Scan barcode
A review by spitzig
The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made of: How Science Fiction Conquered the World by Thomas M. Disch
4.0
Kind of disappointing. Maybe it's the nature of essays. It seemed heavy on the opinions and light on the facts. I'd have preferred more objective analysis.
Some of the chapters didn't seem strongly connected to Science Fiction. The chapter about America being a culture of lying for example. Hoaxes and con artists are a big part of American culture. Examples of this connected with SF are UFO hoaxes and various psychological/psychic cons, like Scientology. But, the connection seems loose to me.
Also, there was a chapter about Poe being SF's primary ancestor. His argument seemed kind of weak, to me. Most of what Poe is known for wouldn't be called SF. He didn't really talk much about later SF authors being influenced by Poe. He attacked the claim that Frankenstein wasn't SF's primary ancestor. And, I tend to agree with him there, but he missed something. He said that because the Frankenstein in the public consciousness isn't Shelley's. But, Shelley is certainly the ORIGIN of the Frankenstein story, even if the generally known one has changed. So, it's still the ancestor of the story. And, later in the book, he talks about much SF being either a technological savior or destroyer story. Shelley certainly influenced a lot of authors who wrote a Frankenstein(destroyer) type-story.
I was kind of disappointed about the SF as a religion chapter. Too much of it was about Scientology. I know about Scientology, so I didn't really learn anything from that stuff. The discussion about other religions, like Heaven's Gate, Manson's Family, and the Japanese death cult that released the sarin gas in the subway. I found it particularly interesting that Manson required all his followers to read Stranger in a Strange Land.
He talked about trends in publishing that were kind of depressing. Like, a VERY large(and increasing) percentage of the SF published is part of some franchise(like Star Trek). Considering the depth of most of the franchise books, that is sad. Also, it's the same case for series books. While I like to read a series, too. I also like standalone books. If I REALLY like an author, I want to see what NEW things he can show me. And, you can't see as many new things in the same world. However, series books can be good for more complicated plots or expanding on other ideas, so I'm not as upset about this as about the franchise books.
I guess I can see the trend on the bookshelves at the bookstore. I suspect those books come and go quickly, because it sounds like the percentage of sf books that are franchise is higher than the percentage I see in stores. Which would seem to indicate a lot of people like them, but consider them somewhat generic. That has been my impression from hearing authors talk about writing in those universes. It seems like the publisher maps out a plot for lots of books and inserts subgenre authors(like military SF). It seems like the authors are considered generic by the publisher. It doesn't seem like there's a lot of creativity in that kind of process.
I'm reading another book about SF. I thought I should at this point of comparison. While I considered this to be an academic book, its academic in the same kind of way your pot smoking professor is. Disch makes intelligent literature references, but he also makes jokes about sex and drugs.
Some of the chapters didn't seem strongly connected to Science Fiction. The chapter about America being a culture of lying for example. Hoaxes and con artists are a big part of American culture. Examples of this connected with SF are UFO hoaxes and various psychological/psychic cons, like Scientology. But, the connection seems loose to me.
Also, there was a chapter about Poe being SF's primary ancestor. His argument seemed kind of weak, to me. Most of what Poe is known for wouldn't be called SF. He didn't really talk much about later SF authors being influenced by Poe. He attacked the claim that Frankenstein wasn't SF's primary ancestor. And, I tend to agree with him there, but he missed something. He said that because the Frankenstein in the public consciousness isn't Shelley's. But, Shelley is certainly the ORIGIN of the Frankenstein story, even if the generally known one has changed. So, it's still the ancestor of the story. And, later in the book, he talks about much SF being either a technological savior or destroyer story. Shelley certainly influenced a lot of authors who wrote a Frankenstein(destroyer) type-story.
I was kind of disappointed about the SF as a religion chapter. Too much of it was about Scientology. I know about Scientology, so I didn't really learn anything from that stuff. The discussion about other religions, like Heaven's Gate, Manson's Family, and the Japanese death cult that released the sarin gas in the subway. I found it particularly interesting that Manson required all his followers to read Stranger in a Strange Land.
He talked about trends in publishing that were kind of depressing. Like, a VERY large(and increasing) percentage of the SF published is part of some franchise(like Star Trek). Considering the depth of most of the franchise books, that is sad. Also, it's the same case for series books. While I like to read a series, too. I also like standalone books. If I REALLY like an author, I want to see what NEW things he can show me. And, you can't see as many new things in the same world. However, series books can be good for more complicated plots or expanding on other ideas, so I'm not as upset about this as about the franchise books.
I guess I can see the trend on the bookshelves at the bookstore. I suspect those books come and go quickly, because it sounds like the percentage of sf books that are franchise is higher than the percentage I see in stores. Which would seem to indicate a lot of people like them, but consider them somewhat generic. That has been my impression from hearing authors talk about writing in those universes. It seems like the publisher maps out a plot for lots of books and inserts subgenre authors(like military SF). It seems like the authors are considered generic by the publisher. It doesn't seem like there's a lot of creativity in that kind of process.
I'm reading another book about SF. I thought I should at this point of comparison. While I considered this to be an academic book, its academic in the same kind of way your pot smoking professor is. Disch makes intelligent literature references, but he also makes jokes about sex and drugs.