Lately I’ve been thinking about this topic. What makes a great science fiction story? Can it be a great science fiction story if the story’s not great? How about if the science isn’t great? I think you know what I’m saying. A great story, meaning great fiction, has characters drawn in a way that makes them compelling. It doesn’t have to be Shakespeare but it can’t be two-dimensional cut-outs that wouldn’t make it through a toothpaste commercial. And by the same token, what if the science is just stupid? Sure, you can just say it’s fantasy instead and then the sky’s the limit. But let’s stick to science fiction.
When I was a kid, I would have said that “great” science fiction needed the science but the fiction was not that important. If there were enough star cruisers and anti-matter bombs and giant amoebas then all was right with the world. In fact, the fewer human relations involved in the story, the better. I was much more interested in the non-human characters acting “realistic” than any dialog between humans. And the male/female dynamic was completely off the table. The last thing a Lensman needed before, during or after a battle was a woman getting in the way.
Suffice it to say that time changes things. I look at some of the “classics” of the golden age and I see a flatness to the story. Now, this isn’t an all-encompassing criticism. There are plenty of stories from the day that have nuanced characters and plots that reflect actual human personality types. So, it’s not black and white.
Now, the modern literary science fiction has been described as having the opposite problem. It’s all about human feelings and relations. What isn’t as important is the “science.” When that’s the case I will just declare that if a story doesn’t have any science at all then it isn’t a great science fiction story because it isn’t science fiction. Period.
And without a doubt if a story has an exciting plot and memorable characters and also a clever science fiction premise then without a doubt it’s great science fiction.
So that leaves the other extreme. What if a story is built on incredibly imaginative science fiction plot devices but the characters are cardboard cut-outs of human beings? Can that be a great science fiction story? In this category the works of Arthur C Clarke comes to mind and specifically 2001: A Space Odyssey. Here is an epic tale stretching all the way from the dawn of Man to the first human interstellar voyage. And yet the most human character in the book is HAL9000; a schizophrenic homicidal computer. Now, is it an interesting story? Well, yeah. There are cave men and monoliths and moon bases and worm holes. But honestly, do you find yourself rooting for anyone? There’s just something so inhumanly stolid and wooden about everyone in the story that I feel that each one being murdered by HAL might be his happiest moment. At least liveliest.
But anyway, I want to pose this as a question. Can a technically engrossing sf story be considered great if the characters are ciphers? What do you think?
>The last thing a Lensman needed before, during or after a battle was a woman getting in the way.<
Tell that to Kim Kinnison, Conway Costigan, or Mace Northrop.
But what did the reader think?
As a penultimate of the Rigellian line I was a little pissed that I did not get a multi tentacled analog to Clarissa MacDougall. Breaking the fourth wall the women ARE critical to the characters, but they are of the time they were written. That said, I can’t say I’d want to tackle Ms MacDougall with or without her lens, she was (will be?) a tough cookie. And heaven help you if you interfere with any of her 4 daughters they will scorch you to a little grease mark and then light an alaskanite cigarette or pop a bottle of… Read more »
I can appreciate that writing female characters and writing about male/female relations in the 1940s and 1950s was harder than it is now. But my point was that I reward any writers from back then who at least seemed to have spoken to a girl in real life. Doc Smith had a family so I’m sure he was working from within the constraints of the industry at the time. Ray Bradbury was definitely a special case.
I started but not finished loads of supposed Sci-Fi stories written by total scientific illiterates. It’s rare that I get significantly into the story. Ditto for cartoon cutout characters. I remember getting about 8 pages into a novel in which the main character supposedly goes home from work to be greeted by his dog analogue and putting something in the oven analogue to eat. This supposedly happening on a neutron star! It’s like imagining Leave It To Beaver set in the core of a blue giant star. Gee, Wally, it’s going to be hot today, the plasmaman predicted temps of… Read more »
I am a little brutal toward 2001. Maybe that’s because it has so many things right, that all it really needed was an actual human character to make it amazing.
I think the only way to answer this is to look at some stories that have held my attention. I’m going to look at each in 4 particulars Plot, Characters, and Science, why it holds my attention. These are of course my own (potentially assinine opinions) and I apologize in advance if you find your ox has been gored I Robot by Isaac Asimov Plot: This doesn’t really have an overall plot per se, but one in each story. This is unsurprising as it a bunch of shorts tied together. Each story is itself is essentially a mystery and I… Read more »