Other founders of the "Golden Age" of Sicience Fiction

[Greg Anos]

fjtorres made a comment in another thread about the founders of modern science fiction:

(By the way, the Big Three (Heinlein, Clarke, and Asimov) aren't the only writers that molded the field. There's several unappreciated masters from the 30's to the 50's and 60's that rank just behind them that don't get their due. Whole other rant, though.)

I thought his would make a good discussion thread.

So. . . how about writers like Theodore Sturgeon, Ray Bradbury, Alfred Bester, Cordwainer Smith, and others.

Opinions, anyone?

[Phogg]

It depends on how you look at it.
Best insertions of workable science?
Or stories that roped more people in and helped grow the genre?

John W Campbell and Robert Silverberg were primarily editors, but for me they were instant buy writers.


Alice Mary (Andre) Norton didn't write stories explaining how the technologies might work, but her mostly juvenile and young adult works were widely read and drew people in.

A lot of books I read in the sixties were one offs, and from the writing styles I suspected at the time that they were pseudonyms for just a few authors. To answer your question thoroughly I would have to be able to remember all the titles and then research who the actual writers were.

I suspect that for me it would be like researching nineteen seventies American Rock Music and finding out that two thirds of the drummers on your favorite albums were really the same session musician.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Phogg

It depends on how you look at it.
Best insertions of workable science?
Or stories that roped more people in and helped grow the genre?

John W Campbell and Robert Silverberg were primarily editors, but for me they were instant buy writers.


Alice Mary (Andre) Norton didn't write stories explaining how the technologies might work, but her mostly juvenile and young adult works were widely read and drew people in.

A lot of books I read in the sixties were one offs, and from the writing styles I suspected at the time that they were pseudonyms for just a few authors. To answer your question thoroughly I would have to be able to remember all the titles and then research who the actual writers.

I suspect that for me it would be like researching nineteen seventies American Rock Music and finding out that two thirds of the drummers on your favorite albums were really the same session musician.

I think you would be correct.

[Greg Anos]

This just an open discussion thread.

I look at, say Ray Bradbury, who brought a lyrical sense of language into Science Fiction. Utterly different from, say Heinlein, which was like reading a newspaper story from the future, or solving logic puzzles by Asimov.

Or if you want to read something totally different from any other S/F writer, consider Cordwainer Smith (Professor Paul Linebarger).

[Graham]

I'd put E. E. 'Doc' Smith in there, for space opera. Where would we be without those 'space-hardened veterans all'?

Graham

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

fjtorres made a comment in another thread about the founders of modern science fiction:

(By the way, the Big Three (Heinlein, Clarke, and Asimov) aren't the only writers that molded the field. There's several unappreciated masters from the 30's to the 50's and 60's that rank just behind them that don't get their due. Whole other rant, though.)

I thought his would make a good discussion thread.

So. . . how about writers like Theodore Sturgeon, Ray Bradbury, Alfred Bester, Cordwainer Smith, and others.

Opinions, anyone?

Just looking at some of my favorites from the era, in addition to Heinlein and Asimov, I would list authors such as L Spague de Camp, Andre Norton, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Gordon R Dickson and Poul Anderson.

Of course, a lot depends on how you define Science Fiction. Many include fantasy with SF, in which case it would be hard not to admit that Robert Howard was one of the most influential, as was J.R.R. Tolkien. Lovecraft might be tossed in there as well.

I'm sure that I might have some more when I have time to think.

[HarryT]

Of course all those writers built on the foundations laid by earlier generations. Hard SF? Verne and Wells. Anyone going to say that "From the Earth to the Moon" isn't the hardest of hard SF? Fantasy? Rider Haggard single-handedly invented several fantasy genres, particularly the "Lost Civilisation" genre. The majority of his books have fantasy elements. What about Conan Doyle with his "Lost World" trilogy written in 1912?

[Jean]

And don't forget Edgar Rice Burroughs. Tarzan, John Carter of Mars, At the Earth's Core, Venus etc. A lot of good reading there.

And as someone mentioned above - E.E. "Doc" Smith. The Lensman series is one of my favorites.

[gunbad]

My vote would be for the often overlooked Eric Frank Russell and A. E. van Vogt. I'm glad you mentioned Theodore Sturgeon, I would add him if for no other reason than his short story "The Man Who Lost The Sea".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Jean

And don't forget Edgar Rice Burroughs. Tarzan, John Carter of Mars, At the Earth's Core, Venus etc. A lot of good reading there.

Yes, it's interesting to look at their dates of birth:

Verne: 1828
Rider Haggard: 1856
Conan Doyle: 1859
Wells: 1866
Burroughs: 1875
E E 'Doc' Smith: 1890
Heinlein: 1907
Clarke: 1917
Asimov: 1920

[fjtorres]

Murray Leinster - Sidewise in Time: Alternate reality stories
First Contact - as the title says

Gordon Dixon - Dorsai cycle: Starship Troopers birthed the modern military SF subgenre but Dorsai molded it

Stanley Weinbaum - A martian odyssey: before Doc Smith set the tropes for space opera, Weinbaum was the big name with his travelogue SF. (Stories about a journey through strange worlds where the setting is the story.) Farmer's Green Odyssey and (to an extent) the World of Tier series followed in his footsteps. So did Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama and Harrison's Deathworld 2. Forward's Deagon's egg, too. Not much practiced these days but every once in a while a jewel pops up.

L. Sprague de Camp : the Harold Shea stories set the tone for a zillion portal fantasies like SpellSinger, Her Majesty's Wizard, the Warlock in spite of himself (which is really SF using fantasy tropes). Also, if Darkness Falls.

Chad Oliver: one of the earliest, if not the earliest practitioner of "soft SF", in this case anthropological SF. SHADOWS IN THE SUN, for one.

Raymond Bradbury as cited.

Try this: a school for gifted children that is really a cover for a group of young mutants with superhuman abilities, secretly helping change the world while hiding in fear of persecution.
Nope, not the XMEN.
Wilmar H. Shiras: CHILDREN OF THE ATOM. Originally published as a series of shorter stories, later reworked into a novel in 1952.

Others who didn't quite create or shape subgenres but left us a trove of emulated excellence:
Poul Anderson (Three hearts and three Lions, Operation Chaos, There will be Time, plus the more popular Polesothechnic League and Flandry stories).
A. E. VanVogt (Voyage of the Space Beagle, SLAN, Weapon Shops of Isher),
Keith Laumer (Retief!, Imperium)

Lots of goodies in the realms of SF backlist.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, it's interesting to look at their dates of birth:

Verne: 1828
Rider Haggard: 1856
Conan Doyle: 1859
Wells: 1866
Burroughs: 1875
E E 'Doc' Smith: 1890
Heinlein: 1907
Clarke: 1917
Asimov: 1920

Don't forget Jonathan Swift and Mary Wollstonecraft when talking pre-20th pioneers. Even Cyrano had a role. Their science is dated but at the time...

And yes, From the Earth to the Moon is hard SF. You won't find many to argue otherwise. We can build the thing now. I doubt anybody would be crazy enough to ride it but its descendant, Orion, still has proponents.

[ZodWallop]

I think of John Campbell (as editor) as 'the' founder of the golden age of sci-fi. As Asimov said:

"By his own example and by his instruction and by his undeviating and persisting insistence, he forced first Astounding and then all science fiction into his mold. He abandoned the earlier orientation of the field. He demolished the stock characters who had filled it; eradicated the penny dreadful plots; extirpated the Sunday-supplement science. In a phrase, he blotted out the purple of pulp. Instead, he demanded that science-fiction writers understand science and understand people, a hard requirement that many of the established writers of the 1930s could not meet. Campbell did not compromise because of that: those who could not meet his requirements could not sell to him, and the carnage was as great as it had been in Hollywood a decade before, while silent movies had given way to the talkies."

Of course, Asimov and Clarke tended to write fairly wooden characters, so the 'understand science' part was more important than the 'understand people' part. But still...

I do think trying to tie Mary Wollstonecraft and Jonathan Swift in as the founders of the golden age is a little ludicrous. They may have influenced other writers, but at some point you have to draw a line.

[Greg Anos]

Nobody's mentioned Fritz Lieber yet.

Every time I think about modern politics, I think of Poor Superman.

I didn't mean to insult early Science Fiction, I just re-read Doyle's A Lost World a few weeks ago.

But I am looking at the "Cambrian Explosion" of Science Fiction, starting in the late 1930's.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I didn't mean to insult early Science Fiction, I just re-read Doyle's A Lost World a few weeks ago.

But I am looking at the "Cambrian Explosion" of Science Fiction, starting in the late 1930's.

Absolutely. All I was saying is that it didn't just spring fully-formed out of nowhere. Rather, it was an evolutionary step from what had gone before.