A lot to think about. In looking for a "tie in" in my edition of "The Martian Chronicles" I came across something titled "A Prefatory Note" by one Clifton Fadiman. Quoting...

"Mr. Bradbury's ancestors in his field are not Jules Verne and Wells, whose imaginations are essentially conditioned by a scientific view of reality. He goes back, I think, to Stapeldon and Eddison (of "The Worm of Ouroboros) and Lord Dunsany, in whose imaginations were blended the moralist and the poet. He puts his aims all too casually when he says, "Science fiction is a wonderful hammer; I intend to use it when and if necessary, to bark a few shins or knock a few heads, in order to make people leave people alone." To this statement he might well add the words "and leave leave things alone." For unless I misread him, he is telling us, though the lesson is veiled in a shimmering mist of weird fancies, that the place for space travel is in a book, that human beings are still mental and moral children who cannot be trusted with the terrifying toys they have by some tragic accident invented.

End quote.

Perhaps true. After all, wouldn't he have had to approve this forward to his book? But in coming full circle, I think if you read "Icarus Montgolfier Wright," perhaps he is not saying this at all. Perhaps Mr. Bradbury merely cautions us rise above our typical pattern of behavior as a race.

[This message has been edited by paul (edited 02-08-2003).]

That is a good quote for this topic. Does the fact that Bradbury is more a poet/moralist than a (strictly speaking) science/speculative fiction writer mean that there is a necessary conclusion that he is anti-technology? I don't think so, although I find it interesting that he has resisted some technological advances (car, computer, internet) while zealously calling for the development of others (the space program).

I think his writing doesn't caution us against technology per se as much as it warns us to be careful with it. Part of the power of his stories (in my reading, anyway) is that his stories assume that man will continue to be a person with feelings and fears and doubts and love; and that technology will not wipe that out. The question is, what impact will technology have on those human realities?

In an introduction to the Avon Books hardcover publication of "The Illustrated Man," Bradbury writes:

"A writer's work is to coax the stuff out and see how it plays. Surprise, as I have often said, is everything."

In other words, the goal is to let the technology and human interaction play out in the story and see where it goes.

Mr. Dark,

Is the use of the term "Speculative Fiction" one of your creation or something you have encountered though your perpetual love of literature? I think the catagory gives a new dimension to "Science Fiction" which many believe should always have an element of science in it to be pure science fiction.

I've had some classify my writing as Spiritual/Visionary/New Age Fiction, but find those catagories a turn-off to the readers I'm trying to appeal to. Then there are others who will throw anything that deals with the future into the dark pit of science fiction.

Speculative Fiction seems a bit more flexible and I just wondered where the term originated. Does this heading somehow preclude the Fantasy catagory?

C.

Celestial: (per "speculative fiction")

click on: or type into finder....
http://www.surlalunefairytales.com/boardarchives/2001/s.../coiningofscifi.html


[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 02-08-2003).]

I have just heard the term "speculative fiction" with increasing frequency, and have begun to use it in my own vocabulary. But I'm not sure we need the term. Between science fiction, fiction, and fantasy, we seem to have the categories covered. When something is based on science or technology, I have no problem with the term science fiction. I grew up with the term Science Fiction and am used to interpreting it pretty broadly anyway.

What literature gets called has often been disputed but is important to authors.

Nathaniel Hawthorne insisted he was not writing fiction, but "tales." This term, in his mind, gave him more latitude in introducing symbols and metaphors, without being required to maintain realism. Yet he wanted his stories to "feel" real. So, for him, "tales" allowed him to write fiction, but with rules that would also include some fantasy elements. But he didn't want to go all the way over into fantasy.

Isaac Asimov's book, "Asimov on Science Fiction" (Doubleday and Co., NY. 1981) makes several points about the name in two chapters ("Extraordinary Voyages" and "The Name of Our Field") in that book:

His peference is "science fiction" (sf), and he defines it as follows:

"Science fiction is that branch of literature that deals with human responses to changes in the level of science and technology". He defends this definition as it retains a focus on science and technology, but also deals with the human condition as it relates to these changes.

He also suggests an alternative definition that is not quite so dependent on specific technology/science focus and is not necessarily an outgrowth of a travel tale: "Science fiction stories are extraordinary voyages into any of the infinite supply of conceivable futures."

Asimov claims that Jules Verne's stories were originally called "scientific fantasies".

Asimov credits the term "science fiction" to Hugo Gernsback when he used it in "Science Wonder Stories" -- a magazine he published in June of 1929. He also used the abbreviation "sf".

Without giving dates or places, Asimov provides the the following opinion to indicate the origin of the term "speculative fiction":

"I believe it was Robert Heinlein who first suggested that we ought to speak of 'speculative fiction' intead, and some, like Harlan Ellison, strongly support that move now."

Asimov did not like the term as he thought "speculative fiction" was too weak and vague to describe the field.

"Benet's Reader's Encyclopedia" (4th edition) 1996, does not include a category for "speculative fiction," but lists science fiction as a literary genre. It gives this definition (in part):

"Historically, science fiction began to split from the broader field of fantasy when writers combined the established narrative forms of utopia and the imaginary voyage with speculative accounts of future-science. Its first lasting myth grew out of the Faustian theme employed in Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus". . . It's development has taken two different directions: Jules Verne and such early enthusiasts as Hugo Gernsback emphasized infatuation with the machine, while such cautionary tales as H.G. Well's 'The Time Machine' explored humanity's precarious place in the universe."

In like manner, "Merian Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature" (Merriam Webster, Mass. 1995) includes a category for science fiction, but not for speculative fiction.

Their definition of the field is stated (in part) below:

"Fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science upon society or individuals, or more generally, literary fantasy including a scientific factor as an essential orienting component. Such literature may consist of a careful and informed extrapolation of scientific facts and principles, or it may range into far-fetched areas flaty contradictory of such facts and principles. In either case, plausibility based on science is a requisite, so that such a precursor of the genre as Mary Shelley's gothic novel, 'Frankenstein,' (1818) is science fiction, whereas Bram Stoker's 'Dracula,' (1897), based as it is purely on the supernatural, is not. "

It goes on to state that modern science fiction really began at the end of the 19th century with the "scientific romances" of Jules Verne, and "science-oriented novels of social criticism by H.G.Wells".

Other than Farenheit 451, Ray Bradbury seemed to classify his other work as either fantasy or fiction.

Hope this is helpful.


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 02-08-2003).]

So much for off-the-cuff answers. Mr. Dark, what do you do with all of this knowledge? I hope you're writing SOMETHING?

C.

In the past they used another term for those who dreamed and spoke and wrote about human failings and the moral and spiritual potential of man.....they called them prophets!

That's an interesting tie-in. By coincidence, Bradbury has said specifically that he is not a prophet. (Off the top of my head, I can't remember where he said it.)

So what's the difference?

I think two things: (1) Prophets claim to speak for and as directed by God. Science/Speculative Fiction writers speak what they themselves have made up. (2) Science/Speculative Fiction writers tend to give possibilities, prophets tended to speak in terms of certainties.

Touche!

I think another thing the prophets (at least the Hebrew prophets) had in common with some of the best sf writers is that they wrote with some great poetic force and used metaphor with great power.

Okay...time to get back to this board...

Paul / Mr. Dark:

Per Prophets...

A true Prophet can NEVER....NEVER make even 1 ( that's o-n-e ) incorrect prophecy....To do so was to invalidate them as a prophet....
Why are prophets, say in the bible, able to understand the future? Because it already happened. And they are allowed to see it ....like John at Patmos, writing... Revelation.

There are prophets that are called false prophets throughout the old and new testaments. There is a test in Deuteronomy that says that the way to test a prophet is that if his (or her, there are some prophetesses in the Bible) gives a prophecy and it doesn't come true, that is proof they are not a prophet.

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously; thou shalt not be afraid of him." (Deuteronomy 18:22)

However, "prophet" may not have reference exclusively to the Hebrew prophets of the OT or the Apostles in the NT. Often figures who deal with future aspects of civilization (both fiction, sociologists, etc.) are sometimes loosely referred to as prophets. That is the meaning that would be tied to Bradbury.

Even in the Bible (Revelations, for example; or parts of Isaiah) the prophecies are written in such poetic, metaphorical language, that the interpretation is not always clear. Last Day prophecies are the subject of many conflicting theological books and interpretations represented by those books.

In the same way, when you look at a writer like Bradbury, what you have to recognize is:

(1) He specifically claims he is not a prophet (I need to find this source).

(2) He has been proven, nonetheless, to have written about things that have come to pass in our society (earplug speakers, wall tv screens, etc.). So in a general sense, much of his writing has had a prophetic quality to it.

(3) Also, as someone else pointed out earlier, part of the role of a prophet was to make moral claims and give warnings. I think Bradbury has certainly done that in much of his writing. The claims may not have been direct ("Thou shalt not...") but they have been pretty clear in some instances.

The claim that the future has already happened is a metaphysical claim that is too deep for me to either affirm or deny. But, to me, by definition, the future is yet to happen, (otherwise it wouldn't be the future) but I understand that in some sense, many claim that all time is co-equal and co-existent, and that everything has already happened. As a claim that -- TO GOD -- the future has already happened . . . well, even that is a big claim. The idea that God knows the future, in my mind, is not necessarily tied to the idea that it has already happened. But, I'm no good at physics. I'm stuck with the assumption of a linear time-frame. Things seem to unfold one at a time, and as they unfold, time passes.




[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 02-09-2003).]

Along these lines...

I was cleaning out a closet today (I save anything and everything of interest) and I came across some yellowed news clippings about the Kennedy assassination. On the reverse of one page was an article announcing the death of author Aldous Huxley at age 69 from cancer. Quoting from the article...

"The outstanding testament to Huxley's imagination was "Brave New World," the novel that earned him literary immortality in 1932. The satirical classic envisioned a world of babies mass produced in laboratories and brain-washed slave workers.

"He predicted that his imaginary world would become a frightening reality in 600 years, but a few years before his death he voiced fear the mechanized society would arrive in less than 200 years."

Anyone for less than 100 years?

"They Have Not Seen The Stars," but we have! See an interesting review of NASA over the past 45 yrs: Click on "Skip to Feature" and then select your style and speed for playback.
http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/NASA45th/index1.html


[This message has been edited by fjpalumbo (edited 11-20-2003).]

There's this book called "The McDonaldization of Society," I forget the author's name, but it's interesting, kinda scary, and quite true. I'll get back to that when I find his name.