best science fiction short stories of the

1960s. Cf. Zoline, Pamela. "Heat Death of the Universe." Sci-Fiction Classics. 17 April 2007.

<http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/zoline/zoline1.html>.

Keim, Heinrich. New Wave: Die Avantgarde der Modernen Anglo-Amerikanischen Science Fiction?

Meitingen: Corian-Verlag, 1983. 2.

35 Ibid. 1 ff.

36 Rose.

Alien Encounters. 5.

37 Broderick. Reading the Starlight. 4.

OWARDS A

EFINITION

2.1 Science Fiction and its Criticism: A Historical Overview

In the course of the history of science fiction writing and literary criticism of such

writing three main currents can be observed. The first school of criticism mainly

consists of science fiction writers and editors of the early days. The second

school can be summed up under the label of full-time critics and consists of

scholars of the 1970s and 1980s. A third group of science fiction criticism is

formed by the Anglo-American scholars from the 1970s onwards. The two main

differences between the three schools are their affiliation to science fiction writers

and how far back they date the origins of science fiction. While the first group, the

early critics, were nearly all writers/critics, the second group, consisting of schol-

ars concerned with science fiction who pride themselves with their independence

from the science fiction market. Those critics belong exclusively to scholarly

circles. The field becomes less unambiguous as soon as the third group, the US-

American and Canadian scholars from the 1970s onwards are concerned, for

they belong to both groups: writers who define and evaluate their own narratives,

however, holding chairs in literary studies and those critics who are only con-

cerned with scholarly critique. The second distinguishing feature, the opinion on

how far science fiction dates back, is inseparably linked to the critic's affiliation

with one of the group. The nature of this connection will be explained in the

course of the analysis of the different groups' objectives. The development of lit-

erary criticism exclusively concerned with science fiction dates back as far as the

beginning of US American science fiction writing itself and the science fiction

magazine market.

The development of a mode of science fiction criticism can

be clearly linked to authors who tried to define what they have in common in

terms of style of writing and range of topics. One of the key features of early de-

bates was how to define science fiction. What did the narratives with some sort

of scientific impact, published in magazines such as Astounding

and Amazing

Stories,

have in common? How scientific do they have to be in order to be con-

sidered as science fiction? Isaac Asimov tried to stress that it might not be the ac-

tual science that is important in science fiction, but the influence that scientific

In order to make clear that the criticism was carried out within the boundaries of the science fiction

scene

EIM

uses the term Feldkritik. Cf. Keim. New Wave. 1.

Under its chief editor J

OHN

W. C

AMPBELL

Astounding has been one of the most influential science fiction

magazines throughout the 1940s and 1950s. Cf. Rose. Alien Encounters. 12.

Amazing Stories, founded in the 1920s by the Belgian immigrant

UGO

ERNSBACK

was the first

magazine exclusively devoted to the publishing of science fiction narratives. Cf. Schäfer, Martin.

Science Fiction als Ideologiekritik?: Utopische Spuren in der amerikanischen Science Fiction Literatur

1940-1955. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1977. 73.

OWARDS A

EFINITION

progress has upon human beings.

This thought has been developed further by

later scholars, although from today's perspective it might narrow science fiction

down to a level at which large parts of its canon have to be excluded.

However,

in the context of early science fiction criticism this attempt to define the core

principle of science fiction writing must be seen as a rather modest one. It has to

be considered that in its early days science fiction was understood as a veritable

mode of prophecy. It is not fiction that is making use of features of prophecy, it is

prophecy applying fictional devices.

This way of thinking, established in the

early days of science fiction found its way into the minds of science fiction

readers and writers through magazines like Astounding whose editor J

OHN

AMPBELL

described science fiction as:

the literature of the Technological Era. It, unlike other literatures, assumes

that change is the natural order of things, that there are goals ahead larger

than those we know. That the motto of the technological civilization is true:

'There must be a better way of doing this!`

Clearly, the faith in progress is the central motive of this approach towards sci-

ence fiction. Furthermore, the authors' ability to imagine those goals ahead is the

ultimate aim of the science fiction writer. A fascinating aspect of the early defini-

tions is that the stable of writers contributing to Astounding produced pieces of

literature far beyond the horizon of their own, fairly limited and uninspired, defini-

tions.

Still, the defining prefaces to novels and collections of all sorts of science

fiction should not be disregarded as irrelevant, since definition of their literature

have, from the early days onwards, played an important role in the self-percep-

tion of science fiction authors:

SF critics mostly cling to the principle that the core of their analysis of the

genre is the definition of its nature, its value and its purpose. In the preface

this habit has assumed normative function.

This tendency is evident for most writers of the Golden Age, which makes the

normative function even more evident. Nevertheless, the prophetic quality of sci-

ence fiction narratives was already seen as a highly questionable matter.

EINLEIN

, for example, proposed an interpretation of 'SF' as 'Speculative Fiction',

stressing the dimension of the possible, rather than the necessary and self-

41 Keim. New Wave. 3.

42 Even

Asimov's

Foundation could be read as a narrative of decay, rather than progress.

Parrinder, Patrick. "Science Fiction: Metaphor, Myth or Prophecy?" Science Fiction and Critical

Frontiers. Eds. Karen Sayer & John Moore. London: MacMillan Press, 2000. 23-34. 24.

Campbell, John W. "Introduction." The Astounding Science Fiction Anthology. Ed. John W. Campbell.

London: Simon & Schuster, 1952. i-xv. xiii.

45 Broderick.

Reading the Starlight. 5.

46 Puschmann-Nalenz,

Barbara.

Science Fiction and Postmodern Fiction. New York: Peter Lang, 1992. 6.

OWARDS A

EFINITION

evident.

The question arising here is which role scientific possibility and

likelihood play within these thought experiments. This problem marks the junction

where science fiction criticism moved towards a position of science fiction as

'modern mythology', for the criterion of scientific possibility would have excluded

a massive portion of the science fiction corpus:

The imaginary Space Age universe crossed by magical faster-than-light

spaceships and full of lifelike robots and contactable intelligent aliens has re-

mained a staple sf [trope] long after it ceased to resemble a plausible sci-

entific future. From a collection of increasingly common-placed prophecies

SF had become a nostalgic theme-park of future past.

The approach of science fiction as modern mythology fashioned as sci-fi space

operas considerably gained ground from the 1960s onwards when science fiction

became more and more hostile towards technology.

In this context a detach-

ment of science fiction from the scientific and a movement towards futuristic

space age fantasy appears to be a plausible development. A definition of science

fiction as a modern day version of ancient mythology proved to be an ideal start-

ing point for the incorporation of science fiction into literary history, or rather the

incorporation of literary history into science fiction. Attempts to do so date back to

the earlier days of science fiction. In this context as early as 1959 K

ORNBLUTH

ob-

served that,

[s]ome of the amateur scholars of science fiction are veritable Hitlers for ag-

gradizing their field. If they perceive in, say, a sixteenth century satire some

vaguely speculative element they see it as a trembling and persecuted

minority, demand Anschluss, and proceed to annex the satire to science fic-

tion. This kind of empirebuilding [sic] has resulted in an impressive list of

titles allegedly science-fictional going back to classic times or for all I know

earlier.

As a motivation for an adoption of narratives to the corpus of science fiction R

OSE

points out that this practice enabled later writers to identify themselves with a cer-

tain tradition.

Especially in the context of a 'ghettorised'

form of literature such

a practice seems to be a heart-felt desire for the 'caste' of authors striving for re-

cognition. Therefore it is perfectly understandable that the US American pulp-

magazine authors/critics sought their spot in a lineage of older traditions reaching

back as far as the Gilgamesh Epic or at least to the days of H.G. Wells and Jules

The dominant notion of 'Speculative Fiction' is thought experiment, not prediction. Cf. Broderick.

Reading the Starlight. 41.

Parrinder. "Science Fiction: Metaphor, Myth of Prophecy?" 27.

49 Ibid.

27.

Kornbluth, Cyril M. "The Failure of the SF-Novel as Social Criticism." The Science Fiction Novel:

Imagination and Social Criticism. Ed. Basil Davenport. Chicago: Advent, 1959. 49-76. 51.

51 Rose.

Alien Encounters. 7.

52 Schäfer.

Science Fiction als Ideologiekritik? 75.

OWARDS A

EFINITION

Verne. Which of these claims are justified remains to be discussed. Referring to

the tendency of annexing literatures and the difference between the scientific ro-

manticism of Verne and Wells and twentieth century science fiction, D

AMIEN

RODERICK

remarked that,

[s]f had not yet become stigmatised as a genre for undersexed male adoles-

cent swots and underachieving white collar wage-slaves partly because it

had not yet been restructured to that purpose, as it was shortly to be, by

commercial interests.

Although B

RODERICK

's language can only be described as rather polemic the

point he is trying to make is perfectly clear and plausible: by defining the

reputable scientific romance as science fiction, members of the community

attempted to raise their literature's status and thus their self-esteem. As a

justification for a reading of myths and scientific romanticism as science fiction,

the common leitmotifs of journeys to the moon, fantastic countries, and

superhuman beings are brought forward.

This question of lineage is the most

differentiating feature between the so called Feldkritik carried out by writers/critics

and their binary opposite, the full-time critics of the 1970s and 1980s. The second

aspect in which they differ from the likes of H

EINLEIN

and C

AMPBELL

is also

mentioned in the B

RODERICK

quotation above: the commercial interests of the

magazine market and its shaping function. Clearly, this could not be of critical

concern for the above mentioned writers/critics, since they and their criticism

were an integral part of that entertainment machinery.

In contrast to those heavily involved with the magazine market, critics like

EINRICH

EIM

and M

ARTIN

CHÄFER

maintain a critical distance from the science

fiction market and the mechanisms involved. Moreover, their approach focuses

on market analysis as a key component of literary criticism. K

EIM

sees the literary

market as the historical frame of reference for any kind of literature.

The pos-

sible consequences of ignoring the interdependence of market and literature

have been described as follows:

Wenn Formen moderner massenliterarischer Produktion losgelöst von ihrer

Verwobenheit mit einem spezifischen Markt in konkreten Produktions-,

Rezeptions- und Distributionsverhältnissen betrachtet werden, man stattdes-

sen von der impliziten unhistorisch-verallgemeinernden Voraussetzung aus-

geht, man brauche sich nur um das ästhetische Produkt zu kümmern, dann

müssen notwendigerweise die Definitionsversuche zu unvollständig bleiben-

den Merkmalkatalogen nach positivistischer Manier verkommen.

53 Broderick.

Reading the Starlight. 7.

54 Schäfer. Science Fiction als Ideologiekritik? 100.

55 Keim. New Wave. 5.

Ibid. 5.

OWARDS A

EFINITION

Within those catalogues of characteristics K

EIM

sees the unfortunate prerequisite

for the annexion of romantic narratives and ancient myths.

Just like K

EIM

CHÄFER

suggests a strict differentiation between scientific fantasy and science

fiction.

The distinction between these two categories should be organised along

a 'line of demarcation' according to market mechanisms and subculture. The

works of H.G. Wells and Jules Verne, belonging to the field of scientific fantasy,

need to be protected against the aggressive empire building of the science fiction

subculture.

However, even S

CHÄFER

has to admit that the boundaries between

the categories he has established are rather blurry

but still such a distinction is

proposed as a necessity of sound science fiction criticism in order to strip

twentieth century science fiction of its quasi-biblical age.

Isolated from its

context this school of criticism seems to be hostile towards its subject. Neverthe-

less, the implied motivation is absolutely understandable. Refraining from

comparing totally different literary phenomena appears logical in order to avoid

the impression that the sole aim of science fiction criticism is to grand science

fiction the status of respectable world literature.

Consequently, K

EIM

and

CHÄFER

are aiming for a less apologetic approach towards science fiction

narratives, they seem to suggest a more professional scholarly discourse on

science fiction. Consequently, K

EIM

criticises the personal union between pulp-

science fiction authors and academic criticism:

Es ist kaum verwunderlich, daß allein bereits aus ökonomischem Interesse

aus diesem Umkreis akademischer Beschäftigung mit literarischer

Marktverschränkung etwas anderes als Aufwertung im Hinblick auf den

mainstream zu erwarten ist.

The only differences K

EIM

sees between Feldkritik and Anglo-American academic

discourse on science fiction are a more scientific language, different Publikation-

sorgane, and different occupational titles.

Clearly, K

EIM

is rubbing salt into sci-

ence fiction critics' wounds, since although academic interest is not a new phe-

nomenon anymore,

a large faction of science fiction critics still have a back-

Ibid. 5.

58 Cf.

Schäfer. Science Fiction als Ideologiekritik? 74.

This subculture forms a complete microcosm of authors, fans and critics, revolving around the magazine

market of the 1940s and 1950s. Cf. Schäfer. Science Fiction als Ideologiekritik? 74..

60 Schäfer. Science Fiction als Ideologiekritik? 79ff.

61 Ibid. 101.

62 Keim. New Wave. 10.

63 K

EIM

refers to authors/critics like James Gunn, Willis E. McNelly, and Jack Williamson. Cf. Keim. New

Wave. 22.

64 Keim. New Wave. 22.

Scholarly interest of science fiction became noteworthy in the 1970s. Cf. Parrinder. "Science Fiction:

Metaphor, Myth of Prophecy?" 28.

OWARDS A

EFINITION

ground in science fiction writing.

However, another striking component of sci-

ence fiction criticism can be found with K

EIM

and S

CHÄFER

: namely the fact that

science fiction criticism is probably ideologically 'charged' like hardly any other

branch of literary criticism. Defining science fiction exclusively on the basis of

market mechanisms, disregarding similarities between the likes of Wells and

Verne and authors like by Asimov, is as much a critical fetish

as progress and

technology are for the preface-critics of the magazine market era.

Such an approach towards literature

disregards F

REDERIC

AMESON

's credo

"always historicize."

Reducing lits history only to its immediate economic

dimension prevents a dedicated historical analysis of science fiction. Interestingly

enough, the full-time critic's position that we can only speak of science fiction

from 1926 onwards remained a marginal one,

since narrowing down science

fiction to sci-fi space-operas is just as misleading and contra productive as the

annexion of the whole of literary history. Most Anglo-American critics seem to

favour different approaches towards the problem of dating the beginning of

science fiction. Therefore, the next few paragraphs will be dedicated to a short

discussion of Anglo-American academic criticism from the 1980s onwards.

Even at its current stage, academic discussion on science fiction is not free

from an interlacing of criticism and writing. Critics like D

AMIEN

RODERICK

and

DAM

OBERTS

have been, up to now, heavily involved in both writing, as well

as evaluating science fiction and defining criteria of research on science fiction.

Although such a practice has the unfortunate effect of putting the fox in charge of

the proverbial henhouse, influential academic writing by writers/critics cannot be

neglected as they still have an indisputable influence on science fiction criticism.

This is especially true of B

RODERICK

who addresses the rather complicated

question of historical background of science fiction's formation, something which

other scholars avoid.

Although the relationship of (proto) science fiction to

romanticism will be explained in greater detail later on, it will be necessary to deal

with this aspect of science fiction criticism at this stage, since it is tightly

As recent critics/writers D

AMIEN

RODERICK

and

DAM

OBERTS

have to be named.

67 D

ARKO

UVIN

referred to critical fetishism as an urge to focus on one aspect of a work, disregarding the

historical and economical context. Cf. Suvin. Positions and Presuppositions. 50ff.

In this understanding science fiction is only seen as a tool of class struggle in which the interests of the

bourgeoisie are realised through the manipulative pulp science fiction magazines.

69 Macey,

David.

The Penguin Dictionary of Critical Theory. London: Penguin Books, 2000. 244.

70 Cf.

Schäfer. Science Fiction als Ideologiekritik? 73.

71 Broderick,

Damien.

K-Machines: Players in the Contest of Worlds. Berkeley: Thunder's Mouth Press,

2006.

72 Roberts,

Adam.

Gradisil. London: Gollancz, 2006.

73 S

CHÄFER

does not offer any explanation of what could have led to the development of the kind of

literature published in pulp-magazines from 1926 onwards. Cf. Schäfer. Science Fiction als

Ideologiekritik? 73.

OWARDS A

EFINITION

interwoven with special concerns of R

OBERTS

, B

RODERICK

, and S

UVIN

As far as the beginning of science fiction is concerned B

RODERICK

claims that

the nineteenth century is "thick with rudimentary sf."

Concerning the cause of

the emergence of the genre B

RODERICK

offers two possible explanations wide

apart from each other but both deeply rooted in the Industrial Revolution: on the

one hand, the formation of (proto) science fiction during the Industrial Revolution

could be linked to man's experience of change induced by mankind. For the first

time change and progress could be experienced within one lifetime and it could

be seen that those alterations of reality were made by human beings and not in-

duced by some form of deity. Technological innovation and its influence upon the

Individual's perception of 'self' and of 'environment' had to be reflected in literat-

ure.

On the other hand the reason of the development of (proto) science fiction

lies in its mythological capacity. Through the imagination of a future/futuristic

world, working class readers could use the novels of Verne and Wells as escapist

daydreams, satisfying their hunger for comfort and consolation. To support his

claims B

RODERICK

stresses the common features of myth and (proto) science fic-

tion: both can only be understood if a larger corpus of works is known with its

special vocabulary, grammar and generic intertextuality. Furthermore, (proto) sci-

ence fiction and myths focus on excitement, wonder, and surprise which are nor-

mally repressed during the long workday.

However, B

RODERICK

does not

disregard evident differences between myth and (proto) science fiction:

Sf, which is often crucially concerned with the strictly unforeseeable social

consequences of scientific and technological innovation, is principally a dia-

chronic medium that is, a medium of historical, cumulative change, in

which each step is unlike the last. Myth, by contrast, operates typically and

primarily in a synchronic or 'timeless' dimension, while fairytale, and often le-

gend and archaic 'history' track the 'cyclical' time of individual psychic and

social development.

Nevertheless, these findings would root science fiction in a romantic tradition, a

position which is also supported by M

ARK

OSE

who claims that "science fiction

is a transformation of earlier forms of romance."

This transformation is caused

by a transfer of the Gothic principle of sin onto a social level.

Another argument

supporting the kinship between romanticism and science fiction is their common

74 Broderick. Reading the Starlight. 7.

75 Broderick.

Reading the Starlight. 5ff.

Ibid. 8, 9.

77 Ibid.

78 Rose. Alien Encounters. 7.

79 R

OSE

proposes a reading of Wells' The Time Machine as a tale of dehumanisation of the working class

as a gradually revealed ancient sin. Cf. Rose. Alien Encounters. 7.

OWARDS A

EFINITION

feature of concentrating on the interaction between the human and the nonhu-

man sphere. This is remarkable since the nonhuman sphere had been dismissed

as irrelevant and uninteresting, from the Renaissance onwards. The first excep-

tion from that rule is the romantic movement of the late eighteenth and early nine-

teenth century.

The difficulties involved in finding the origins of science fiction can be illus-

trated by referring to A

DAM

OBERTS

who sees science fiction as having more in

common with realism than with other mainstream literatures.

OBERTS

claims

that science fiction provides its readers with a unique version of symbolism

whose transcendental or metaphysical aura has been removed in order to relo-

cate the symbols in the material world. Consequently, science fiction is symbolic,

but strongly focused on detail, rather than on poetic language. Science fiction has

to be evaluated by principles of realistic literature, rather than being treated like a

Gothic tale of monsters and ghosts.

Thus, R

OBERTS

sees science fiction as a

distinctive twentieth century mode of writing, whose main difference to its prede-

cessors is the "scientific mode of literature" whose starting point can be found in

science as an observational method.

What becomes obvious here, is that the problem of science fiction's ancestry

cannot be conquered disregarding the question of how scientific science fiction

must be. In this context D

ARKO

UVIN

explains the science in science fiction as a

"correlative to mature scientific method" with all its implications.

Science meant incorporating novelty after novelty into a more and more

simple explanation of the world that culminated in the fortunately unsuccess-

ful quest for the Unified Field theory in physics. [...] Science as institution be-

came a cultural pressure system simultaneously legitimating and disciplining

the world's cadres or élite, in unholy tandem with converging pressure sys-

tems disciplining the less-skilled workforce usually called exploitation, sex-

ism, and racism.

Within his Marxian approach towards society, S

UVIN

's explorations are plausible

and offer a convincing explanation of the emergence of science fiction as a liter-

ature whose accruement can be linked to an ongoing process of scientification.

Although his view on progress seems to be an ultimately negative one, S

UVIN

still

To underline his argument

OSE

suggests that this might be the reason why the occupiers amongst the

science fiction critics see Edgar Allen Poe and Mary Shelley as genuine science fiction writers. Cf.

Rose. Alien Encounters. 34, 35.

81 Roberts.

Science Fiction. 17.

Ibid. 17, 18.

83 Ibid.

11.

Suvin, Darko. "Novum Is as Novum Does." Science Fiction and Critical Frontiers. Eds. Karen Sayer &

John Moore. MacMillan Press, 2000. 3-22. 14.

85 Ibid.

17.

OWARDS A

EFINITION

insists that his theory implies an understanding of science and progress as

Goethe's two-souled Faust. This understanding of science as a Faustian sphere

not only implies the refusal of the notion of science as a Messiah but also the re-

fusal of science as Lucifer. For S

UVIN

this seems to be the only sensible

approach towards the problem.

The arbitrary relationship between mankind and

its scientifically produced modern comforts can be found at the very core of

science fiction writing as a correlative to mature scientific method, for we are

surrounded by modern technology, but also estranged from it since we use it all

the time, but nobody can completely understand how certain technological

commodities work. This makes technology an ideal inspiration for a scientific

mode of writing and a valuable hoard of stock-images.

With his Faust reference S

UVIN

indicated a third modus-operandi of tackling

the difficult problem of science fictions 'genealogy': science fiction could be seen

in the tradition of utopias/dystopias. To decide which of the two has had more

influence on the development of science fiction largely depends on the individual

author's or critic's stance towards progress, science, and technology. I

STVAN

SICSERY

-R

ONAY

stresses that utopian socialist thinking should be seen as one

of the strongest formative influences on science fiction in the late nineteenth cen-

tury.

At the core of the utopia/science fiction kinship one can find the attempt to

answer the question "how is Homo sapiens to survive and harmonize with its

segment of the universe?"

In a more elaborate explanation of the underlying

processes S

UVIN

says that,

[j]ust as utopia, SF is an explanatory organ based on the 'lateral possibilities'

of history making, analogous to the hypothetico-deductive method in experi-

mental science and mathematics.

In this view science fiction and utopia both resemble scientific methodology on a

cognitive level, inasmuch as both are thought-experiments. For S

UVIN

this does

not only make utopia an ancestor of science fiction, butthrough its underlying

methodologyalso one of its subgenres.

However, this line of thought carries a

danger: that of falling back into an apologetic mode of annexing the whole world

literature, for the approach resembles early attempts by writers/critics to trace sci-

86 Ibid.

17.

87 Roberts.

Science Fiction. 146, 147.

To prove his point C

SICSERY

-R

ONAY

refers to the H.G. Wells' socialist stance. Cf. Csicsery-Ronay Jr.,

Istvan. "Marxist Theory and Science Fiction." The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction. Eds.

Edward James & Farah Mendlesohn. Cambridge: CUP, 2003. 113-124. 114.

89 Suvin.

Positions and Presuppositions in Science Fiction. 33.

90 Ibid. 42.

91 Ibid. 42.

OWARDS A

EFINITION

ence fiction's origins back to ancient utopia.

Nevertheless, it should be said that

utopias/dystopias at least belong to the most common stock themes of many sci-

ence fiction narratives.

Summarising, it can be said that science fiction criticism has come a very long

way and has undergone a process of fundamental alteration and pluralisation. In

the early days of criticism the major task was to defend the genre as serious liter-

ature. Today the analysis of science fiction as a science-inspired literature is the

main task of criticism. These changes can be seen in the degree to which the

narratives have to be scientific and in their historical forebears. Related to that is

the question of how old the genre is.

Concerning the genre's age, it has to be said that the dominant opinion shifted

from seeing science fiction as a genre which has always existed, although not

under its current name, to an understanding of science fiction as a literature

whose occurrence has to be linked to the Industrial Revolution and the sub-

sequent permeatation of technology in nineteenth century society. Attempts to

restrict the use of the term 'science fiction' to the 1920s' magazine market in the

USA has proven insufficient, since no link to any outstanding social or techno-

logical development could be found that would have justified such a sharp

distinction between the works of writers such as H. G. Wells and Jules Verne and

those authors whose works were originally published in magazines like Astoun-

ding and Amazing Stories. Furthermore, the development of science fiction

criticism in the pulp magazines does not suffice in establishing a clear-cut boun-

dary between Wells and Asimov. Still, it seems to be useful to distinguish those

stories and earlier forms by using the terms science fiction and (proto) science

fiction.

As far as historical ancestors of science fiction are concerned, a strong plural-

isation can be observed. In the early days of the genre a majority of the hobby-

critics saw different types of myths as science fiction's forebears. Ever since aca-

demic criticism has embraced science fiction, plausible suggestions concerning

the tradition of science fiction reach from realistic literature, through romantic liter-

ature to utopia/dystopia. Consequently, the problem of science fictions ancestry

appears to remain unresolved.

In order to define the changes in the interpretation of the component 'science'

in science fiction, it has to be said that narratives must meet the demand of being

92 Cf.

Rose. Alien Encounters. 4.

93 Roberts.

Science Fiction. 14.

Details

Seiten
Erscheinungsform: Originalausgabe
Jahr: 2007
ISBN (eBook): 9783836610063
DOI: 10.3239/9783836610063
Dateigröße: 1.1 MB
Sprache: Englisch
Institution / Hochschule: Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg – Sprachwissenschaften, Anglistik und Amerikanistik
Erscheinungsdatum: 2008 (Februar)
Note: 1,0
Schlagworte: asimov isaac science-fiction vonnegut kurt american literature comparison

Autor

Stefan Weißhampel (Autor:in)