Now, as far as I know Ray Bradbury was the 7th Grand Master, (Robert Heinlein was the first) but I was wondering if anybody knows where I could find a list of all the current Sci-Fi Grand Masters.
Help would be appreciated. (Y)
Here's a list of most of the Grand Masters of SF: Who am I missing? ?
Clifford D. Simak
AE Van Vogt
Lester Del Rey
I don't know about "the" formal list, but I have to add the following to my personal "Sci Fi Grand Master" List:
Arthur C. Clark
Ursula K. Le Guin
Philip K. Dick
Samuel R. Delany
Ray Bradbury (already referenced above)
John W. Campbell
Edgar Rice Burroughs
Robert E. Howard (more fantasy)
J.R.R. Tolkien (more fantasy)
Well, those are the ones I view (in addition to Nard's list, above), as being Grandmasters of Science Fiction.
[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 12-15-2002).]
Alas! To say....that there is actually a "Formal List". Your list, the "unofficial list", is surely notable.
( ( After 2 crashes on the computer this week I have to 'list' software as a potential "Grand Monster.." ) )
[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 12-16-2002).]
Yes, I was referring to the award given by the Science Fiction writers of America.
Although I do have a list of my own...
Robert A. Heinlein
Arthur C. Clark
Lester Del Rey
Phillip K. Dick
My list, of Grand Masters.... was from the Science Fiction Writers of America List.
Also, if you really want to be known as a Grand Master 'articulate'...then it is NEVER 'Sci-Fi'. (That's 1950's long playing records/radio termonology). ) The term is ALWAYS: 'SF'
I'm sure you're right, but I still prefer Sci-Fi. It seems to have more personality than SF.
I read on their website that the Science Fiction Writers of America had quite a little scrap about their acronym. Should it be SFFWA (Science Fiction and Fantasy) or SFWA (Science Fiction). In the end, SFWA won out. But it was efficiency rather than inclusion that won the day there, I'm afraid!
Bradbury claims that his only Science Fiction work was F451 and that the other stuff generally classified as SF (Sci-Fi) is really fantasy.
For me, I include Kaleidoscope and The Pedestrian and some others as Science Fiction, based on Bradbury's own distinction. For him, Science Fiction is something that would be reasonable to see as being possible, fantasy is something that one would not see as being possible. That is the reason a lot of his Mars and Venus stories are fantasies in his mind -- the possibility of there ever being breathable air there is more fantasy than possibility.
Well, many of his novels were written before there was conclusive evidence of the conditions on Mars and Venus, thus making stories like "The Martian Chronicles" and "Golden Apples of the Sun" eligble, in my mind.
Also, I wasn't aware of that Nord. Isaac Asimov is a grand master though. He was no.4 I believe.
For RB's own explanation on SF vs. Fantasy see: ]http://www.theavclub.com/avclub3523/avfeature3523.html[/URL]
He comments on F451 as his "only" SF work, censorship, education, and a whole lot more. Interesting! (1999)
[This message has been edited by fjpalumbo (edited 12-17-2002).]
Actually, I l somehow left out two:
Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke
With my other list, posted up above there somewhere, these two additional names complete the genuine recognized offfical list of...
Grand Masters of Science Fiction
By the way, Andre Norton.... why, she is still alive, and was born in 1912. Wow!
When I read "The Golden Apples of the Sun" I considered it pure fantasy. That was before the recent taking of real samples from the sun. Which of these stories are actually "possible" will need to be rethought often over the next 50-100 years.
I finally dug up my three volumes of SFWA Grand Masters collectons. Here is what they have in each volume:
-- Robert A. Heinlein
-- Jack Williamson
-- Clifford D. Simak
-- L. Sprague De Camp
-- Fritz Leiber
-- Andre Norton
-- Arthur C. Clarke
-- Isaac Asimov
-- Alfred Bester
-- Ray Bradbury
-- Lester Del Rey
-- Frederik Pohl
-- Damon Knight
-- A.E. Van Vogt
-- Jack Vance
Anyway, that seems to be the entire list.
Wonder how Grand Masters are selected, by what criteria? I have my own list:
he was a giant in the field. Click on: http://www.avramdavidson.org
There was Leigh Brackett, and Edmond Hamilton....mentors of Bradbury, who together produced a large body of work....
There was Charles Beaumont, Hal Sherman, Rog Phillips....
There was Hal Clement, who wrote what is considered by many one of the great science fiction novels, Needle. Click on: http://www.geocities.com/gamgeephile/hal/
Again, I wonder what the criteria used is.....?
The introductions to the three volumes only provide two general principles that I can glean:
(1) A Lifetime body of work (not just one great novel or story).
(2) Their work has had to have had a demonstrable influence -- based on it's quality -- on other writing in the field. It has had to have had an influence on the direction of science fiction writing.
That's all I can find in the three introductions.
P.S. I would probably want to include Frank Herbert. While Dune is his major work, it's personal impact on me was significant. I was reading it in high school, and a particular cheerleader I had coveted since junior high walked in front of me a couple times (in a mini-skirt), and I never even noticed. This glaring omission of my normal hormonal reaction to her was so obvious, some friends came over and asked what I was reading that was so engrossing. It was Frank Herbert's "Dune".
[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 12-30-2002).]
Well, if Frank Herbert doesn't have a major enough body of work for them, I don't know. Ha, I was reading Heinlein's "Podkayne of Mars" on the New York subway and not only missed seeing a cute guy my cousin and sisters were ogling, I leaned against the automatic doors and nearly fell out! That alone was enough to place it on my top ten list of all time!
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2|