Is H. G. Wells the greatest science fiction writer?

[Teresa Edgerton]

Oh, and as for alien invasions... try Fitz-James O'Brien's "What Was It?" or Guy de Maupassant's "The Horla", or even Ambrose Bierce's "The Damned Thing", which gives a (more or less) scientific explanation of the invisible invader...

Well, I wouldn't say that "What Was It?" is about an alien invader, since no such explanation is hinted at, but it's certainly about invisibility.

Cyrano de Bergerac wrote about space travel in the 1600's, and Mark Twain wrote about time travel in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court a few years before Wells wrote The Time Machine. I'm sure there are other examples, but these are the ones that immediately come to mind.

 

[Scifi fan]

Time travel? Asimov included "A Christmas Carol" in that camp, and that certainly predates Wells by a good many years. And, if you'll look at this Wiki entry, you'll see that time travel (granted, not using technology... but then, Wells' Time Machine is scarcely a well-developed scientific -- or pseudoscientific -- concept) as a theme dates back at least as far as the 18th century:

List of time travel science fiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fascinating. I didn't realize this. I would say, then, that H. G. Wells wasn't the first to come up with time travel; but he was the first to put the idea into the mainstream - his works have survived to the present day, not the earlier authors.

It seems that H. G. Wells wasn't the first to come up with the idea of alien invasion - the "Germ Growers" by Frank Potter predated the "War of the Worlds" by five years. But, as in the idea of time travel, H. G. Wells' work has stood the test of time.

So I would say he didn't come up with these ideas, but he was the first author to popularize them in the public imagination.

 

[Connavar]

Its old news to many people HG Wells wasnt the first with the themes of his famous books but he is one of a kind not because he was popular in his time. He is still remembered and famous today because he made him classic books timeless and thats why he is so important for SF genre and its history.

I bet there were many writers that were popular with similar SF books in his time,the reason he isnt forgotten like them is the quality of his books and not his popularity in his own time.

I wouldnt say he is the greatest imo but thats a tough and subjective question. Different people's taste decide who is the best to them. There isnt a way everyone will agree on any writer if he is the most important in the field or some modern writer.

 

[j d worthington]

Fascinating. I didn't realize this. I would say, then, that H. G. Wells wasn't the first to come up with time travel; but he was the first to put the idea into the mainstream - his works have survived to the present day, not the earlier authors.

Beg pardon? Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" hasn't "survived to the present day"? And yes, the earlier authors have survived; though they may not be as well known, they are known, and have influenced both readers and writers since. Certainly each of these was popular in their time; many have remained so. Bierce's and Maupassant's tales are constantly in print, for instance, and perennial favorites of anthologists. O'Brien's tale is still often viewed in the light of a tale of such invasion, I suspect, because a) the alienness of the creature; b) its influence on Maupassant's tale; and c) because he takes more of a sf approach than one of the supernatural to the entire matter... a very clinical approach, in some ways, as a matter of fact.

So I would say he didn't come up with these ideas, but he was the first author to popularize them in the public imagination.

Not quite. Again, you're playing with loaded dice here. These concepts were all brought out in popular magazines of their day, had considerable note in fact... but Wells' tale was a full-length novel (originally serialized, as I recall, which kept speculation going; as opposed to a shorter tale which was told all in one installment) by a writer whose work in general had become quite successful -- much in way that Edgar Rice Burroughs would later with Tarzan. These, coupled with the war fears of the time (which were quite rife -- you'd be surprised just how much sf of the period was concerned with the terrors of future wars with their increasingly destructive technologies), hit the public's anxieties at just the right time... therefore, they tapped into an already existing zeitgeist, making them (coupled with Wells' abilities as a writer) almost inevitably popular. But they were by no means what popularized these in the public imagination; they simply became the most well-known examples today... something that, as literary history shows, can change quite unexpectedly.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Beg pardon? Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" hasn't "survived to the present day"?

I'm boggling along with you on that idea. People who haven't even read the story know it.

Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee" is also far from unknown in the present day, although not, of course, on a level with "A Christmas Carol."

 

[Scifi fan]

Thanks - amazing what I've learned in just a few weeks here.

Yes, H. G. Wells was not the first, but he was the most famous popularizer. I know of Twain's Conneticutt Yankee, but that's not as famous as the Time Machine. Dicken's Christmas Carol is far more famous than either, but I'm not convinced it's a sci fi time travel tale; more like fantasy. But that's open to interpretation, isn't it?

That said, if Wells was not the first, he was ONE of the first, and he was the first to popularize all the major themes of science fiction, notably, time travel, alien invasion, and invisibility. What say you to that?

Thanks once again, all of you, for the input.

 

[ray gower]

You should perhaps remember the effect of popular media and breadth of appeal with regards to Wells and many other writers. Dickens, Verne etc. are all being continuously 'rediscovered' for new re-interpretations every couple of decades by the popular media of the time and therefore never really fall out of the public consciousness. Wells in particular was propelled to fame/notoriety by the effects of a 1930's Orson Welles radio play in the US, he had the benefit of still being alive at the time to capitalise on the effect; Since we have had various other plays and films appearing every decade or so, some even making reference to the book.

As others have observed, Wells also had a soft writing style that concentrated less on the science but on its effects, never allowing invented facts to get in the way of the story, allowing his work to appeal to a far wider range of readers than the narrow borders of science fiction normally permit.

Other, arguably superior Science Fiction authors, if less capable writers e.g. Asimov, Heinlein, Hubbard etc. have fallen out of favour with all but a small subset of die-hard science fiction fans. While they all have had some degree of at least radio coverage, if not occasional films to spur a modicum of interest, they have never had the wide appeal to roam much beyond their narrow SF clique borders.

 

[dask]

Time travel? Asimov included "A Christmas Carol" in that camp, and that certainly predates Wells by a good many years. And, if you'll look at this Wiki entry, you'll see that time travel (granted, not using technology... but then, Wells' Time Machine is scarcely a well-developed scientific -- or pseudoscientific -- concept) as a theme dates back at least as far as the 18th century:

List of time travel science fiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One thing to keep in mind regarding The Time Machine, according to the Clute/Nicholls SF Encyclopedia, is even if the machine wasn't a "well-developed scientific...concept" as noted above it was still "a crucial breakthrough in narrative technology, providing sf with one of its most significant facilitating devices" and his use of it "was so striking as to constitute a historical break and a great inspiration." Whew!

 

[GOLLUM]

Also I think Verne must also be a close contender to the same crown?

I would have thought so albeit my area is much more Fantasy and Horror.

Certainly one of the greats I would say.

 

[steve12553]

I would have started this thread with Welles or Verne depending on which side of the bed I got up on this morning.

I aced a paper in a college writing class pointing out modern technology that was hinted at in Verne's books among others. Welles' books obviously have some of the same qualities. I really think that answers the question that started this thread with a "NO" without really diminishing me opinion of Welles. Within the last two years I read at least two of the major novel from each author and thoroughly enjoyed them. Both writers had beautiful, well fleshed out concepts. The stories were entertaining. They were also written in a manner to preclude them from being shot down with the passage of time. Neither author delved too deeply into the nuts and bolts of the technology. Both authors' descriptions are those of man of his time seeing something that he can't really fathom but could be true with a little bit of science beyond his era.

 

[Connavar]

You should perhaps remember the effect of popular media and breadth of appeal with regards to Wells and many other writers. Dickens, Verne etc. are all being continuously 'rediscovered' for new re-interpretations every couple of decades by the popular media of the time and therefore never really fall out of the public consciousness. Wells in particular was propelled to fame/notoriety by the effects of a 1930's Orson Welles radio play in the US, he had the benefit of still being alive at the time to capitalise on the effect; Since we have had various other plays and films appearing every decade or so, some even making reference to the book.

As others have observed, Wells also had a soft writing style that concentrated less on the science but on its effects, never allowing invented facts to get in the way of the story, allowing his work to appeal to a far wider range of readers than the narrow borders of science fiction normally permit.

Other, arguably superior Science Fiction authors, if less capable writers e.g. Asimov, Heinlein, Hubbard etc. have fallen out of favour with all but a small subset of die-hard science fiction fans. While they all have had some degree of at least radio coverage, if not occasional films to spur a modicum of interest, they have never had the wide appeal to roam much beyond their narrow SF clique borders.

Asimov and Heinlein are the least fallen out of favour authors in the field. Sure they arent as mainstream as Wells,Verne but they havent had over 100 years to become mainstream in the way of classic classic SF is. RAH i have seen around 50 million books sold numbers and Asimov must have similar. Thats not fallen out of favour,there arent that many "small subset" of die hard fans in SF !

The big three of SF thing is very known. Just look at the number of their books still in print . You wont work hard to find their famous works unlike many golden age SF authors.

Sure they dont have as much mainstream appeal as other famous genres authors but thats the genre they worked in.

I would geuss more SF fans read them than Wells,Verne.

Who cares about mainstream fans that only know those two from school when they bring up lit history talk briefly about Wells,Verne and because of their movies. They wont pick up Wells,Verne books specially today.

 

[ray gower]

Heinlein and Asimov were two of the biggest names in Science Fiction during the 'Golden Years'. Almost everybody read sci/fi and their books flowed off the bookshop shelves right in to the late seventies/early eighties. I can well believe during those forty/fifty years their individual sales far exceed anything that modern writers can dream of for their paper doorstops. But actually buying a new copy of their books is now extremely difficult, usually requiring special order from larger stores or chains. Even Amazon can only offer secondhand copies for some. The only reason for this can be that their books don't sell in sufficient quantity to justify a place on an expensive shelf.

Meanwhile I can go in to almost any respectable bookshop and pick up volumes of Verne or Wells at whim and just occasionally Green or Clark.

That is not to say that in another 40-50 years time, when the copyright runs out, or somebody releases a half decent film there won't be a sudden surge of interest, that is the whim of fashion, but at present I hold that they have fallen out of favour.

Indeed I would hazard that even here many of those who profess a fondness for Hamilton, Jordan et al. have never read Asimov or Heinlein let alone bought one of their books and that suggests we are a subset of an already small clique?

 

[j d worthington]

Well, here in the U.S. I still see quite a few Asimov and Heinlein on the shelves... a surprising number, as a matter of fact....

 

[Connavar]

ray gower needs go to his bookstore and just ask. Or just watch amazon and co for their in print books.

Compare them to their equals in genre. Go try order other famous Golden Age SF authors. You will find 90% of those are out of print while you can get any famous Asimov,Heinlein. Only PKD new printing might equal soon.

Sure compare epic fantasy to them. Fantasy is always more famous than SF. Why compare Jordan fans to SF fans ? Hamilton fans might read classic SF but not epic fantasy fans. They are likely to get Tolkien and co.

 

[j d worthington]

ray gower needs go to his bookstore and just ask. Or just watch amazon and co for their in print books.

I don't want to speak for Ray here, but I'd say it's probably simply that there's less demand for their books in the UK. That's nothing particularly unusual, as these writers tend to go through periods of eclipse now and again.

My point was that I think that's more of a local phenomenon, rather than general. I could be mistaken, but that's the impression I've gathered.

And yes, most of the other Golden Age writers are either OP or only in print through specialized publishers (such as NESFA). Though that seems to be changing slightly at the moment....

Fantasy is always more famous than SF.

Can't agree there. I recall only too well when sf was regarded fairly highly, but fantasy got only cold stares. The current popularity of that genre is relatively recent, and likely to recede eventually until it hits a fairly stable level. I don't think it's going to disappear -- it has become at least recognized as a valid form of literature (both popular and otherwise), so that's not likely to happen; but I also think, given historical precedent, we'll see it wane a bit in the (again, relatively) near future.....

 

[Connavar]

My point is why think UK books are the deciding factor for them being in print today when they are classic american writers. US books of them are easy to find. Just because its harder to find their UK books dont mean they are largely forgotten authors.

I can decide better in that since i can as easily order UK or US books from my bookstore. Of course Asimov,RAH will be in print more often in their own country.

Even if i was a UK fan and they were 100% out of print over there i wouldnt say they are out of favour today when they are still big in print but just over the pond. Its not like we are talking about two far,different parts of the world.

I had to pay for old ,out of print books for other great Golden Age authors that SF fans assume are easy to find. Many grandmasters and other famous award winners that you can only find in old books.

Heck my Damnation Alley book by Zelazny are from some american school prize for a kid....

Then to hear Asimov,RAH who have most of their work in print is out of favour today is too much then is all im saying.


About fantasy thing i should say Epic fantasy has been more popular than fantasy for years now. Always thing was too much. Its ignorant mistake by readers of my generation that grows up on the dominance of certain fantasy in the bookshelves.

 

[ray gower]

If you can get books by either Asimov or Heinlein by simply dropping in to your local bookshop, then I am happy for you. If I searched hard enough I am sure I could also find them, though certainly not in any of the towns and cities I have call to visit with regularity (small places like Liverpool). And yes I know that I can buy most of their books on Amazon (not all) and if I asked in the shop they could probably get them. But that means foreknowledge of what I want and that puts them out of reach of the more usual casual buyer who wants something to read on the train.

But that is splitting hairs, or at least misinterpreting what my point was?

The point was that despite having been the definition of Science Fiction for the best part of 30 years, they are not as popular as they were, certainly not popular enough for sellers to keep on the shelf on the off-chance a punter who wants to read 50 year old science fiction turns up.
A problem that does not appear to affect Wells, who, apart from his much smoother writing style, has also had the benefit of having his work presented on TV and film with far greater regularity and in the case of Orson Welles WotW radio play, with far greater impact than either of the 'Golden Greats' and that is what has kept him at the front of popularity.

As I said, in another 40-50 years, as the copyright expires, the tables could turn and we could all be hailing Prof AE Lowes' "Fun Things to do with Radon Gas"?

-----------------------------------------------

Thinking about it. It occurs to me the fact that any of them are still moving off of bookshop shelves in any form of volume is a rather sorry indictment of the current crop of writers

 

[steve12553]

Thinking about it. It occurs to me the fact that any of them are still moving off of bookshop shelves in any form of volume is a rather sorry indictment of the current crop of writers

On the other hand, to be good at anything, you must know the basics. So it follows that a good Science Fiction writer must also be a good Science Fiction reader. The novels and stories of the past must be read to give birth to the novels and stories of the future. And especially with technologically heavy stories, the writers must stand on the shoulders of their predecessors. True?

 

[Scifi fan]

If Asimov and Heinlein have stood the test of time, then they probably will continue for a little while; if Jordan or the other contemporaries aren't as popular, then I don't see them suddenly becoming popular in ten years or fifty.

 

[williamjm]

Compare them to their equals in genre. Go try order other famous Golden Age SF authors. You will find 90% of those are out of print while you can get any famous Asimov,Heinlein. Only PKD new printing might equal soon.

I was curious about the relative popularity of the authors in the UK. The easiest way to compare them was to look at their Amazon.co.uk sales ranking for their most popular book. What the comparison really means is debatable but the results suggest there isn't a huge difference in popularity of the most popular books of the various authors, Wells is the most popular but he isn't that much more popular than Asimov's Foundation and Verne's biggest selling book is beaten by three Golden Age SF authors:

H.G. Wells - The War of the Worlds - Ranked #2477 in sales
Jules Verne - Journey to the Centre of the Earth - 6667
Robert Heinlein - Starship Troopers - 10372
Isaac Asimov - Foundation - 3020
Arthur C Clarke - Rendezvous With Rama - 8186
Philip K Dick - Do Androids Dream of Electric sheep? - 4206
Frank Herbert - Dune - 4204