View Single Post
Old 06-20-2017, 08:02 PM   #19
dwig
Wizard
dwig ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dwig ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dwig ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dwig ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dwig ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dwig ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dwig ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dwig ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dwig ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dwig ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.dwig ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
dwig's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,613
Karma: 6718479
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Paradise (Key West, FL)
Device: Current:Surface Go & Kindle 3 - Retired: DellV8p, Clie UX50, ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres View Post
Not founders.
And certainly not of the "golden age" which is a mid 20th period.

But, like the 19th century exemplars listed, they tilled the same general territory (literature of ideas) with a rationalist viewpoint. The proper term, I think, would be precursors. The borders of SF are fairly broad and those worthies certainly fit within.
Correct.

To reference these and HarryT's list:
Verne: 1828
Rider Haggard: 1856
Conan Doyle: 1859
Wells: 1866
Burroughs: 1875
E E 'Doc' Smith: 1890
Heinlein: 1907
Clarke: 1917
Asimov: 1920

Only the last 4 clearly qualify by writing during the Golden Age of SF. Wells and Burroughs also qualify, though Wells barely does as his great works predate the period. Verne and Haggard plus Mary Wollstonecraft Shelly, rather than her mother Mary Wollstonecraft, and others form the bedrock on which it sprung but weren't part of The Golden Age.
dwig is offline   Reply With Quote