Time for a reread of this book for me. Of the top of my head, might be wrong about some of the details, here are some diverse ship crews. Blindsight by Watts has a vampire as a member of the flight crew. In a long way to a small angry planet by Chambers there is a crew member that is in a symbiotic relationship. And finally in Cornell’s Rosebud the crew members are all digital beings. But my favorite novel that has an odd mix of “individuals” on board a ship is Watts’ Freeze Frame Revolution.
I must keep an eye out for Freeze Frame Revolution then. The diversity question is odd because I never really thought about it one way or another as a reader. But so many young people seem to think that the older SFF is all stereotypical white men writing stereotypical white men and I am starting to want to be able to respond. Babel-17, from 1966, there are a whole heap of stereotypes and pre-conceived notions that will get wrecked on that reef and I love that!
@@OmnivorousReader I am an Asian woman in my 50s and I have never cared about this topic until I took another look. I have read voraciously all my life, and a lot of science fiction as well, and now I too wonder why certain details are in the stories I read. I still recall when N K Jemisin asked in her Hugo acceptance speech why if we can create any kind of world in our minds, why do we consistently have accounts of sexual violence and objectification, bigotry, and slavery. The fantasy writer Katherine Addison asked why is violence always and the only answer? I generally do not like these two women’s novels and many other current female authors, but I definitely agree that the question needs to be asked. And I am guessing that the answer will be that that was the way things have always been. I would say then that it’s time for some new stories.
@@bmaei5 Thank you for commenting. I am not familiar with either of the authors you mention, however speculative fiction excels at "What if". So that is an excellent reason why you would have social issues in SFF: You bring them out into the open, you examine them, you ask 'what if something objectionable were happening TO a type of person who more commonly is the perpetrator'. You try to make the reader think about ramifications and from there, we hope, make all of society think about them also. If the author is excellent, you will also enjoy the reading experience as you go along.
@@OmnivorousReader Delany was one of the a new generation of writers who brought in then-modern concerns and sensibilities to science fiction and it was not always accepted. At an awards ceremony he attended, a speaker went on attacking the pretentiousness of those new writers bring in those high-faluting literary attempts. Still, Delany is a very interesting person who led a very non-conventional life, and his work has deliberately made a point of following the marginal, the disfranchised, and he posits that it at the margins where the most innovative art may often be found. I do not endorse some of his most extreme opinions but he is always interesting. His autobiography, THE MOTION OF LIGHT ON WATER, IIRC, was a very interesting read and an illuminating (pun intended) contrast to what had been the lives of the previous generation of SF writers like Asimov or Heinlein.
@@jorgerapalo2673 Thanks for the recommendation. I think his autobiography would be very interesting, though I definitely want to read more of his fiction first. The social structures he postulated in this book were certainly interesting and the way the different classes did not mix - that was probably a thinly veiled reference to his own society I suppose. It makes for a great story though, with underlaying themes that are so very common to so many societies.
Cannot figure out why this book is in any way well-regarded. The novel relied heavily on linguistic theory. Unfortunately, Delaney didn't really have much depth of understanding of it, and that prevented me from being able to suspend disbelief. The main concept in the book, that language shapes thought, is re-heated Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. However, this had already been discredited by the Chomsky revolution at the end of the 50s. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem in an SF novel, except that the linguistics tangents the novel goes off on are presented almost by an 'omniscent narrator' type of writing style, like Arthur C Clarke explaining real science. Except the science here isn't real. And it's annoying to read. It's almost like the author had just attended a lecture on linguistics and was like a little boy, trying to show off how much he'd learnt there. Vastly overrated book.
Well, thanks for commenting. I had never heard of Sapir-Whorf and while I had heard of Chomsky, without google I would honestly have had no chance of remembering the context in which I had heard about him. I guess, this is just the risk that speculative authors and readers take. You write about something new and innovative that is not your area of expertise in 1966, and there is a great chance that by 2024 the ideas you based your story on might be dated or discredited. It has happened often enough. I really enjoyed this novel, the characterisation and the world building, I enjoyed what the author did with languages, but can't speak for the discipline of linguistics as I am not involved in it. I can totally understand that if you are, reading a book about discredited hypotheses might be annoying. Probably as annoying as I found the much idolised Solaris.
@@OmnivorousReader It was already discredited by the 50s. Which wouldn't have been so bad, IF the characterisation was interesting, as you feel it is, or the prose even serviceable. But I'm afraid this book doesn't really shine there either.
@@OmnivorousReader Just curious, what was there in Solaris that was annoying for you? As a scientist, I mean? I ask, as a friend of mine, who is some manner of biologist, gets all upset with Ursula K le Guin because of her 'misunderstanding of evolution'. Is there something like that with Solaris?
@@spencerburke Wow, so much wrong. I think I did a vid and aired many of my opinions. Let us start with a simple issue, that anyone in any technical workplace should be able to follow: Main protagonist claims he has been training all his life for this mission. He is so well trained he knows the location of every damn can opener on the station. This station which has had so many calamities. There appears to be no emergency protocols AT ALL in place. Either that or protagonist was concentrating so hard on learning where the screwdrivers were that he never bothered to learn them.
Will definitely keep my eye out for it, thanks for the recommendation
Anytime!
Time for a reread of this book for me.
Of the top of my head, might be wrong about some of the details, here are some diverse ship crews. Blindsight by Watts has a vampire as a member of the flight crew. In a long way to a small angry planet by Chambers there is a crew member that is in a symbiotic relationship. And finally in Cornell’s Rosebud the crew members are all digital beings. But my favorite novel that has an odd mix of “individuals” on board a ship is Watts’ Freeze Frame Revolution.
I must keep an eye out for Freeze Frame Revolution then. The diversity question is odd because I never really thought about it one way or another as a reader. But so many young people seem to think that the older SFF is all stereotypical white men writing stereotypical white men and I am starting to want to be able to respond. Babel-17, from 1966, there are a whole heap of stereotypes and pre-conceived notions that will get wrecked on that reef and I love that!
@@OmnivorousReader
I am an Asian woman in my 50s and I have never cared about this topic until I took another look. I have read voraciously all my life, and a lot of science fiction as well, and now I too wonder why certain details are in the stories I read. I still recall when N K Jemisin asked in her Hugo acceptance speech why if we can create any kind of world in our minds, why do we consistently have accounts of sexual violence and objectification, bigotry, and slavery. The fantasy writer Katherine Addison asked why is violence always and the only answer? I generally do not like these two women’s novels and many other current female authors, but I definitely agree that the question needs to be asked. And I am guessing that the answer will be that that was the way things have always been.
I would say then that it’s time for some new stories.
@@bmaei5 Thank you for commenting. I am not familiar with either of the authors you mention, however speculative fiction excels at "What if". So that is an excellent reason why you would have social issues in SFF: You bring them out into the open, you examine them, you ask 'what if something objectionable were happening TO a type of person who more commonly is the perpetrator'. You try to make the reader think about ramifications and from there, we hope, make all of society think about them also. If the author is excellent, you will also enjoy the reading experience as you go along.
@@OmnivorousReader Delany was one of the a new generation of writers who brought in then-modern concerns and sensibilities to science fiction and it was not always accepted. At an awards ceremony he attended, a speaker went on attacking the pretentiousness of those new writers bring in those high-faluting literary attempts.
Still, Delany is a very interesting person who led a very non-conventional life, and his work has deliberately made a point of following the marginal, the disfranchised, and he posits that it at the margins where the most innovative art may often be found. I do not endorse some of his most extreme opinions but he is always interesting.
His autobiography, THE MOTION OF LIGHT ON WATER, IIRC, was a very interesting read and an illuminating (pun intended) contrast to what had been the lives of the previous generation of SF writers like Asimov or Heinlein.
@@jorgerapalo2673 Thanks for the recommendation. I think his autobiography would be very interesting, though I definitely want to read more of his fiction first. The social structures he postulated in this book were certainly interesting and the way the different classes did not mix - that was probably a thinly veiled reference to his own society I suppose. It makes for a great story though, with underlaying themes that are so very common to so many societies.
Cannot figure out why this book is in any way well-regarded.
The novel relied heavily on linguistic theory. Unfortunately, Delaney didn't really have much depth of understanding of it, and that prevented me from being able to suspend disbelief.
The main concept in the book, that language shapes thought, is re-heated Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. However, this had already been discredited by the Chomsky revolution at the end of the 50s. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem in an SF novel, except that the linguistics tangents the novel goes off on are presented almost by an 'omniscent narrator' type of writing style, like Arthur C Clarke explaining real science. Except the science here isn't real. And it's annoying to read. It's almost like the author had just attended a lecture on linguistics and was like a little boy, trying to show off how much he'd learnt there.
Vastly overrated book.
Well, thanks for commenting. I had never heard of Sapir-Whorf and while I had heard of Chomsky, without google I would honestly have had no chance of remembering the context in which I had heard about him. I guess, this is just the risk that speculative authors and readers take. You write about something new and innovative that is not your area of expertise in 1966, and there is a great chance that by 2024 the ideas you based your story on might be dated or discredited. It has happened often enough. I really enjoyed this novel, the characterisation and the world building, I enjoyed what the author did with languages, but can't speak for the discipline of linguistics as I am not involved in it. I can totally understand that if you are, reading a book about discredited hypotheses might be annoying. Probably as annoying as I found the much idolised Solaris.
@@OmnivorousReader It was already discredited by the 50s.
Which wouldn't have been so bad, IF the characterisation was interesting, as you feel it is, or the prose even serviceable. But I'm afraid this book doesn't really shine there either.
@@OmnivorousReader Just curious, what was there in Solaris that was annoying for you? As a scientist, I mean? I ask, as a friend of mine, who is some manner of biologist, gets all upset with Ursula K le Guin because of her 'misunderstanding of evolution'.
Is there something like that with Solaris?
@@spencerburke Personal reading tastes are personal. I enjoyed it a lot not saying there are no flaws, just that it was a great read.
@@spencerburke Wow, so much wrong. I think I did a vid and aired many of my opinions. Let us start with a simple issue, that anyone in any technical workplace should be able to follow: Main protagonist claims he has been training all his life for this mission. He is so well trained he knows the location of every damn can opener on the station. This station which has had so many calamities. There appears to be no emergency protocols AT ALL in place. Either that or protagonist was concentrating so hard on learning where the screwdrivers were that he never bothered to learn them.