Do the SF classics really deserve veneration?

[paranoid marvin]

Animal Farm is a political allegory/ satire in the guise of a fantastic fable. Its kind of a clumsy definition but where else to put it? Its not science fiction and an it not magical fantasy .

Aah , Animal Farm is another fascinating piece of work , and can be interpreted in many ways. Could it not be seen as resembling one of Aesop's Fables (albeit quite a gruesome one in parts) ? Read as a child it could be interpreted as a fairy story, but as one grows older you realise that there are many layers to Orwell's tale (in many ways like The Hobbit). In fact in my opinion Animal Farm, whilst not being anywhere near as thrilling a story as 1984, it is far deeper with many more layers to it.

 

[paranoid marvin]

And if 1984 is SF, what's Animal Farm? A fable? Children's story?

Personally I do not consider 1984 as SF, nor Animal Farm. For me they are both 'Classic' Fiction, or just plain 'Fiction'. You are unlikely to find Frankenstein in the sci-fi section (should Frankenstein be sci-fi? or horror? or thriller or even an -unrequited- love story?), and that is far closer to sci-fi than 1984 or Animal Farm are. However I can understand why others would class it as sci-fi due to it's 'alternative future' premise (although I do wonder if Orwell wrote it as a forecast of the ACTUAL future rather than a fantastical one) But definitions are broad, and libraries/bookshops only have so many categories before you confuse the customer who is unable to find their book!

 

[paranoid marvin]

IIRC, Orwell called 1984 "scienti-fiction" at one point and did actually refer to Animal Farm as a fable.

Just had a quick google for the definition of a fable and found this

a short tale to teach a moral lesson, often with animals or inanimate objects as characters


Which could pretty much sum up Animal Farm.

Maybe by saying this he was having a subtle tongue-in-cheek rebuke at readers to sometimes take things at face value rather than looking for hidden meanings and allegories - and just enjoy a good story for what it is.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

For me, the technology that propels 1984 is definitely a product of science fiction. Part of the story is about the misuse of technology and how that warps society, according to one's point of view anyway, and for me, that is a product of science fiction. Is it only a simple fictional story with science fiction props? Are we disowning 1984 for lack of space ships and robots?

Speculative fiction is a slippery slope moniker. It can be used to give a science fiction story a sense of class, so people who don't read science fiction might want to take a look at it. When we are hacking away at society, there are two main avenues that can be used. One is greed and the other is technology. We don't need technology to demonstrate greed, any kind of fiction can do that. The use of technology that keeps the story grounded in reality is used throughout ordinary literature. Technology becomes science fiction when it propels the reader into a world of fantasy. Are we saying that 1984 is so humdrum and ordinary and we are already living like that, that there is no fantasy in it. Wouldn't it make more sense to believe we haven't reached that point yet?

Perhaps my thinking is distorted by my amateur standing as a part time Luddite, as evidenced by my smart phone that is used as a camera, is online only to connect to instagram, and does no voice or texting, that is relegated to an old phone that won't make the 5G cutoff and takes half an hour to start to load a web page, that always times out. I think it is the page that says you are now entering the internet.

 

[Parson]

For me Animal Farm is indeed a "Fable" but no bloodier than some of the classic ones. "1984" is and I think has to be, seen as Science Fiction. It is the technology that is key in making the plot as believable as it is. ---- Not long ago I saw a meme(?) that had Facebook looking at "Big Brother" and calling it an amateur. What's scary is that there is a little truth in that.

 

[BAYLOR]

Aah , Animal Farm is another fascinating piece of work , and can be interpreted in many ways. Could it not be seen as resembling one of Aesop's Fables (albeit quite a gruesome one in parts) ? Read as a child it could be interpreted as a fairy story, but as one grows older you realise that there are many layers to Orwell's tale (in many ways like The Hobbit). In fact in my opinion Animal Farm, whilst not being anywhere near as thrilling a story as 1984, it is far deeper with many more layers to it.

Have you ever read In Caverns Below by Stanton Coblentz ?

 

[paranoid marvin]

In Caverns Below

No, but it does look interesting so I'll be sure to check it out, thanks.

 

[BigBadBob141]

Yes they do deserve it, and yes there was a load of rubbish published back then, just as there is to-day, but the real classic gems that were written then are as good as if not better then the best of to-day.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Yes they do deserve it, and yes there was a load of rubbish published back then, just as there is to-day, but the real classic gems that were written then are as good as if not better then the best of to-day.

I agree, and a lot of stories published today will in part be inspired by the classic stories. Would we have had Terry Pratchett, J.K.Rowling and G.R.R. Martin without J.R.R.Tolkein? Would we have had Star Wars without War of the Worlds? Would we have had King or Barker without Poe or James? Perhaps, but definitely different and poorer for it.

 

[BAYLOR]

I agree, and a lot of stories published today will in part be inspired by the classic stories. Would we have had Terry Pratchett, J.K.Rowling and G.R.R. Martin without J.R.R.Tolkein? Would we have had Star Wars without War of the Worlds? Would we have had King or Barker without Poe or James? Perhaps, but definitely different and poorer for it.

We would have far less to read.

 

[Gandalfer]

They deserve recognition as pioneers and ground-breakers. There are better stories and more proficient writers nowadays when every other person finishes some university degree if not more, but in the days of Arthur Conan Doyle, writing about what may be hidden in a secret island deserves credit. The same goes for Jonathan Swift. Gulliver's Travels aren't as exciting as Game of Thrones, but back in the day that guy laid the foundation for many things. Branding something as a "classic" does just that in my opinion. It's like saying "whatever may come after you won't change the fact that you started it all".

 

[BAYLOR]

After having finished The Humanoids by Jack Williamson . The answer to that question oi emphatically . yes .

 

[JimC]

A Fall of Moondust
"I wonder if I could find some reviews of it from the time".

I liked it too, when it came out. Still do.
From memory, I think maybe P Schuyler Miller reviewed it at the time - don't hold me to that.

I like fantasy and sf equally well. Always have. I tend to have an innate preference for stuff written between roughly 1935 and 1965.

 

[BAYLOR]

A Fall of Moondust
"I wonder if I could find some reviews of it from the time".

I liked it too, when it came out. Still do.
From memory, I think maybe P Schuyler Miller reviewed it at the time - don't hold me too that.

I like fantasy and sf equally well. Always have. I tend to have an innate preference for stuff written between roughly 1935 and 1965.

You just can't beat the classics.

 

[dask]

I tend to have an innate preference for stuff written between roughly 1935 and 1965.

The S.F. sweet spot. Right on.