Science Fiction and the Test of Time

Ever wonder if a novel or story you have read will still be relevant in a hundred years?  What makes something good enough that it would still matter or be considered a classic?  I was reading an anthology of classic sci fi from the early to mid-20th century called The World Turned Upside Down from Baen Books.  Some of the stories were still really good.  Most were entertaining, but some were really dated and a bit of a struggle to get through.  Some of these stories are sixty to seventy years old and they show their age.

Still, you need a good story first or none of this discussion really matters anyhow.

Bookshelf / Peter Lok

You can actually read it free here from the Fifth Imperium website which hosts some CDs that were made available with select hardcover books and the books are redistributable under the license (pretty amazing actually).  It is actually a great way to get some good sci fi for free (but there is a lot of SF in it from David Weber, David Drake, John Ringo, and many more).  You can read it online or download it in an ebook format at the link below. http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/23-TheEasternFrontCD/1635TheEasternFrontCD/The%20World%20Turned%20Upside%20Down/index.htm  Just remember to support these authors and buy a book from them for trying this marketing approach.

I have not devoted years of my life to thinking about this topic, but I have a couple of ideas about what makes something last.  Science fiction, which is what I write, is probably the hardest genre of fiction as it dates badly based on the technology envisioned or what people expect social norms to be.  There is a double whammy when the social behavior is predicated on the technology.  In this sense, a science fiction author is being a futurist and you know how well futurists have generally predicted the future.  It isn't a stellar track record even ten years into the future.

Anyhow, here are a just a few cultural and technology issues I noticed from the reading the short stories and analyzing them just a little bit.

1. The early SF writers wrote for guys and treated women fairly badly.  The writing isn't realistic around women.  It reflects the cultural attitudes of the time too so I may be being too harsh - but maybe not.
2. No internet or modern computers.  Our current level of technology with instantaneous communication, always on computing, personal computing devices, cell phones, mass storage, mass communication of a thousand TV channels, etc., were probably inconceivable. One story with a super-duper computer (can't say anymore or I'll ruin the story) was really good despite a bad start (too many wires) did withstand the test of time though.
3. Spaceships with manual targeting - good space opera, but lousy science.  
4. Spaceships with simple computing machines.  HAL 9000s are probably what type of super computer intelligence that should exist.
5. What do you call a visual display device? Viewer, CRT, TV, visual display, etc.  Wrong term makes it sound pretty bad or jarring to suspension of disbelief.
6. Making a wrong prediction.  One story was developed before mass air travel was economically feasible so people drove down 12 lane freeways with jet powered cars.  Very cool story, but so wrong.

I have to emphasize I did enjoy reading the stories, but often it was from a historical viewpoint.  So I have a few rules of thumb to keep writing from aging badly. Remember, you need a good story first, then these item help its longevity.

1. Have a narrow focus in the story.  Keep it detailed right around the core story with the protagonists, but have it become more general with other events.  Don't build a big expansive detailed world and have it dated when things change in the real world that indicate it isn't possible.  Don't describe a societal norm (unless you need to) that you "figured would happen" based on your extrapolation.  
2. The Windup Girl is an example of complex world building for the Calorie Wars and all of the labour powered devices via super springs.  I enjoyed reading the novel for the story and characters but could not appreciate the world building as it has a zero probability scenario of arrival without major warfare breaking out with nukes.  On the other hand a piece of writing like Germline which is a bit similar to The Windup Girl with the genetically engineered clone soldiers vs windup bio-organisms worked far better for me even if the military stuff was only okay. 
   This situation is probably because Germline focused on only a small portion of the world and only the military, rather than the vast complex world of the Calorie Wars.  I know I'm being picky, but I don't really want a set piece just because someone thought it was cool and it had to be that way - world building is hard work and logical.  Look to Jack Vance for world building tips - make it alien and not of Earth if you want to get away with detailed world building.  Use another world, another galaxy, another time, another species to your advantage.
3. Be general in the descriptions of technology and push the technology one step further.  Communicators are in your head not in your pocket.  Don't use TVs, use holographic displays or retina displays right on your retina, etc.  What are you going to call your technology?  A brand name might work or a general description - but be careful as the word CRT or TV may not exist in 50 years except to indicate you are OLD. Will the Internet still be called the Internet in 50 years?
4. Use contemporary characters and extraordinary events to tell stories that are well grounded and believable in the present or past.  This way you are not extrapolating a societal norm that could become wrong.  This is taking the easy way out from setting something in the future, but it is safer.
5. Use a non-technical character to describe the story.  You don't get bogged down in technical details and the language is more general and readable in the present and probably the future.

Finally, H.G. Wells wrote The War of the Worlds in 1898 and it has aged really well.  He pretty much followed all of these rules.

1.  A journalist - nice generic character who describes action from experiencing it. He isn't the general or the infantryman fighting directly.
2. Set in 1898 contemporary London and England. World building is minimal, but he doesn't describe the world in great detail - it is just there and we use our interpretations of a coal powered industrial England to fill in the gaps where necessary.
3. The aliens arrive by being launched from cannons on Mars - not so good, but they could have been rockets or mass drivers.
4. The alien war machines and weapons.  Still cool today and we can just do the robotics in the 21st century.  Heat rays (nice generic description) are lasers!  He extrapolated poison gas too and used it on a scale that didn't happen till WW1.
5. Story is tight - basically around the central character.  Too many characters (like modern novels) mean too many holes as the world you must build in detail gets bigger and bigger.

I hoped everyone enjoyed this and it is mainly food for thought. So thanks for reading!