The Sword and Laser discussion

This has been touted as a classic by many, but somehow I found it too dry and fault-ridden to be considered one.

Do you consider it a classic? Why?

What is a classic? Is it some work that does not become outdated, no matter how many years pass? Like Shakespeare's works, where the whole era becomes almost an antique, but the insight into humanity does not fade like its Elizabethan settings do.

Or is it a work that becomes obsolete but has to be considered a classic for being radical in its time?

Are the parameters for being a classic different for SF than those for mainstream fiction?

To my humble eye - I admit, the science part is radical, but that is not what makes me in classify it as a classic. I also let go of my feminist concerns. Where this work fails for me primarily is in nuanced character-delineation, plot and most importantly, the sheer lack of insight into human nature.

The incorporation of science might have been radical in its time, but good writing was not an unheard-of phenomenon. I find it woefully lacking in what makes a work a classic, IMHO.

i consider it a classic simply because:

its old
i really enjoyed
i will re-read maybe once every few years


I recently read A Fall of Moondust which is badly dated as the whole premise of the book wouldnt happen now as it was written before man went to the moon but...

I find it a classic because of the above points but i tend to put my mind in the pre 60s when i read it otherwise id have to dismiss the whole book.

Arthur may have called it wrong with his theory on the moon for this novel but he got so so much right. Anyway both great novels and sorry for the ramble

There's also the lasting influence it has had on how SF developed. Note that I don't know *what* the influence is, I just know lots and lots of writers and other SF people think there is one. :-)

Lit Bug wrote: "... the sheer lack of insight into human nature"

This. And I agree, if it is a classic, that's got more to do with it being the first Hugo winner than any inherent quality in the book.

Classic for me is something with a timeless quality or the typical first example of a certain style. I apply it to music ("classic rock", anyone?), to arts, architecture or books - but also to other products like cars.

I haven't yet decided if this novel is a classic for me: Most of the dialogues and emotions are plain stupid. But maybe this is just a perfect sample of the pulp time.

Classic can refer to many things - from simply old to first of it's kind to meaningful to the genre. This won a Hugo because at the time it was very popular among the crowd of Hugo voters. For that to happen, many people must have found it to be a good read, either for the ideas in it, the style of it, or the story.

There are plenty of books considered classics that I have no interest in reading, but I don't therefore deny them their status as classics, nor do I feel compelled to read them only because they are called classics.

They were meaningful to many people and that says something about them and the people who made them popular. Maybe you don't like them today, but thousands of other people have enjoyed/loved/been affected by them in the past.

I didnt bother to read the book. I did this because I read Tiger Tiger! and didnt really connect with it. I intent to revisit that book possibly at some point but there is so much great, newer SF that I do not know whether or not this will happen.

This reminds me of the article/blog entry by Paul McAuley "Lets get the future behind us"- http://unlikelyworlds.blogspot.co.uk/... in which he challenges readers, writers and critics to look forward and not backward. To read and talk about books written many years ago rather than some of the excellent books that are currently or recently being produced is missing out of much of what the genre has to offer at its best.

So much of science has developed substantially since the book was written as have areas such as gender issues etc that the real question to me is not "is this a classic?" but "is this sufficiently worth reading to read this instead of something else?". There are simply more wonderful and superb books than I will ever get to read in a lifetime and I read 100-150 books a year. There are more wonderful books being written every year and I am not sure that this work will make the cut for me - I have read really interesting stuff about the book from some of the discussions so far so it has moved from the never to the "maybe" list in my head but it is a long way from hitting the 250+ books on my "to read list".

As for what is a classic - I think given the speed with which the genre is developing and the extent to which science changes you cannot give the same label of "classic" in the same way as you might in other fields but I would say any book that is being read, loved and talked about a decade after it has been published is certainly a classic. Really if a book is being talked about 2-3 years after it could be in contention.

*edit - was typing this at the same time as Michele, she says more or less the same thing I did but couldnt be referenced when I was writing this as her post didnt exist to me then... See how quickly stuff gets out of date.

I love what you said about what is the important question - echoing you, I'd say my definition of a classic is what you called "is this sufficiently worth reading to read this instead of something else?" - by that standard, definitely no.

It was my first book in old SF - and am pretty unlikely to pick up another old - unless it is equally stimulating.

Lindsay wrote: "This. And I agree, if it is a classic, that's got more to do with it being the first Hugo winner than any inherent quality in the book. "

So you think all the people giving it four and five stars only did so because it won the Hugo and not because they found it to be, you know, a good book?

"Classic" is simply a term we give to books that appeal to readers across multiple generations. The fact that The Demolished Man has remained in print long after most sci-fi novels of the '50s have been relegated to used bookstores, shows that it is a classic. People can not like a classic work -- God knows I'd rather light myself on fire than spend five minutes reading Jane Austen -- but that doesn't negate its status.

The books is often mention when discussing that genre
so in that respect I would say its a "Classic".
That doesn't mean its good or bad. Just that its a recognized reference point. Liking or disliking it is a separate question.

Jane Austen is probably my favorite author and I think her books are some of the best plotted as well as best written out there. Reading them is definitely better than setting yourself on fire.

Time can overtake books in different ways. It can as Paul McAuley stated recently in his blog render SF as alternative history, it can make fresh seem stale or a retread of something that came before which might not be immediately apparent. How do we look at something like Heart of Darkness which regardless of its literary merits and narrative power could only be read with modern eyes as being exceedingly racist?

I think what is most important for most readers will be "will I like it?" and "is it still relevant?" rather than is it a classic and most people seem to feel that the answer (by the ratings given if nothing else) is overwhelmingly yes...but not for all.

You mean that modern essays on Heart of Darkness can only be read as saying that Heart of Darkness is exceedingly racist. Fortunately, these essays usually seem to be by people who haven't actually read the book. If you think Heart of Darkness is racist, you must have read a different book of the same name, in my opinion.
[Indeed, given the way that the narrator continually describes Europeans in sub-human and animalistic terms, even as 'infestation', and the continual negative associations made with 'white'ness (whether in the bleached white skulls that symbolise literal death in the congo or the 'whited sepulchre' that symbolises metaphorical death and moral vacancy in Europe), you could well argue that it's racist against Europeans. The intention, however, was very different - the whole thesis of the novel is that the Congolese and the Europeans are fundamentally the same despite their superficial differences. No surprise there, since the book was basically a campaigning pamphlet to raise awareness of the atrocities being commited in the Congo and garner support for the Congo Reform Association.]

Wastrel wrote: "You mean that modern essays on Heart of Darkness can only be read as saying that Heart of Darkness is exceedingly racist. Fortunately, these essays usually seem to be by people who haven't actually read the book. If you think Heart of Darkness is racist, you must have read a different book of the same name, in my opinion."

I agree that accusations of racism against Heart of Darkness generally miss Conrad's meaning, but I don't think it's fair to accuse Chinua Achebe of never reading the book.

Ben wrote: "Jane Austen is probably my favorite author and I think her books are some of the best plotted as well as best written out there. Reading them is definitely better than setting yourself on fire."

Her characters are awful, shallow people of exactly the sort I would never want to talk with in real life. And I'm not alone in this -- Twain, Emerson and Charlotte Bronte all hated Austen's work. Twain said it best when he described reading her as being like a barkeeper going to heaven and finding it full of Presbyterians singing hymns -- sure, he can understand that they enjoy it, but he sure as hell can't see why.

Actually, it was Achebe I was specifically thinking off. His essay is appalling criticism - he takes things completely out of context (I don't mean historical context, I mean that he lifts words and clauses out of their sentences to make a point even when the rest of the sentence reverses the meaning), he distorts things, he massively neglects to mention things that wouldn't help his theory, and in general reads like a guy plucking quotations out of a text to support his political views, rather than as someone who's actually read the book. His theory is, I think, mostly false, but his way of establishing it is truly objectionable!
[I was going to link to a good deconstruction of his comments that I read once, that put the quotations back in their proper place and offered appropriate brethren to them, but I can't seem to find it.]

Anyway, better not to hijack this thread, so I'll shut up now.

Serendi wrote: "There's also the lasting influence it has had on how SF developed. Note that I don't know *what* the influence is, I just know lots and lots of writers and other SF people think there is one. :-)"

Partly, it's fusion of crime novel/police procedural with science fiction. This is the first novel of the SF Golden Age I've read that really explored the seedy underbelly of its society. Other SF novels of this era focus on scientists, scholars, explorers, soldiers, politicians, engineers, and other members of the intelligentsia/ruling class. The Demolished Man is pretty clear even after a few hundred years of progress, the human race will also still have thieves, thugs, con artists, and slum lords.

That's a clear inspiration for late 70s/early 80s cyberpunk right there, as is the corporate espionage, and the intersection of corporate and government interests. And Demolished Man describes a world where information is power, just like later cyberpunk works. Exchange the pseudo-science of Espers for computer hackers, and this could be a cyberpunk novel.

Bester's generally considered a precursor to cyperpunk, yes (I haven't read TDM, but the synaesthesial descriptions and larger-than-life metaphors in The Stars My Destination certainly ring 'eyeball-kick' bells too).

That said, it's not as though the other SF of its day was entirely devoid of villains. Asimov's "The Caves of Steel", for instance, is a sci-fi murder mystery novel, and came out the year after The Demolished Man.