A visual History of Science Fiction

Via geekologie.com

Here is an amazing diagram of the history of Science Fiction created by one Ward Shelley:

The high-res pic can be found HERE

Thanks Black Angus

18 thoughts on “A visual History of Science Fiction

  1. Wow. The gang’s all here. Or almost: I couldn’t find Andre Norton – shouldn’t she be in the “Classic” zone? And how about Tom Corbett and Tom Swift? Anyone see them?

    It’s feels a little bit like coming home.

  2. I went to the amazon site to take a peek.

    Jim Adam is criticizing the HP series not, to deny its “power and greatness” but to support the claim that it does “contain flaws and would benefit from a thorough revision”.

    Excuse me?

    Get back, you flea infested monger

  3. I think if Ms. Rowling revised any of her books – I would be very interested in reading them. To correct flaws? Maybe. Or perhaps to include more? Yes, please. Revisions are rare – but even ones as small as Tolkien’s, or as large as Charles Dickens’, can add to a published book. Heck, even Shakespeare revised. I think it would be fun! And you still have the old-school books to read if you don’t like the new ones.

  4. Good points, Bennu.

    “Flea-infested monger.”

    That made me laugh, Red Rocker.

    The visual history of science-fiction is very interesting, even if it does look like the sort of thing they served in my school canteen. I added it to my Facebook profile.

  5. I didn’t know that Dickens revised. Can you tell us more, Bennu?

    JKR may revise if she feels like it – although I suspect that critics would rise up and howl because the revisions would make their past comments obsolete (like trying to hit a moving target) – but it’s not up to the Jim Adams of the world to ask for it. Or to make suggestions.

    Speaking of which:

    A doggy is nuttin’ if he don’t have a bone.

  6. Here is a debate over the better of the two different endings for Great Expectations.

    http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/novel_19c/dickens/ending.html

    Also – Mr. Adams has every right in the world to point out what he considers flaws and even suggest a revision. Isn’t this a little like the kettle calling the dog black, 😉 Red Rocker? I seem to remember all sorts of discussions here about plot devices, shakey premises etc. Perhaps a revision would be in order. The dog can ask – and the writer can decline. Remember, nothing is really certain in fiction – even the dead can be raised to life.

  7. The dead can indeed be raised back to life, Bennu. I thought Voldemort was dead but it seems he’s alive and well and premiering on Twitter. Got a problem with that? He has one thing to say to you!

    http://twitpic.com/46tmtk

    (Not for your kids, contains strong language).

  8. Absolutely right, Bennu: Mr. Adam can ask for whatever he wants. I, for example, am often heard asking for sanity and courtesy on the road (in others, as well as in myself). And yes, of course, we here have savaged Rowling’s choices with regards to plot and character.

    What I was objecting to in Mr. Adam’s work (and mind you, I only read a few passages from the intro, so his tone could have changed as it went on) was his tone. His attitude seemed to be that he could suggest changes which would be improvements. I find that patronizing, presumptuous, and arrogant. If you want to write a better book, do so. But don’t be telling someone else how to do so (unless they ask for it and/or you are their editor).

    Those who can, do. Those who can’t write books telling those who can how to. Or something like that.

  9. Being patronizing and presumptious is a bad thing as my English lecturer proves. Arrogance on the other hand can be quite a positive trait. Churchill, Coco Chanel, Ayn Rand, Pablo Piccasso, Joan Crawford, Truman Capote, Nina Simone and Margaret Thatcher were all arrogant people and they did great stuff for the world!

  10. (Taking a series of deep, controlled breaths and ignoring the remark about Maggie Thatcher…;))

    I’m a bit bewildered to see Le Guin’s Tehanu classed with Hard SF. They do know that’s a High Fantasy deconstruction with tinges of S&S, right?

    Is the shape of the chart a little cthuloid?

    Mr Adam’s misreading of the Harry Potter series is staggering and bewildering. All of his desired rewrites seem, in fact, to be present in the series. And it’s impertinent to dictate to a living author how to write their book, unless you’re their agent/editor and you’re contractually obligated to.

    To put it in academic-speak: his conclusions remain unconvincing.

  11. Glad to see John Wyndham there, and Earthman’s Burden, but no Zenna Henderson, or Lois McMaster Bujold’s Miles Verkosigan space opera? And no LOST?

    What an amazing piece of work, though.

Leave a Reply