NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, here are the results from the first round of my search to find Nationstates favourite writer (Yes I know I have too much time on my hands). 111 votes, gives a clear Top 5. Which in no way resembles my poor attempt a couple of weeks back.

*-* Mean that the individual still has free votes left.

The Great Leveller

Philip K Dick
Kurt Vonnegut
Frank Herbert
Isaac Asimov
Robert A Heilein

Tactical Grace: And you said it couldn't be done

Isaac Asimov
Arthur C Clarke
Iain M. Banks
Stephen Baxter
Harry Turtledove

Bodies Without Organs

Bob Shaw
James White
Stanislav Lem
Ian Watson
Thomas M. Disch

God’s Bowel’s

Masamune Shirow
Philip K. Dick
Douglas Adams
-
-

John Bernhardt:

Isaac Asimov
Robert A Heilein
L. Neil Smith
-
-

Sleep Service:

Iain M Banks
Frank Herbert
-
-
-

Collaboration:

John Brunner
Michael Moorcock
Jack Vance
Nancy Kress
Ursula K. LeGuin

New Empire:

David Drake
Robert Heinlein
John Ringo
Masamune Shirow
Orson Scott Card

The Elven People:

Douglas Adams
Anne Mccaffrey
Terry Pratchett
-
-

Rotovia:

Anne McCaffrey
-
-
-
-

The White Hats:

Kurt Vonnegut
William Gibson
Brian Aldiss
Ian Watson
Iain M Banks

Etanatlu s:

Orson Scott Card
Frank Herbert
Douglas Adams
Kurt Vonnegut
-

BackwoodSquatches:

Roger Zelazny.
-
-
-
-

Greater Valia:

Isaac Asimov
-
-
-
-

More Dissidence:

Harry Turtledove
Anne McCaffrey
-
-
-

The Hani:

Elizabeth Moon
Larry Niven
C J Cherryh
David Drake
Robert Forward

Naleth:

Isaac Asimov
Frank Herbert
Orson Scott Card
Douglas Adams
William Gibson

Sproutbekistan:

Phillip K Dick
Alfred Bester
John Brunner
Daniel Keyes
Robert Silverberg

The Brotherhood of Nod:

Frank Herbert
Isaac Asimov
-
-
-

Troon:

Isaac Asimov
Arthur C. Clarke
Douglas Adams
Gordon R. Dickson
-

Joe Stalin:

Ursula LeGuin
Harry Turtledove
Larry Niven
Ben Bova
Issac Asimov

Enrica:

Jules Verne
Gene Rodenberry
-
-
-

Kylara:

Frank Herbert
Kevin Anderson
William R. Forstchen
William Shatner
Elizabeth Moon

ELO:

Robert A. Heinlein
Frank Herbert
David Brin
Issac Asimov
-

Mushroomos:

Isaac Asimov
Ray Bradbury
Tom Godwin
D.C. Fontana
Jules Verne

Nascarastan:

Roger Zelazny
Marion Zimmer Bradley
Harlan Ellison
David Brin
Ursula Le Guin

Kopic:

Iain M Banks
Arthur C Clarke
Ben Bova
-
-

Utopio:

Philip K. Dick
Ursula Le Guin
Ian M. Banks
Frank Herbert
Douglas Adams

Kellville:

Isaac Asimov
Frank Herbert
Robert A. Heilein
Arthur C. Clarke
Orson Scott Card

Eli:

Isaac Asimov
Larry Niven
-
-
-

PrescriptionMedication

Iain M Banks
-
-
-
-

Curantan

Iain M Banks
Angela Carter
Philip K Dick
Anne McCaffrey
Stephen Donaldson

Ecopoeia

Kim Stanley Robinson
Iain M Banks
Peter F Hamilton
Arthur C Clarke
Greg Bear

Ryanania

Harry Turtledove
S.M. Stirling
-
-
-

Plutarchia

Orson Scott Card
Harry Turtledove
Robert J Sawyer
Stephen R. Donaldson
Isaac Asimov

Cannot think of a name

Stanislav Lem
-
-
-
-

Mutant Dogs

Robert Jordan
Frank Herbert
Patrick Tilley
Isobelle Carmody
Orson Scott Card

Somtaaw

Peter F Hamalton
Dougles Adams
-
-
-

Kirtondom

Julian May
Robert Holdstock
-
-
-

Demonic Gophers

James H. Schmitz
Terry Prattchett
Robert Jordan
-
-

Cuneo Island

Kurt Vonnegut
-
-
-
-

HotRodia

Frank Herbert
Robert A Heinlein
Isaac Asimov
Arthur C Clark
HG Wells

Great Yarmouth

HG Wells
-
-
-
-

Cocksmoker

Greg Egan
-
-
-
-

Roma Moon

Terry Brooks
Neil Gaiman
Terry Pratchett
Marion Zimmer Bradley
Anne McCaffrey

Jospeh Curwen

Philip K Dick
Isaac Asimov
Frank Herbert
Douglas Adams
-


********************************************

Which means the results are:

NB: The smallest print are those authors with two or less votes. The larger small print are those with four or three votes.

Isaac Asimov 14
Frank Herbert 12
Iain M. Banks 8
Douglas Adams 8
Arthur C Clarke 6
Robert A Heilein 6
Philip K Dick 6
Orson Scott Card 5
Anne Mccaffrey 5
Ursula K. LeGuin 4
Harry Turtledove 4
Kurt Vonnegut 4
Larry Niven 3
Terry Pratchett 3
John Brunner 2
Ben Bova 2
David Brin 2
David Drake 2
William Gibson 2
Peter F Hamilton 2
Stanislav Lem 2
Robert Jordan 2
Elizabeth Moon 2
Masamune Shirow 2
Jules Verne 2
Ian Watson 2
HG Wells 2
Roger Zelazny. 2
Marion Zimmer Bradley
Brian Aldiss
Kevin Anderson
Stephen Baxter
Greg Bear
Alfred Bester
Ray Bradbury
Terry Brooks
Angela Carter
C J Cherryh
Isobelle Carmody
Thomas M. Disch
Gordon R. Dickson
Stephen Donaldson
Greg Egan
harlan ellison
Robert Forward
William R. Forstchen
D.C. Fontana
Neil Gaiman
Tom Godwin
Robert Holdstock
Nancy Kress
Julian May
Robert J Sawyer
James H. Schmitz
Kim Stanley Robinson
Patrick Tilley


PS. If you haven't voted, or if you haven't used all yor votes. Post here or Telegram me for inclusion. I'll run a poll when my computer's fixed.

I vote for Iain M Banks.

Can I make my votes?

Iain M Banks
Angela Carter
Philip K Dick
Anne McCaffrey
Stephen Donaldson

Me
Me
Me
Me
Me

lol i'm so stoned what am i saying

I'm very bored at work, that's my (very weak) defence for doing this.

In order:

Kim Stanley Robinson
Iain M Banks
Peter F Hamilton
Arthur C Clarke
Greg Bear

Unfortunately I haven't read Philip K Dick, Roger Zelazny, Stanislaw Lem or Margaret Atwood (who is SF, no matter how much she protests), all of whom friends of mine rave about.

Yes, Margaret Atwood was a contender for my list too... dont' know why she should object, she's so damn good. You should definitely read her, Eco.

Glad to see you've read Iain M Banks, though, we just need more fans now - we will get him to No 1, we WILL! :P :D

I'm a bit disappointed that I appear to be the only person who appreciates KSR. Then again, maybe nobody else has read him (which is odd, as he ain't that obscure).

Atwood's on my list of authors to read, behind about seven others (none of which are SF, incidentally).

Harry Turtledove and S.M. Stirling.

I'm a bit disappointed that I appear to be the only person who appreciates KSR. Then again, maybe nobody else has read him (which is odd, as he ain't that obscure).

Atwood's on my list of authors to read, behind about seven others (none of which are SF, incidentally).

:shock: you have a NON-SF list??

j/k! Who are they?

I've got books to read by the following: Alexander Trocchi, Ernest Hemingway, Margaret Atwood, Paul Auster and Ben Elton, plus a whole load of non-fiction. I'm currently reading The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky, which is great but quite a slog. The man (or his translators) doesn't appear to recognise the benefits of paragraphing...

Oh yeah, there's a new KSR book out too. Judging by my current progress I'll probably be done in about 2006. Sadly, I work and am easily seduced by booze.

I've got books to read by the following: Alexander Trocchi...
I can recommend Cain's Book* and Young Adam as being worthwhile ways to spend your time.



* Given the hoo-ha that followed the release of Irving Welsh's Trainspotting in the UK, you would think that neither Cain's Book. Burrough's Junky, nor any other smack novel had ever been written.

Aww, O.S. Card didn't make it into the top five :cry:

My fifth (unusued) vote is for William Gibson ... only one vote? :P

Naleth
Ecopoeia
Ryanania
Curantan
Plutarchia
PrescriptionMedication

Your votes have been added.

Damn I would have thought someone would have posted Stanislaw Lem. Maybe it's because I'm not a big sci-fi reader. I'll throw in for Lem though. Someone else has to dig that guy.

Hurrah! only 6 more votes needed to put Iain M Banks on the top of the list!

Come on, there must be more fans out there!

MD's Favourite Sci Fi Authors

Robert Jordan (no arguments!)
Frank Herbert
Patrick Tilley
Isobelle Carmody
Orson Scott Card

Peter F hamalton
Dougles Adams

Any one mention Julian May?

Who here has heard of James H. Schmitz? (Karres, the Federation of the Hub, etc.)
He was an excellent science fiction writer.

If fantasy is included, I vote for Robert Jordan and Terry Prachett.

Cannot think of a name
Demonic Gophers
Kirtondom
Somtaaw
Mutant Dogs

Have been updated.

Who here has heard of James H. Schmitz? (Karres, the Federation of the Hub, etc.)
He was an excellent science fiction writer.

If fantasy is included, I vote for Robert Jordan and Terry Prachett.
Fantasy/sci fi Robert Holdstock

*wants to vote for Iain M Banks again but that would be cheating*

I've got books to read by the following: Alexander Trocchi, Ernest Hemingway, Margaret Atwood, Paul Auster and Ben Elton, plus a whole load of non-fiction. I'm currently reading The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky, which is great but quite a slog. The man (or his translators) doesn't appear to recognise the benefits of paragraphing...

Oh yeah, there's a new KSR book out too. Judging by my current progress I'll probably be done in about 2006. Sadly, I work and am easily seduced by booze.

I've never even heard of Trocchi and Auster, let alone read them. What kind of writing is it? and do you actually like Ben Elton's stuff? he's a funny guy but i didn't think his books were that great.

I've read FD's The Idiot - that was quite hard going too.

"I've never even heard of Trocchi and Auster, let alone read them. What kind of writing is it? and do you actually like Ben Elton's stuff? he's a funny guy but i didn't think his books were that great.

I've read FD's The Idiot - that was quite hard going too."

There was a recent film adaptation of Trocchi's Young Adam. I thought it was great, so now have the book. It's very low-key, set on a canal between Edinburgh and Glasgow and follows a drifter and his seduction of a canal boat owner, plus the death of his ex-girlfrend. Ewan McGregor, Tilda Swinton and Emily Mortimer were the leads in the film.

Auster I'm not sure about, a friend has lent one of his novels. I think it's about historical America (not quite an oxymoron). Elton's High Society was bought for me at Xmas, I'm not a fan of his books either...my favourite non-SF authors at the moment are probably Robert Graves (I, Claudius) and, ahem, Iain Banks.

I'm going to do give Kim Stanley Robinson more free advertising. Read his Mars trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars), it's the perfect example of quality SF - it's highly intelligent with wonderful characterisation, beautiful writing and an incredible sense of place. In other words, like proper literature but with an SF backdrop.

Kurt Vonnegut.

There was a recent film adaptation of Trocchi's Young Adam. I thought it was great, so now have the book. It's very low-key, set on a canal between Edinburgh and Glasgow and follows a drifter and his seduction of a canal boat owner, plus the death of his ex-girlfrend. Ewan McGregor, Tilda Swinton and Emily Mortimer were the leads in the film.

Yes, I've seen the film - it was interesting if a bit soul-destroying! I didn't know the original author's name.


I'm going to do give Kim Stanley Robinson more free advertising. Read his Mars trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars), it's the perfect example of quality SF - it's highly intelligent with wonderful characterisation, beautiful writing and an incredible sense of place. In other words, like proper literature but with an SF backdrop.

*makes a mental note* i will look them out.

and here we get on to the tricky question: 'like proper literature'. Not that it IS proper literature? (which is what I would argue)

yes, it's literature of a different sort, but it serves purposes of its own. if the SF element is merely a 'backdrop' then there is something seriously wrong.

however, I suspect from your high estimation of KSR's work that there is probably more to his use of the SF genre than just as a 'backdrop'...

What are your thoughts?

Guilty as charged. I was attempting a little bit of stirring there.

SF is clearly a valid form of literature and is unfairly maligned by the literary establishment. However, a lot of SF is lazy, concept-driven fluff. The likes of Clarke and Asimov have written great books, but they've also written slipshod stories based on a scientific premise with no real characterisation, etc.

Famous examples of science fiction done right (and in some cases reclassified by the snobs) include Slaughterhouse 5, 1984 (hang on - no one's mentioned Orwell on this thread, have they?), 2001 and The Handmaid's Tale.

The Mars trilogy opens about thirty years from now and centres on the first colonist sent to Mars. Over the course of the books you have the development of society, conflict and all sorts that I won't go into here for fear of spoiling it for you. They're big, astonishingly well-researched (not just the science, also religion, mysticism, mythology, politics...) and, vitally, have characters and a place you really care about. So, it's SF but this contributes to the story, rather than overwhelming it.

Does this make sense? Work tends to make my brain try to dribble out my ears.

Famous examples of science fiction done right (and in some cases reclassified by the snobs) include Slaughterhouse 5, 1984 (hang on - no one's mentioned Orwell on this thread, have they?), 2001 and The Handmaid's Tale.

You forgot Frankenstein, a book that I will say to the day I die is SF.

"You forgot Frankenstein, a book that I will say to the day I die is SF."

I haven't read Frankenstein (the shame), though I suspect I'd be inclined to agree with you. I'm sure there are countless examples that I didn't quote.

"You forgot Frankenstein, a book that I will say to the day I die is SF."

I haven't read Frankenstein (the shame), though I suspect I'd be inclined to agree with you. I'm sure there are countless examples that I didn't quote.

Don't worry about it. The only reason I bought it was because it is possibly my favourite book.

Guilty as charged. I was attempting a little bit of stirring there.
*rubs paws together* no problem, i love a good SF discussion!


SF is clearly a valid form of literature and is unfairly maligned by the literary establishment. However, a lot of SF is lazy, concept-driven fluff. The likes of Clarke and Asimov have written great books, but they've also written slipshod stories based on a scientific premise with no real characterisation, etc.
yes, a good summary of the problem!


Famous examples of science fiction done right (and in some cases reclassified by the snobs) include Slaughterhouse 5, 1984 (hang on - no one's mentioned Orwell on this thread, have they?), 2001 and The Handmaid's Tale.


The lines at where SF and 'proper' (ok 'other') literature part is very fuzzy. Slaughterhouse 5 is one example of this overlap (i think); so is A Clockwork Orange and much of Kafka's writing; same (choosing more modern examples here) with Atwood and Carter who are acknowledged as very worthy writers of literature but include the most wonderfully imaginative SF elements in their work. :D

And the question of the earliest SF text is another interesting one - my vote also goes with Frankenstein as the first truly SF example. is there much argument, really, that SF is what it is? (though again it crosses several genres).

Orson Scott Card's fiction is really about Mormonism, just like L. Ron Hubbard's is about Scientology.

it is possibly my favourite book.

Really? That's interesting.
Have you read any of the other Victorian SF stuff? the Coming Race, or After London, or The Time Machine?

they're a bit later than Frankenstein, but there's not much in between.

Ah, good ol' Ron, the bare-faced messiah.

The snobbery of the literary classes is such that Iain Banks has never received a nomination for, say, The Booker despite widespread support for him. I read that he was told that he'd be nominated if he ceased writing SF!

Frank Herbert
Robert Hienlein(sp?)
Isaac Asimov
Arthur Clarke
H.G. Wells

Ah, good ol' Ron, the bare-faced messiah.

The snobbery of the literary classes is such that Iain Banks has never received a nomination for, say, The Booker despite widespread support for him. I read that he was told that he'd be nominated if he ceased writing SF!

In that case, i hope he never gets nominated and never stops writing some of the best books around!

How could you miss off H.G WELLS!?

I'll only vote for one:

Greg Egan- the greatest (and largely unknown) Sci-Fi writer of all time

And I dont' say that lightly, I'm a veteran of all that is Sci-Fi 8)

I'll only vote for one:

Greg Egan- the greatest (and largely unknown) Sci-Fi writer of all time

And I dont' say that lightly, I'm a veteran of all that is Sci-Fi 8)

Excellent. Tell me more about him?

How could you miss off H.G WELLS!?

i have LOTS of admiration for H G Wells, but 5 favourites was a hard call.

Same for William Hope Hodgson; he's quite unique, but not my favourite to read.

Greg Egan's an Aussie. I've only read Diaspora, which is full of incredible ideas but a bit of a mess in execution. I'm afraid it's one of the 'great concept, shame about the story' brigade. The SF critics seem to like him though.

Cocksmoker (good grief...), can you recommend any of his books that might change my mind?

Famous examples of science fiction done right (and in some cases reclassified by the snobs) include Slaughterhouse 5, 1984 (hang on - no one's mentioned Orwell on this thread, have they?), 2001 and The Handmaid's Tale.

In two cases there - Atwood & Vonnegut - the snobs that reclassified the works as not being science-fiction were the authors themselves. Atwood has recently gone on record as claiming that her novels are not science-fictio, because they are not about "talking squids in outer space". Make of that what you will. Personaly I think she is an eejit for comments such as that, and it shows that she either fundamentally misunderstands the genre or is scared of being ghettoized and not taken seriously by her peers. (Perhaps, of course she has just read some [b]incredibly bad[/i] science-fiction novels which featured 'talking squids in outer space'). I think John Clute has also written at length arguing that The Handmaid's Tale is definitely a science-fiction novel, but one which is based on an ignorance of the genre and the way it operates.


I don't think 2001 and has been claimed by the mainstream, certainly it is part of the mainstream, but it is recognized as a science-fiction novel and Clarke as a writer of science-fiction and popular science.

I personally don't consider 1984 to be a science-fiction novel, but others will see it differently: certainly it is science-fictional, but it seems to belong more to the field of dystopian literature. Anthony Burgess wrote an interesting study of it in his book 1985 and showed how closely linked it was to life in post-war britain. (As an aside he also pointed out a couple of minor errors in it: such as the TV screens continuing to run during a power blackout).

The view of the mainstream and the literary fiction establishment still appears to be summed up in the following description: "If its good it isn't science-fiction, and if its science-fiction, it isn't good."

I wouldn't worry too much about characters like Iain Banks not getting shortlisted for the Booker prize: that is an award which is selected by people with a very different literary agenda to the average reader, and quite frankly, I find most Booker winners frankly unreadable and tedious.

You forgot Frankenstein, a book that I will say to the day I die is SF.

...following on from Brian Aldiss's claims in Billion/Trillion Year Spree?

Same for William Hope Hodgson; he's quite unique, but not my favourite to read.

Excellent. The Boats Of The Glen Carrig, The House On The Borderlands, and Carnacki, The Ghost Hunter are all fantastic books. You might be interested in tracking down the novel Radium's Daughters by Iain Sinclair: it concerns a second hand book dealer contracted to write a sequel to The House On The Borderlands. It matches Hodgson's works for strangeness (and, indeed charm).

You forgot Frankenstein, a book that I will say to the day I die is SF.

...following on from Brian Aldiss's claims in Billion/Trillion Year Spree?

He feels very strongly about it, and dismisses earlier texts like Giglamesh that involve fantastical trips to the moon and so on.

I can't decide whether he's right or not. When Mary Shelley and even HG Wells were writing there was no conscious genre called SF, so it's obviously possible to write SF without knowing it.

Greg Egan's an Aussie. I've only read Diaspora, which is full of incredible ideas but a bit of a mess in execution. I'm afraid it's one of the 'great concept, shame about the story' brigade. The SF critics seem to like him though.

Cocksmoker (good grief...), can you recommend any of his books that might change my mind?
Quarantine is very good once it gets going, and the collection of short stories Luminous is meant to be excellent, but it is still several hundreds of books down my to-be-read-pile...

How could you miss off H.G WELLS!?

Hmmm. Is he not somewhat at odds with your 'unconventional' political outlook? I would have thought that his view of socialism shaped through the progress of scientific knowledge would have been inimical to you.

You might be interested in tracking down the novel Radium's Daughters by Iain Sinclair: it concerns a second hand book dealer contracted to write a sequel to The House On The Borderlands. It matches Hodgson's works for strangeness (and, indeed charm).

ooh, really? *notes it down* 8)

I read somewhere that the recent film Pirates of the Carribbean was inspired by Hodgson's The Ghost Pirates. but I couldn't see a great many connections, other than the dead pirates walking under the sea.

The lines at where SF and 'proper' (ok 'other') literature part is very fuzzy. Slaughterhouse 5 is one example of this overlap (i think); so is A Clockwork Orange and much of Kafka's writing; same (choosing more modern examples here) with Atwood and Carter who are acknowledged as very worthy writers of literature but include the most wonderfully imaginative SF elements in their work. :D

Angela Carter was smart enough to realise that there was no shame in writing science-fiction and fantasy and labelling it as such, for which she gets my respect. History has shown that this honesty has not adversely affected the opinion the literary fiction establishment hold of her. There is an object lesson here.


Note: lest it seem like I am defending all science-fiction and claiming that it is all of great litereary worth, I am not doing that. It has its high points and its low points, but to condemn it out of hand as foolish or unworthwhile is ludicrous.

You forgot Frankenstein, a book that I will say to the day I die is SF.

...following on from Brian Aldiss's claims in Billion/Trillion Year Spree?

He feels very strongly about it, and dismisses earlier texts like Giglamesh that involve fantastical trips to the moon and so on.

I can't decide whether he's right or not. When Mary Shelley and even HG Wells were writing there was no conscious genre called SF, so it's obviously possible to write SF without knowing it.

I think you really answered you own doubts there:
He feels very strongly about it, and dismisses earlier texts like Giglamesh that involve fantastical trips to the moon and so on.

The line he draws is between the fantastic, wherein the wondrous events happen due to miraculous or magical causes, and the science-fictional, wherein those same wondrous events happen due to (fictional) scientific causes. Frankenstein's monster is not a magical device like the Golem of Prague driven by words and spirits, but a scientific creation animated by electricity.

EDIT: whoops: brain-fart there: I don't think the monster is actually driven by electricity in the novel. That may well be a filmic liberty, but nonetheless, he is driven by science rather than magic, unlike the Golem of Pygmalion. having said that, it has been argued by John Sutherland that the final ceremony which brings life to the monster involves Frankenstein performing 'the rights of Onan'...

You might be interested in tracking down the novel Radium's Daughters by Iain Sinclair: it concerns a second hand book dealer contracted to write a sequel to The House On The Borderlands. It matches Hodgson's works for strangeness (and, indeed charm).

ooh, really? *notes it down* 8)

Sinclair is a somewhat unconventional writer, and does not treat his readers gently, but I recommend nearly all of his works. He dabbles in science-fiction, psycho-geography*, poetry and politics. Moorcock's recent novel King Of The City is clearly heavily influenced by him.


* Yay! A link back to Alexander Trocchi.

I read somewhere that the recent film Pirates of the Carribbean was inspired by Hodgson's The Ghost Pirates. but I couldn't see a great many connections, other than the dead pirates walking under the sea.

I haven't yet read The Ghost Pirates, or seen Pirates Of The Carribean, but apparently the film also draws heavily on Tim Powers' zombie-pirate novel On Stranger Tides. I also strongly recommend Powers - The Anubis Gates is a very good place to start with him.

Angela Carter was smart enough to realise that there was no shame in writing science-fiction and fantasy and labelling it as such, for which she gets my respect. History has shown that this honesty has not adversely affected the opinion the literary fiction establishment hold of her. There is an object lesson here.


Note: lest it seem like I am defending all science-fiction and claiming that it is all of great litereary worth, I am not doing that. It has its high points and its low points, but to condemn it out of hand as foolish or unworthwhile is ludicrous.

Yes, i quite agree with you about Carter. and Doris Lessing was quite happy have her Canopus In Argos treated as science fiction, although she had several 'defenders' who tried to argue that it wasn't.

Science fiction is like any other variety of literature in that it has its good and its bad. i guess posterity will show... look how long Frankenstein has endured, in various forms (appropriately)

Have you read any of the other Victorian SF stuff? the Coming Race, or After London, or The Time Machine?


Is The Coming Race actually worth it? I have had a copy sitting on my shelves for years, but Bulwer-Lytton doesn't exactly get a great press these days for quality.

Hasn't it also been claimed to be one of the influences on the more occult orientated strands of Nazism?

Have you read any of the other Victorian SF stuff? the Coming Race, or After London, or The Time Machine?



Is The Coming Race actually worth it? I have had a copy sitting on my shelves for years, but Bulwer-Lytton doesn't exactly get a great press these days for quality.

Hasn't it also been claimed to be one of the influences on the more occult orientated strands of Nazism?

well, it's worth it as a relatively early example of SF and as a critique of Victorian society, though a riveting adventure it aint. I'm actually only 2/3 of the way though! interesting point about the Nazism - and there are strong fascist strains in Hodgson's The Night Land as well.

The first half of After London (Richard Jeffries), however, is quite fascinating - it's about the wilderness reclaiming the south of England after the total and unexplained collapse of Victorian civilisation.

I haven't yet read The Ghost Pirates, or seen Pirates Of The Carribean, but apparently the film also draws heavily on Tim Powers' zombie-pirate novel On Stranger Tides. I also strongly recommend Powers - The Anubis Gates is a very good place to start with him.

Interesting, thanks. That's the second time I've had Powers recommended to me in a Hodgson connection... he's on the list!

well, it's worth it as a relatively early example of SF and as a critique of Victorian society, though a riveting adventure it aint.

Hmm. The same can be said for The Battle Of Dorking and Saki's When William Came but I really wouldn't recommend them to anyone other than a historical or literary researcher. Having said that, I will give Vril: The Coming Race a look.

Now, if you want riveting Victorian adventure, then Rider H. Haggard is yoiur man...

*coughs loudly*
:wink:

Ah, Saki. The mbodiment of the smug, sardonic upper-middle class Englishman. I read short stories collection of his, it was pretty good.

To paraphrase:

"She was brought up in Bethnal Green, but we should not blame her for her parents' insensitivity."

Nothing like good old-fashioned snobbery.

... Hodgson's The Night Land ...

Another one on the to-be-read pile: however its prose style really doesn't seem the most inviting. IIRC there are some fans working on 'translating' it from Hodgson's original thick verbiage to something a bit easier on the eyes and brain. Opening at random we have such gems as:

"And in the Records it was set forth that these were those same Doorways In The Night, which were told of in an ancient and half-doubted Tale of the World, that was much in favour of the children of the Pyramid, and not disdained by certain of our wiser men, and had been thus through all the latter ages."

- which isn't exactly impenetrable, but is hardly flowing, graceful or transparent. Still, one of these days I'll get round to it.

*coughs loudly*
:wink:

She Who Must Be Obeyed!

...following on from Brian Aldiss's claims in Billion/Trillion Year Spree?

I've never heard of that (which is strange, because I felt I was widely read on him)

He feels very strongly about it, and dismisses earlier texts like Giglamesh that involve fantastical trips to the moon and so on.

I can't decide whether he's right or not. When Mary Shelley and even HG Wells were writing there was no conscious genre called SF, so it's obviously possible to write SF without knowing it.

You could add Verne to that, I don't think he ever used the term Science Fiction but called his books "voyages extrordinaire" (sp? never good at French, my loss)

it is possibly my favourite book.


Really? That's interesting.
Have you read any of the other Victorian SF stuff? the Coming Race, or After London, or The Time Machine?

they're a bit later than Frankenstein, but there's not much in between.

I've read lots of Wells and Verne, plus Chesterton (not stricly SF, but other books put into SF are similar to his). I've also read Bierce, Poe and Lovecraft. I don't know if they count as SciFi (but I've seen Bierce and Lovecraft in the Sci Fi part of shops so it makes sense to put Poe in here too).


Also Bodies Without Organs mentioned 1985 by Antony Burgess, I never realised anyone else knew about it, I really liked it, I got it from the local library and have been trying to look for a copy for a while now, unsuccessfully.


Other than that, 'Literary Snobs,' tend to pile anything a bit wierd which they don't like into Sci-Fi (If it is wierd but they do like it,eg Brave New World, they put it in normal Literary).

... Hodgson's The Night Land ...

Another one on the to-be-read pile: however its prose style really doesn't seem the most inviting. IIRC there are some fans working on 'translating' it from Hodgson's original thick verbiage to something a bit easier on the eyes and brain. Opening at random we have such gems as:

"And in the Records it was set forth that these were those same Doorways In The Night, which were told of in an ancient and half-doubted Tale of the World, that was much in favour of the children of the Pyramid, and not disdained by certain of our wiser men, and had been thus through all the latter ages."

- which isn't exactly impenetrable, but is hardly flowing, graceful or transparent. Still, one of these days I'll get round to it.

:D oh yes, The Night Land
Well i have read the whole thing through; the style doesn't improve, although you do get used to it, or perhaps inured is a better word. But it wouldn't be quite the same without the language; i think you would lose some of the sense of distance between us and the end of time.

It's completely fascinating although it is too long. Put it before The Coming Race in your pile, although you might note vril is a sort of precursor for the Earth Current. TNL is full of extraordinary ideas, particularly given the time he was writing; ideas that are still appearing in SF now and if you read it you'll be screaming Tolkien! every dozen pages (in the first half anyway).

You could add Verne to that, I don't think he ever used the term Science Fiction but called his books "voyages extrordinaire" (sp? never good at French, my loss)

he and Wells didn't get on either and didn't like each other's work. each thought the others novels were too unscientific :roll:

i guess i should vote... since all i read is sf/fantasy....

five favorites?

Terry Brooks (i'm starting to think i'm the only one in the world who likes him that acknowledges that his work is equally sci-fi and fantasy)
Neil Gaimon
Terry Prachett
Marion Zimmer Bradley (more fantasy than sf, but still in there)
Anne McCaffrey (sp?)

I'd say that Gaiman and Pratchett are fantasy, not SF. Just my opinion.

I think Arthur C Clarke came up with a good definition. I just wish I remembered it...sigh. Something about SF being set in the realm of the possible (if often improbable) and fantasy being impossible (as we understand the world).

So, although Dune is written is such a way that it resembles many fantasy novels, it is still technically SF. The Discworld, however, is specifically set in an impossible world. Though it's interesting that, as the series has progressed, Pratchett has injected more of a scientific backbone into the world.

As an aside, I'm amazed McCaffrey has so many fans. I've found her stuff pretty simplistic. She doesn't exactly do wonders for the cause of feminism either...

I'd say that Gaiman and Pratchett are fantasy, not SF. Just my opinion.

I think Arthur C Clarke came up with a good definition. I just wish I remembered it...sigh. Something about SF being set in the realm of the possible (if often improbable) and fantasy being impossible (as we understand the world).

So, although Dune is written is such a way that it resembles many fantasy novels, it is still technically SF. The Discworld, however, is specifically set in an impossible world. Though it's interesting that, as the series has progressed, Pratchett has injected more of a scientific backbone into the world.

There are problems with any definition of SF. The Discworld, as fantasy, is a usefully clear example of the obviously impossible, but what about some SF? Take McCaffrey. Dragons that magic themselves through something-or-other as a mode of transport. In my view, that's more in the realm of the 'impossible' than the 'possible though improbable'. But the books need to be regarded as SF too.
I don't have a problem with there being overlap, but i don't think Clark's definition works.

Here's Darko Suvin's
"It [science fiction] should be defined as a fictional tale determined by the hegemonic literary device of a locus and/or dramatis personae that (1) are radically or at least significantly different from empirical times, places, and characters of "mimetic" or "naturalist" fiction, but (2) are nonetheless--to the extent that SF differs from other "fantastic" genres, that is, ensembles of fictional tales without empirical validation--simultaneously perceived as not impossible within the cognitive (cosmological and anthropological) norms of the author's epoch. "

Crikey. Can't we get something simpler?

I quite like this one:
"A science fiction story is a story built around human beings, with a human problem and a human solution, which would not have happened at all without its scientific content. "
-- Theodore Sturgeon


As an aside, I'm amazed McCaffrey has so many fans. I've found her stuff pretty simplistic. She doesn't exactly do wonders for the cause of feminism either...
I love her books. But i'm not saying you're wrong.
Female writers aren't obliged to be feminist. Look at The Dispossessed. Yet Le Guin is constantly claimed for the feminist cause.

I'd have to say
Philip Dick
Assimov
Frank Herbert
Douglas Adams

You have five votes... you still have room in there for Iain M Banks. 8)
He will be victorious!
He will! :D

Fair points, Gaspode. While SF has been embarrassingly chauvinist in the past, it's good to see that it has in other ways pioneered equality (of many forms). I guess the fact that it usually deals with the future allows authors to speculate idealistically. So, Heinlein imagines libertarianism given free rein, Herbert deals with (amongst other things) the development of religions, Asimov speculates on humanity's evolution towards a group mind.

The lead character in Clarke's Childhood's End (1953?) is a black African, though admittedly a tad 'Europeanised' (in the absence of, say, a real word!). This was pretty pioneering for its times.

I think what attracts me is not so much science fiction, but speculative fiction.

Fair points, Gaspode. While SF has been embarrassingly chauvinist in the past, it's good to see that it has in other ways pioneered equality (of many forms).
Well, other SF authors have used it to pioneer sexual equality (Iain M Banks), or at least to explore the issues surrounding patriarchial societies (Marge Piercy). Sometimes they go to the other extreme - like Joanna Russ's The Female Man in which women win the ultimate war, waged against men. :wink:


I guess the fact that it usually deals with the future allows authors to speculate idealistically. So, Heinlein imagines libertarianism given free rein, Herbert deals with (amongst other things) the development of religions, Asimov speculates on humanity's evolution towards a group mind.

The lead character in Clarke's Childhood's End (1953?) is a black African, though admittedly a tad 'Europeanised' (in the absence of, say, a real word!). This was pretty pioneering for its times.

I think what attracts me is not so much science fiction, but speculative fiction.

Yes. Me too. This variety of SF is generally the much better written; it's really interested in its own speculations.

If I may quote another writer (Brian Stableford this time)
"the science fiction writer should not stop with just saying: Well, the plot needs this to happen, therefore I'll just do it and I'll invent an excuse for it being able to be done. Proper science fiction ought to require people to begin to explore the consequences of what they've invented."
I would support this view too.

I think Arthur C Clarke came up with a good definition. I just wish I remembered it...sigh. Something about SF being set in the realm of the possible (if often improbable) and fantasy being impossible (as we understand the world).

Doesn't sound particularly like a definition that ACC would formualte: if nothing it runs into trouble with his First Law:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."


Indeed, it also falls foul of the oft stated correlation to his first law:

"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."

I have read books by so many of the writers mentioned, picking my top 5 was such a challenge. Ugh. It would have been easier had I been asked to pick my top 10. I love space opera sci-fi so much. :D

sweet, i made the list! :D

I have read books by so many of the writers mentioned, picking my top 5 was such a challenge. Ugh. It would have been easier had I been asked to pick my top 10. I love space opera sci-fi so much. :D

Imagines work of sorting through groups of ten votes :shock:


What type of Space Opera do you like? Have you read "Cities in Flight"?

There are problems with any definition of SF...

Here's Darko Suvin's
"It [science fiction] should be defined as a fictional tale determined by the hegemonic literary device of a locus and/or dramatis personae that (1) are radically or at least significantly different from empirical times, places, and characters of "mimetic" or "naturalist" fiction, but (2) are nonetheless--to the extent that SF differs from other "fantastic" genres, that is, ensembles of fictional tales without empirical validation--simultaneously perceived as not impossible within the cognitive (cosmological and anthropological) norms of the author's epoch. "

Crikey. Can't we get something simpler?


Darko Suvin often seems to be missing the point of sf completely, In my opinion: I have one collection by him: "Positions & Presuppositions In Science Fiction", which gets lost in trying to analyse power-relations between characters for page after page. It all seems to be a case of not seeing the wood for the trees with him.

I still think it is strange that all these people try to provide definitions of science-fiction or speculative-fiction despite their acadmic backgrounds: they seem to have slept through their courses on the late Wittgenstein - science-fiction is what people point to and say "this is science-fiction". There are family resemblances between science-fictions works, but there is no single unifying characteristic that they all share.

I'll skip extended comment on the Sturgeon definition: it is easy to pikc holes in things like this: any science-fiction novel which does not feature humans falls outside his definition, for example, which is less than satisfactory...

Also Bodies Without Organs mentioned 1985 by Antony Burgess, I never realised anyone else knew about it, I really liked it, I got it from the local library and have been trying to look for a copy for a while now, unsuccessfully.

Anthony Burgess is another example of a 'literary' writer who's reputation ahs not been adversely affected by declaring that he wrote science-fiction novels (A Clockwork Orange, The Wanting Seed, The End Of The World News & the fictional section of 1985). We should also mention here Kingsley Amis, who was unapologetic about not only writing his (in my view) mis-guided critiques of science-fiction (New Maps Of Hell - which bizarrely identified the 'true' aim of science fiction to be political satire) but also his science-fiction/alt-history novel The Alteration, and saw no decline in his respectability as a result.

Anyhow, back to Burgess: I found 1985 to be interesting as a study of 1984, but felt it didn't emphasise the influence of Yvegeny Zamyatin's We sufficiently - a book written in 1924 which provided the template for not only 1984, but also Brave New World, Brazil et. al.

There were also laughable points in the non-fiction section where Burgess is holding forth about this and that: claiming on one page that modern agricultural methods have destroyed the taste of food, compared to when he was a boy, and then several pages later noting how he smoke 60 cigarettes a day... does anyone else see a possible connection here?

I wasn't convinced by the fictional section of the book, either: I found its denouement quite frankly implausible, but then I shouldn't be surprised that my political sensibilities are not catered to by such a famed right-winger as Burgess.

Having said that, I was very pleased when I did locate a copy of the book myself, and it still sits on my shelves, so obviously there is something of value to me in it.

What type of Space Opera do you like? Have you read "Cities in Flight"?
No, I have never heard of that one I'm afraid, but having searched it, I get the feeling I really should look into it.

Basically, I like practically any kind of space epic. Galactic empires, the stories of cultures, detailed stories taking place over long time periods, that sort of thing. I rank Asimov as my favourite author of all time for this reason, because his Galactic Empire and Foundation series, ten wonderful novels, spanning an entire millenium in the political history of the galaxy and covering the lives of numerous key citizens, that is the height of awesomeness. I love Banks' Culture universe for similar reasons. Harry Turtledove's Worldwar and Colonisation series are a weird sort of Earth-based sci-fi alternative history thing, but I would still call that worthy of comparison. I am supposed to be reading Peter F. Hamilton's Night's Dawn trilogy, a friend gave it to me, but I have not had time yet. And then there's Bob Shaw, he has come up with some truly weird and wonderful worlds.

Well, you get the picture.

Give me three votes for Heinlein, an Asimov, and a Niven. If you don't have enough taste to allow this ballot-stuffing, then throw the votes away on Andre Norton and (while I hate EVERYTHING he wrote, I admit he's good) Clarke.


There are problems with any definition of SF. The Discworld, as fantasy, is a usefully clear example of the obviously impossible, but what about some SF? Take McCaffrey. Dragons that magic themselves through something-or-other as a mode of transport. In my view, that's more in the realm of the 'impossible' than the 'possible though improbable'. But the books need to be regarded as SF too.
Science Fiction is science fiction if it passes two tests. First, it attempts to deal with things outside the realm of what we can do now. Second, it is internally consistent.
The second test is the all-important one which distinguishes fiction-with-rayguns (which I call technofantasy) from science fiction. makes Dick, Card, and Pratchett unquestionably not sci-fi, Dick because he's a speed addict, Pratchett's probably on purpose, and Card just seems to be sloppy. Gibson and McCaffery are questionable, he's become scifi but started out with far-too-complicated universes and couldn't keep insisde their restrictions, she started out trying to make it all Sci-fi, but kinda melted away and made some science series and some fantasy. Her first Pern story, "Weyr Search" (which is almost physically painful to read and took me about two weeks to slog through the 50-something pages), explains most of the Pern universe in a semi-scientific way, and the two pages which explain it are the stuff of classics, enough to make it worthy of a Hugo.

Science Fiction is science fiction if it passes two tests. First, it attempts to deal with things outside the realm of what we can do now.

Does this mean that Heinlein's Destination Moon was science-fiction, but no longer fits into that category?

Second, it is internally consistent. The second test is the all-important one which distinguishes fiction-with-rayguns (which I call technofantasy) from science fiction. makes Dick, Card, and Pratchett unquestionably not sci-fi, Dick because he's a speed addict, Pratchett's probably on purpose, and Card just seems to be sloppy.

Okay: well, PKD was not a speed addict. He certainly took illegal drugs and legal pharmaceuticals and chemicals in horse doses, but there is no evidence that he formed even a psychological dependency on speed. Even if PKD had of been a speed addict, there is no necessary correlation between any addiction he may have had and whether or not his books were internally consitent. Some of his novels were pure science-fiction with no tricks involving perception or reality, while some of them did employ his metaphysical legerdemain: you could make an argument that some of his novels were not science-fiction, based on your definition, but there are other works by him which are clearly included within your boundaries (World Of Chance for example.) No clear connections between Dick's drug use and his portrayal of problems with the notion of reality can thus be drawn. He is a bad example to use to prove your argument concerning internal consistency: some of the fantastic worlds that he builds, even if they include travel between different realities, maintain an internal consistency - because he extends the rules to allow such travel: any of these realities are only 'apparently real' and so consistency is maintained. In some of Dick's works all things are shadows, and so all contradiction is mere illusion. Thus no internal inconsistency exists.

Moving on to Pratchett: Pratchett has written unashamedly science-fiction novels - Strata for example, and several purely science-fiction short stories, in fact this is how he started his career. Thus, again, some of his novels are clearly science-fiction by your definition, whilst some fall outside of your rules.


The whole notion of internal consistency is a problematic one: it is based on the scientific/logical assumption that the universe is internally consistent, however this remains just that: an assumption, and indeed the whole notion begins to lose convincing power when one starts to examine some of the propositions put forward by science with regard to such phenomena as quantum events and the insides of black holes.

I think you also need to explain further exactly what you mean by 'internally consistent'. I assume that you do not just mean 'without internal errors', as that would be reading too much into you - sf writers are after all human. According to your definition we can include fully fledged Tolkeinian fantasy, just so long as it contains no internal inconsistencies: that the history of the elves, for example remains the same throughout, and that the forces of magic work the same way on page 21 as on 1021.

I'll skip extended comment on the Sturgeon definition: it is easy to pikc holes in things like this: any science-fiction novel which does not feature humans falls outside his definition, for example, which is less than satisfactory...

Quite. I can't think of any off the top of my head that are completely without humans, or at least aliens identifiable as people. But you probably can?

Updated for:
Cuneo Island
HotRodia
Great Yarmouth
Cocksmoker (?)
Roma Moon
Josepeh Curwen

I can't think of any off the top of my head that are completely without humans, or at least aliens identifiable as people. But you probably can?

Well, once you allow that humans/homo sapiens are just a subset of a wider category called 'people' and are not the sole members of that set, then you are tackling philosophical questions - what is it to be a person if it is not limited to being a human? - and twisting Sturgeon's definition. Are animals given human characteristics people? (Walter Wagnerin Junior's The Book Of The Dun Cow for example) Are robots? Are post-humans? Are aliens? Are simulated recreations of humans? Are AIs? Are Neanderthals? Are the gods and their agents?

We are back at John W. Campbells question that he used to goad his writers with "what thinks like a man, but is not a man"? What is interesting here, if nothing else is the identification of the primary distinguishing characteristic of the human/the person as that which is able to think: Nietzsche immediately springs to mind with his comment that 'just as Nature gave the rhinocerous a horn, so she, in her infinite wisdom gave mankind the power to think' (badly quoted by memory from Truth & Falsity In Their Ultra-Moral Sense) which seems to knock down the special nature of cognition somewhat - viewing it just as another kind of survival mechanism.

I'll get back to you when my migraine clears and I think of some more concrete examples of sf novels without humans in them.

Science Fiction is science fiction if it passes two tests. First, it attempts to deal with things outside the realm of what we can do now.

Does this mean that Heinlein's Destination Moon was science-fiction, but no longer fits into that category?
This is something I admit I hadn't quite thought about, but if we have the technology to do it commonly available (well, not _common_, but it could be done without real advancements) and working essentially in the manner they described, and the elements exist that make it possible (Such as there really are communists or another very suspicious people around, and that's an integral part in the story), why is it Science Fiction instead of fiction/literature.

Second, it is internally consistent. The second test is the all-important one which distinguishes fiction-with-rayguns (which I call technofantasy) from science fiction. makes Dick, Card, and Pratchett unquestionably not sci-fi, Dick because he's a speed addict, Pratchett's probably on purpose, and Card just seems to be sloppy.

Okay: well, PKD was not a speed addict. He certainly took illegal drugs and legal pharmaceuticals and chemicals in horse doses, but there is no evidence that he formed even a psychological dependency on speed. Even if PKD had of been a speed addict, there is no necessary correlation between any addiction he may have had and whether or not his books were internally consitent. Some of his novels were pure science-fiction with no tricks involving perception or reality, while some of them did employ his metaphysical legerdemain: you could make an argument that some of his novels were not science-fiction, based on your definition, but there are other works by him which are clearly included within your boundaries (World Of Chance for example.) No clear connections between Dick's drug use and his portrayal of problems with the notion of reality can thus be drawn. He is a bad example to use to prove your argument concerning internal consistency: some of the fantastic worlds that he builds, even if they include travel between different realities, maintain an internal consistency - because he extends the rules to allow such travel: any of these realities are only 'apparently real' and so consistency is maintained. In some of Dick's works all things are shadows, and so all contradiction is mere illusion. Thus no internal inconsistency exists.
Maybe not an addict, but you admit he wrote while on quantities that would probably kill your average, drug-free human being. How this is related is obvious, massive, gaping plot holes/logic flaws and (something present in almost all literature) plot points relying on such a massive suspension of disbelief or "Spock Syndrome" (This incredibly helpful ability that would have solved the problem right at the beginning was present in Device X/Person Y and I knew about it all along, I'm just using it now because... HEY LOOK! A MORAL!) that it doesn't make any sense if you can remember the majority of the story.
This is not to say he's not still excellent once you can manage a very healthy suspension of disbelief, just that it takes one.

Moving on to Pratchett: Pratchett has written unashamedly science-fiction novels - Strata for example, and several purely science-fiction short stories, in fact this is how he started his career. Thus, again, some of his novels are clearly science-fiction by your definition, whilst some fall outside of your rules. Yeah, I was over-simplifying, referring to Pratchett while meaning Discworld. Your points, outside the little world where I carefully explain all details to myself, word them perfectly, and then get too bored with the thought to think them the one more time neccesary to prove they existed, are absolutely correct.


The whole notion of internal consistency is a problematic one: it is based on the scientific/logical assumption that the universe is internally consistent, however this remains just that: an assumption, and indeed the whole notion begins to lose convincing power when one starts to examine some of the propositions put forward by science with regard to such phenomena as quantum events and the insides of black holes.

I think you also need to explain further exactly what you mean by 'internally consistent'. I assume that you do not just mean 'without internal errors', as that would be reading too much into you - sf writers are after all human. According to your definition we can include fully fledged Tolkeinian fantasy, just so long as it contains no internal inconsistencies: that the history of the elves, for example remains the same throughout, and that the forces of magic work the same way on page 21 as on 1021.
On the Tolkien bit, I know that was meant to be an absurdity, but that appraches the point. Very few would consider Tolkien SF, therefore it is unneccesary to ask "Is this Science Fiction?" If it doesn't hit my definitions, then I don't consider it science fiction.
A writer is free to tell me that "I don't know how something works, so here's how it affects this particular universe." If they don't change that when it no longer becomes convenient, then it isn't disqualified. They are welcome to make any assumptions they like, just stick with them.

Douglas Adams > all

Science Fiction is science fiction if it passes two tests. First, it attempts to deal with things outside the realm of what we can do now.

Does this mean that Heinlein's Destination Moon was science-fiction, but no longer fits into that category?
This is something I admit I hadn't quite thought about, but if we have the technology to do it commonly available (well, not _common_, but it could be done without real advancements) and working essentially in the manner they described, and the elements exist that make it possible (Such as there really are communists or another very suspicious people around, and that's an integral part in the story), why is it Science Fiction instead of fiction/literature.

Because it tells a story using the traditional tropes of science-fiction? Here we approach difficulties which arise when one tries to determine if alt-history is a science-fiction sub-genre.

Concerning PKD ... Maybe not an addict, but you admit he wrote while on quantities that would probably kill your average, drug-free human being.

No, I never admitted that he wrote while on drugs. I admitted that he took drugs and that he wrote. There exists no evidence that he wrote while on drugs. He himself stated in the semi-autobiographical Radio Free Albemuth (basically a first draft of VALIS):

"My real trouble concerning drugs came when Harlan Ellison in his anthology Dangerous Visions said in an introduction to a story of mine that it was 'written under the influence of LSD,' which of course was not correct. After that I had a really dreadful reputation as a doper, thanks to Harlan's desire for publicity. Later on I was able to add a paragraph to the afterword of the story stating that Harlan had not told the truth, but the harm was done. The police began to become interested in my and in the people who visited me..."

How this is related is obvious, massive, gaping plot holes/logic flaws and (something present in almost all literature) plot points relying on such a massive suspension of disbelief or "Spock Syndrome" (This incredibly helpful ability that would have solved the problem right at the beginning was present in Device X/Person Y and I knew about it all along, I'm just using it now because... HEY LOOK! A MORAL!) that it doesn't make any sense if you can remember the majority of the story.

Are such problems not inherent in his very earliest works? - works written before any evidence of drug-use? I think that to draw a correlation between PKD's use of drugs and the nature of his writing is difficult at best. Possibly one can attempt to draw such connections during the last ten or fifteen years of his life, but it should also be borne in mind that during that period he seemed to be suffering from a variety of mental illnesses (even if the predominant one was 'only' hypergraphia).



Very few would consider Tolkien SF, therefore it is unneccesary to ask "Is this Science Fiction?" If it doesn't hit my definitions, then I don't consider it science fiction.

Which seems to suggest two things:
(1) that your definition is a necessary, but not sufficient set of conditions for you to judge whether something is science-fiction or not,
and, (2) there exists some other criterion with which you approach literature and determine if it is science-fiction or not.

I think you were right when you said that SF is whatever people point at and call 'SF'.
But as we've seen there's a perpetual striving to come up with a satisfactory definition.

My question now is can we identify a book whose classification we disagree on? So far in this discussion i don't think we've disagreed that, for example, Atwood (some of) is SF, that Tolkien and the Discworld isn't, etc. What about A Clockwork Orange? Or where does Stephen King fit in?