What on EARTH are Baen playing at?

[Worldwalker]

There is one simple problem with this discussion: a definition of science fiction as "science fiction I don't like." The Martian Chronicles is science fiction (not "sci-fi"; science fiction). So is 1984.

It's easy to claim you dislike all of any category of books -- or of any category of anything -- if you redefine that category to exclude anything you like. But it's not intellectually honest to do so.

[TimMason]

Orwell said he was a socialist. It is a claim that he reaffirms throughout his writing. On the other hand, he dismisses anarchism, which he saw, like pacifism as aiming at the impossible and therefore in effect demanding very little (Collected Essays, Vol2). (In fact, Orwell saw a strong role for government in any realizable political formation).

You may be misled by the fact that Orwell very often criticized socialists, particularly of the Hampstead variety. In this he was participating in a sport which remains popular today. Socialism is not a monolithic doctrine, and Orwell's variety, while sometimes idiosyncratic, is a recognizable contribution to an ongoing conversation. His most trenchant contribution was his wartime essay 'The Lion and the Unicorn'.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

There is one simple problem with this discussion: a definition of science fiction as "science fiction I don't like." The Martian Chronicles is science fiction (not "sci-fi"; science fiction). So is 1984.

It's easy to claim you dislike all of any category of books -- or of any category of anything -- if you redefine that category to exclude anything you like. But it's not intellectually honest to do so.

The problem with using Bradbury as an illustrative is that he does not see himself as a science fiction writer but as a fantastist more in the tradition of L. Frank Baum or Maupassant than any of his respected peers such as Asimov (there's an interview where he says he stopped reading popular fiction of any kind quite early on and would only read the 'classics'). The only work he's ever written that he considers science-fiction is Fahrenheit 451. Now, who would you say has the final call on what a work is or is not, the writer or the audience? Again, it's a very interesting question to answer. Is it the viewed or the viewer that gives meaning? I can't answer it one hundred percent, but I do know that Bradbury is (took long enough) now respected not just as a science-fiction writer but beyond that, as a great writer (no science fiction needed).

This goes the same for Orwell, who in writing 1984, was (at least evidence points toward this) writing a political allegory, not a science-fiction dystopia (although I can't be sure if he was aware of science-fiction or not. My guess, through reading his stories and a good few autobiographies, is that he was not aware of the genre, even as it stood in those days.)

It is very easy to say you dislike all books in a certain category if you exclude the ones you like from that category. Very easy. Luckily, nobody has done that here, so nobody can be accused of intellectual dishonesty.

[TimMason]

My guess, through reading his stories and a good few autobiographies, is that he was not aware of the genre, even as it stood in those days.

I don't believe I'm reading this. Orwell had certainly read H.G. Wells' 'War of the Worlds', (he even refers to Wells as the 'father of science fiction') and he wrote a note on Zemyatin's 'We', which was, as is well known, a key influence on '1984'. He was familiar with Jules Verne. Orwell had an abiding interest in popular culture, particularly in such publications as Boys Weeklies.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by TimMason

Orwell said he was a socialist. It is a claim that he reaffirms throughout his writing. On the other hand, he dismisses anarchism, which he saw, like pacifism as aiming at the impossible and therefore in effect demanding very little (Collected Essays, Vol2). (In fact, Orwell saw a strong role for government in any realizable political formation).

You may be misled by the fact that Orwell very often criticized socialists, particularly of the Hampstead variety. In this he was participating in a sport which remains popular today. Socialism is not a monolithic doctrine, and Orwell's variety, while sometimes idiosyncratic, is a recognizable contribution to an ongoing conversation. His most trenchant contribution was his wartime essay 'The Lion and the Unicorn'.

I've had this argument lots of times before But I'll restate now, because I find our Mr. Blair a fascinating writer. Orwell to me was never exactly what he claimed to be, and I find his essays and writings while pointing in one direction always make room for another direction altogether. This confusion goes throughout his life, his writings, and his politics, whichever stage you encounter him. I still argue that his politics were closer to anarcho syndicalism than traditional socialism (as it stood then, not how he perceived it could stand or might stand in the future), and that whatever political side he claimed to take, he was mostly (in his work and in his life) concerned with challenging the status quo rather than a political ideologue for any side. What I have argued before, and why I get annoyed with the socialist tag, is that Orwell's politics were a product of Orwell and his middle-class background, they never quite fit anywhere enough to be labelled outright one thing or another (not socialism nor anarchism).

We definitely need an Orwell thread now.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by TimMason

I don't believe I'm reading this. Orwell had certainly read H.G. Wells' 'War of the Worlds', (he even refers to Wells as the 'father of science fiction') and he wrote a note on Zemyatin's 'We', which was, as is well known, a key influence on '1984'. He was familiar with Jules Verne. Orwell had an abiding interest in popular culture, particularly in such publications as Boys Weeklies.

Count me as one of the ignorant, but up until this very moment in time, I had no idea 'We' was in any way connected with 1984, especially not such a personal connection. I'm intrigued now though, extremely intrigued. I always pictured Orwell, through what I'd read about his life, as somewhat distasteful of popular culture and isolated by the time he came to finish 1984. I could see how he would have known of Verne and Wells within popular culture, but not those two having influence on 1984. I can see 'We' though, which has me even more intrigued now.

Tell me more.

EDIT: Ah, I see, Orwell reviewed 'We' in 1946.. Is that what you mean when you say 'wrote a note'? I'm digging up some very interesting stuff on Orwell that I hadn't read before thanks to your post.

Oh, here's the review of Zamyatin's 'WE' by Orwell (the web page is eye-bleedingly awful). http://www.orwelltoday.com/weorwellreview.shtml (He spends a good deal of it trashing Huxley )

It seems that from the review (I'm still looking for an explicit reference to the influence of Zamyatin, although there are plenty of nods in that direction) he classified 'We' not as 'Science Fiction' but as 'Fantasy'. The influence is pretty much evident though, to anybody with two eyes, so yes, my original statement that he was probably not aware of sci-fi is wildly inaccurate.

[PKFFW]

I liken the debate about whether something is or isn't science-fiction(1984 et al) to similar debates in martial arts circles.

Is Wing Chun kung fu or not? Is Hapkido a form or Tae Kwon Do? Is Aikido really only a version of JuJutsu?

What it always seems to come down to is nobody can agree on a definition and even when they do these arts can be defined within those broader umbrellas but can also be classed as distinct and different arts.

If you define something by inclusion then I can't see how 1984 and the rest of the works mentioned in this thread are not science fiction. They have all or many of the tropes and themes of science fiction and so can be classed as science fiction regardless of whatever else they are classed as.

What it boils down to, I think, is that great writing will rise above the genre it is generally defined within. Orwell, Bradbury etc were great writers and therefore so much more than simplistic science fiction themes can be gotten from their works. This does not negate the science fiction themes that are there though and therefore the label of science fiction is valid if one is inclined to label them in the first place.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[jgaiser]

While I seriously disagree with certain parts of this thread, I have to say that the whole discussion has been thought provoking.

That said, I still read what I like and like what I read (for the most part)..

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

While I seriously disagree with certain parts of this thread, I have to say that the whole discussion has been thought provoking.

That said, I still read what I like and like what I read (for the most part)..

Time for Doc Savage...

[Spiffy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I buy every edition of Baen's "Webscription" release, and have done every since they started. I don't always enjoy every book, but at least I know that they're going to be SF or Fantasy, which I'm likely to enjoy.

So I look at this month's webscription release, and what do I see:

Taxpayers' Tea Party
A Manual for Reclaiming Our Country

What the heck? This appears to be some right-wing political clap-trap. I suppose it could loosely be categorised as "Fantasy", but it's really not what I want to see in my beloved Webscription release. I do hope that Baen aren't going to start publishing political manifestos like this on a regular basis .

Very disappointing.

They've always been right-wing nutjobs. It informs not only their choice of authors, but Baen, before he died, very openly supported most of this stuff.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Spiffy

They've always been right-wing nutjobs. It informs not only their choice of authors, but Baen, before he died, very openly supported most of this stuff.

Isn't Eric Flint openly left wing though. I'm pretty sure if they thought a story about gay married space hippie atheists who go around the galaxy performing abortions for unwed teenagers and then charging the costs to the state would make more money than they'd lose they'd print it.

Hmm you know that's not a bad idea.... *starts typing* now where to insert the subplot about forcing the world to eat nothing but granola and tofu...

[DawnFalcon]

Mercedes Lackey is left wing enough to drive John Ringo up the wall. Of the "I can be polite if we both stand there and keep out mouths shut" variety, I believe, when he was once asked why he didn't do a collaboration...

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Hmm you know that's not a bad idea.... *starts typing* now where to insert the subplot about forcing the world to eat nothing but granola and tofu...

You write it, this "Right Wing Nut Job" will pay to read it!

[Worldwalker]

At least Mercedes Lackey doesn't think any seriously twisted sexual fantasies she might happen to have should be marketed as novels. Also, so far she hasn't written whatever the left-wing equivalent of "heroic rejuvenated Nazis save the world" might be. And then there's "Last Rights" (it's in Fiddler Fair in the Baen Free Library) which I wish was required reading for the folks who put their fluffy sentimentality where their brains belong. That said, when she's trying to make a point she can write books I find unreadable; she just doesn't glorify Nazis in the process.

[Bremen Cole]

I understand the marketing side of it, and experimenting.... but even as a right wing extremist I find the inclusion of the book silly.... When I go to Baen I think SF or Fantasy.... If they want to start a separate "political" section, fine.... but people should not have these kind of surprises....