I enjoy tremendously the content on your channel, especially these Elements of SF videos and your deep dives into the history of the genre. Better than any podcast. Thank you and here is all the money I have left after buying so many of your recommended books. I just wish your nice UK editions were easy to find here in the US.
Many thanks for your exceptional kindness, super-thanks really does help the channel keep going- I hope I continue to stimulate your interest. I feel the same about US books LOL!
SF entertains in many ways, but I find its most important is how it causes one to wonder. Fundamental to experiencing happiness, (which is the result of doing pleasurable things, to my way of thinking), "wonder" is a universal exercise shared by all, it brings us together, and gives rise to consensus. Once a group of people come to an accord, or agree on the rules of the game, real progress can be made in the realm of human understanding, and advance the cause of striving for a better society and world. SF does this for me in a way no other kind of literature can. I'm hopelessly hooked on it and that's alright by me. Thanks for another mind-expanding tutorial on the genre, Stephen, your eloquence continues to astound. Love this channel! Cheers.
Theory, history, and context are crucial in science fiction as they provide depth, credibility, and socio-political relevance to speculative narratives. elements that help ground fantastical stories in real-world understanding, enhancing both their impact and plausibility.
Love Magazine - cut up shapes is an amazing song - a feast of sounds and the cut up concepts. Maybe SF is the hypothesis generating machine that provides the subjects for scientific research to test. In scientific academia you are likely to get your new ideas shot down but if you call it SF, there is more freedom to explore with less fear of humiliation or exclusion.
Very interesting video, Steve. I do find my enjoyment of science fiction deepening as my pool of references grows. I also agree that fiction's value proposition is not one of strict "enjoyment." Good literature asks something from us in return. I've been thinking over the course of a few books about how preoccupied the genre seems to be / to have been with religion. The easiest explanation is also the cheapest (to me), that science fiction is a bulwark of reason against old forms of mysticism. Seems like this is a popular notion. But almost every SF book I read that deals with religion is some form of apologia on its behalf. I think there's something there that also helps parse the differences between science fiction and fantasy. Science fiction seems much closer to religious narrative than fantasy, despite fantasy bearing closer superficial resemblance in terms of imagery and the presence of magic. Good science fiction makes large truth claims, is concerned with big picture narratives about the universe-as-it-really-exists as opposed to universe-as-pure-fabulation. Past a certain threshold of quality, "philosophic science fiction" has a tang of redundancy to me. I can't think of any good science fiction I've read that doesn't grapple with religion-scale questions of our nature, our consciousness and our moral responsibilities. I experience it in a very similar way as I experience reading religious source texts or Christian commentary. I almost never get this sense from fantasy. I'm sure someone has already articulated this idea better than I have. Wonder if you agree.
Hey Matt, good to hear from you as always. It is interesting how SF does so often tackle the 'Priests in Space' thing and this has often troubled me, especially the end of 'A Case of Conscience'. SF is full of these apologia as you say, from 'A Clockwork Orange' to 'The Sparrow', 'Canticle' and so on. As I see the dividing line between Fantasy and SF as very much focused around the movement from 'Religion and the Decline of Magic' as one history book title put it- to Enlightenment rationalism, this is a clearly a potentially troublesome point. You would expect more deconstruction of Religion in SF- though you could say it is deconstructed in SF much of the time by the fact that it is basically ignored in so much genre SF. There are some definite critiques too, such as the George Zebrowksi novel I read last year which was very pointed in underlining the damage religion can do. Chelsea Quinn Yarbro's stunning historical vampire romances (The St Germain Sequence) also build up an overpowering sense of how religion has oppressed so many people and is irrational over the course of a thirty book series. I think so many of us have come to put our faith in science to such a degree that it resembles religious belief, except of course its base is fundamentally different and always shifting as our knowledge evolves and changes. In SF, the very best of which I feel is almost always metaphoric, it seems to me that any subject is free to play- which leads me to your point on 'Philosophical SF' which is a tautology really, right? I think youtubers are just using it as a hookline, myself LOL. The thing you mention re Truth is very valid in this argument too, since what we all seem to want is certainty, but I'd make a distinction between Truth (which I use as meaning a personal and subjective view) and Fact (which is objective, provable and fundamentally a scientifically testable concept). For me, Science keeps uncertainty and possibility alive, whereas Religion simply wants us to rely on blind faith much of the time- and this is where I see the dividing line between scientific doubt and religious certainty as quantifying the divide. I think this is where 'I almost never get this sense from Fantasy' comes in. I agree, I rarely get this either: Fantasy-even when wonderfully entertaining as story - doesn't have to be rigorous in its arguments, does not have to convince, but merely takes things on faith and trust, so it's philosophically weaker by default. I think you put it all very well, incidentally, as you always do. I'll be in touch and thanks as ever for your insightful words.
@Outlaw Bookseller I would suggest most SF authors study History pretty closely, and if that is guiding them, they choose words carefully. Religion is tricky, agreed. Alienating a significant part of your audience leads to starvation or another vocation. The Golden Age writers had just seen and lived through another apocalyptic war. I think that would have a lot to do with a concern for some Moral Authority and a nod to The Ten Commandments and The Golden Rule. Star Trek Original Series clearly did. Gene Roddenberry and Gene L. Coon both saw heavy combat in WW2, and that effects everyone for life. The Forbidden Planet scene where the Captain informs Morbius: "That is why we have Laws and Religion" is quite powerful. I saw the very wild American Comedian Lewis Black say; "Before Moses most men were 10 hairs from being monkeys." If Historical accounts are accurate, I can not disagree. Did God give Moses the Ten Commandments, or did Moses look around and think he needed to give the fear of God to the monkeys? Or, we can look at the Ancient Aliens theory, the benevolent Aliens wanted us to clean up and trade with them. I would think Moses is most likely to succeed. Regardless, some behavioral outlines are probably a very good idea. If it slows down murderous activity, it passes The Scientific Method. Even Bradbury wrote "The Man", which caught me off guard when I first read it. BTW, when Gene Roddenbery was showing the restored first Pilot with Jeffrey Hunter at Colleges in 1974, he walked around and spoke with quite a few of us before it started!
I'm enjoying the Elements of SF series very much. Always inspiring and lots to think about. And - how cool is that - just one minute into the video and Magazine get a namecheck. Absolutely brilliant.
I really appreciate the erudition, historical context and analysis of SF and literature you provide in your videos. Your explanation as to what makes SF and how it is distinct from Fantasy is the best explanation i have encountered. I also am interested in taxonomy and the classification of things. The breadth, width and depth of your knowledge is immense and impressive. Thanks for educating viewers on your channel! I always come back with more things to look out for and thing about, after watching your videos.
Another great video that is really a condensed education in a little over 20 minutes. As a former teacher of mathematics and science I've enjoyed science fiction as a way to narrate thought experiments with a "what if" focus and a sense of wonder. This thought experiment narrative can be done with style and precision which is literature. Having said that, the other side of the coin is the pulp tradition of SF. For me the enjoyment really kicks in when my brain chemistry is changed by what I read. A Clockwork Orange did that to me .
Wonderful observations and discussion! Great analysis! The sense of wonder is critical to attracting new readers, and I agree with your views on History and intellectual topics. I hope for at least one character to be a competent man or woman, too. For George Lucas films, I would suggest watching his THX 1138 film prior to Star Wars. I certainly agree The Scientific Method and Isolation Troubleshooting are critical Philosophies to utilize. I started using these at 16. I wrote an essay on Philosophy expressing that sentiment just a few days ago. I do not see much else out there of practical use. The young SF booktubers recently renewed my interest in SF. Over the last 3 months, I have reread many books from my Library, read 5 recommended by booktubers, and reviewed Modern Philosophy. I wanted to see if my thoughts on these subjects had changed over 45 years. From 1963 to 1970, I read hundreds of SF books and magazines, moving to more than I could track by 1990. I sold off about 1000 in 2012. I had read RAH's History and Moral Philosophy class by 15, and then Van Vogt's interest in General Semantics spurred me to read Korzybski's Science and Sanity at 15, too. The High School had us read the big 3 - Plato, Aristotle and Socrates, with Kant, Camus, Jefferson, Hamilton, Marx, Vance Packard, The Scientific Method and a few others thrown in. 1984, Animal Farm, Anthem, Brave New World, English Lit. were also required and all read while I was 14/15/16. I added the SF class, American Short Story, a bunch of stuff! Continued that in College, more SF, Philosophy, Psychology, and History, all very interesting. I read Kornbluth's short: "The Cosmic Expense Account" a satire of Functional Epistemology at 16. No matter how hard I tried sensory deprivation or meditation; I could not levitate, read minds, feed anyone or see alternative realities! Who knew..
Nice to hear from someone who was led into broader areas by SF. Yes, 'THX1138' is a classic, easily the best thing Lucas did- if only more 'Star Wars' fans could get to that stage...
I am a teacher of German and Philosophy at what would compare - I believe - to a grammar school in Britain. Graduates of that school are qualified to enter university. Anyway, as the German curriculum for my eight graders gives me some freedom of choice, we are currently reading a science fiction short story: “Retrograde Summer” by John Varley in German translation. I found, that among 25 students 3 were familiar with the term “Science Fiction”. They related it exclusively to STAR WARS. On closer inspection in appeared, that that franchise has lost much of its appeal among younger folks. Their favourite brand of fantastic fiction still is “Harry Potter”. Also, a blend of fantasy and mild horror seems to be popular. Even so, Varley’s story of two young adults getting trapped under rubble on Mercury, did appeal to them. We will continue our journey with “Sherlock Holmes: The Speckled Band”. A most interesting video, by the way, as always. Cheers!
Genre SF has always struggled as literature against the entry point that most people come in from - i.e. mass media SF in cinema and TV, which is more often than not the lowest common denominator. After 'Star Wars' and in a world like ours dominated by Screens, this has intensified and expectations of SF, borne of this mass-media variant, naturally colour expectations and have, as a result, had a massively negative effect on even young SF writers, who are working from a base outside the written word. Hence the generally poor quality of contemporary written SF, I feel. I think now young people are increasingly geared to Escapism, since the dystopian reality of a world facing climate chaos encourages them to retreat. There has always been a far bigger escapist audience, of course. It must be really interesting to teach this material to young people, good for you and thanks very much for your kind comments on my work here.
I agree, but I’d like to suggest SF as an approach/sensibility. I’m thinking of William Gibson’s Pattern Recognition. It’s written like SF based on Gibson’s focus and style. You mentioned in another video about the movie Drive being SF like. That’s also in line with what I am thinking here. I’m personally interested in writing near future crime fiction. SF as a sensibility. It’s a struggle. Especially being mindful that cyberpunk has become an aesthetic and abused badly.
Yes, this is where I use the term 'Slipstream' - in the late 80s, when it was bandied about a lot in the wake of Cyberpunk, it seemed to have two meanings: (1) a commercial one - the UK specialist SF bookshops chain Forbidden Planet would have a 'Slipstream' bay in their larger shops, stocked with titles which were not SF but read by SF readers a lot- Burroughs, Bukowski etc, And (2) as a means of highlighting how increasingly, there was fiction being published that 'felt like SF' even if it wasn't. This latter sense was how 'Speculative Fiction' was used by Moorcock et al (and Ellison) in New Worlds at the end of the 1960s to show how the contemporary world and near-future SF were infecting 'mainstream' literature. I think this is where history and the recognition of Modernism and Postmodernism comes in. To those with an historical understanding of Cultural Production since the rise of the mass media- what McLuhan called 'The Global Village' (which only truly came onboard with the advent of the internet and smartphones), we've clearly been living in an SF world for some time. Now that pretty much everything in the history of Cultural Production is accessible to all online - photographs, text, film/video, audio recording- nothing is actually new anymore except when one is young and first discovering the arts. Now, Cultural Production, confronted with the problem that people were 'programmed' by Modernism for almost a century to expect the 'New' we see a retreat into artisanship - the recycling of ideas, perfectly underlined by the free play of surfaces and semiotics. This seems to me to underline why Space Opera, which is more often than not nostalgic, 'safe', recursive and traditional, resurged in the UK in the late 1980s - it just needed a champion like Banks, who was already popular. New Wave and Literary SF were always more established in the UK than the USA in genre publishing and as the likes of Ballard, Priest, Harrison and others burned down the curtain of genre ghetto, it was inevitable there would be a traditionalist backlash into cosiest of skiffy tropes. Looking at 'mainstream' publishing over the last few decades, it's interesting to see how much of the very stuff of Genre SF has been used and marketed as general fiction. Not that this didn't happen before, but most serious young writers now automatically use 'speculative' elements in many of their stories- some very well and with great originality, others with no clear understanding that what they are doing is not new. For me, Gibson's 'Blue Ant' trilogy is one of the highest examples of what I guess we could call 'The New Slipstream' - fiction that feels so contemporary that it might as well be from a few minutes in the future. Re Crime Fiction - yes, I've noticed more and more that fiction published as Crime is increasingly borrowing SF conceits and that more writers are working in both genres: another example of how traditional Realist modes are waking up to a world changed forever by technology. Good luck with your writing and thanks for your insightful comment!
@@joebrooks4448 Thanks, will check it out. Of course, 'Drive' is based on a novel by James Sallis, who in the 1960s was a New Wave SF writer for New Worlds magazine.
@Outlaw Bookseller I saw that, too! Laumer was not exactly New Wave. His Retief series was highly entertaining, as well as highly educational. His Time Travel and critical SF were amazingly good. He did write some very esoteric stuff. "It Could Be Anything" is an example. Looking... Project Guttenberg has it.
The Valley of The Gwangi! We did not know what to do with it. My HS buddies were like, "Not Again!" We saw it, of course. Also, The Hammer Production of Five Million Years To Earth (restored, now) when it finally reached the US, and the Anderson's Journey to the Far Side Of The Sun.
I often associate SF with a feeling of strangeness in that it takes something familiar and twists it in some way but not so dissociated to tap the fantasy center of the Brain. It's kind of like uncanny valley phenomena with androids. You get this strange sensation in stomach- cognitively estranged as you say. Fantasy can't create that estrangement because it is too removed from familiarity - it's just escape.
Yes- Fantasy relies on anchronism, on symbolism that is already deepwired historically within us, maybe in a Jungian sense- ultimately, it's too familiar as story already.
Nice lecture professor 😂..Labeling a book as SF, Frankenstein comes to mind immediately. I see amongst SF readers that there is no question but horror readers might disagree. I haven't read it for awhile but as I remember there was very little science and no real explanation of theory. To me it leaned more into the psychological/philosophical genre. Wondering what are your thoughts?
Take a look at the video on my channel entitled 'Mary Shelley Was Never Cancelled!: Frankenstein, Cyberpunk and the Sublime' (or something like that- the first sentence of this may only be in the thumbhnail). Also check my videos in the 'Genre Theory' playlist on why Horror is not a genre, but a bricolage. Specifically, in 'Frankenstein', you'll recall that when Victor relates his story to Walton, he states that he is not going to give any details so that no-one can replicate his experiment because of the damage its outcome wrought - the real point of my thesis re SF is that it does NOT matter if the Science in a story is entirely credible based on our current knowledge because (1) our knowledge of science is always growing and (2) Science FICTION (note the emphasis) is about how the undeniable consistent effectiveness of the scientific method (as opposed to supernatural 'systems' such as Magic) yielded consistent proof-making results. So SF stems from the Enlightenment idea of Rationalism as superseding superstition and the irrational- it's an exploration of the Scientific worldview through fictional metaphors (the common and uncommon tropes are metaphors for actual science as well as suggestions for where science might go in the future). If a writer explains or implies his or her Novum as scientific (which it is by default), then it's SF- otherwise, they are using an Anachronism which is non-scientific, hence Fantasy. This is where 'Frankenstein' is so credible as a claimant for the title of 'The first Modern Science Fiction Novel'. It is born out of Byron and Shelley's conversations in front of Mary Shelley about experiments in galvinism and the origin of life. Now Mary- alongside her husband and his friend- being Romantics obsessed with the awe, beauty and terror of the Sublime - were part of the Romantic reaction against the Enlightenment some thirty to forty years earlier (coming as it did alongside the French Revolution), which many feared was reducing nature to clockwork. Psychology and Philosophy are not fictional genres after all, but are applicable to all kinds of fiction- and all good fiction, I'd say, of any kind.
Talking about animal stories . I remember when i was a kid reading Animal Farm . And i enjoyed the " fairy " tale of talking animals ( i was very young...) .Years later as i matured i got the message .I saw it with new eyes and i understood why my socialist friend hated it with a passion . I gained something but at a price . I think SF does that we get some thing but the price .....I am told Animal Farm is not SF but a fable . About Star Wars , i saw SW as a fantasy quest . The original 3 . Later it tried to grow (? ) into SF ( my bias informed opinion ) . Thanks for the video .
Yes, Orwell was very clear about the Fabular form of 'Animal Farm' - and of course it was intended as a specific attack on how the Soviet revolution was betrayed from within by the power-hungry and therefore an illustration of Totalitarianism. Orwell was very much the gadfly of the Left then, believing passionately in democratic Socialism, always calling out apologists for Stalin, of whom there were many in intellectual circles then. Time proved him right, of course. When he moved into SF with 'Nineteen Eighty-Four', it's interesting that the Party follows an ideology called Ingsoc ('English Socialism') which sounds very much like National Socialism (Nazi)- and in Goldstein's book, it is made clear that what matters in the Super-States of the future is that the have identical structures despite theoretically (but actually identically Totalitarian) political systems. His use of SF and Fable in this way is typical of his mastery.
@Outlaw Bookseller I recently realized I needed to replace Blair's incredibly great works. My 1984 copy of 1984, with Walter Cronkite's brilliant introduction and Erich Fromm's equally great afterword is still viable. Surprisingly, I was able to pick up large paperback editions of 1984 and Animal Farm at a local Target store. 1984 containing the Erich Fromm afterword. But the two hardbound copies of 1984 I purchased contain very concerning text. The introduction to one literally utilizing The Memory Hole, free speech suppression, and Doublespeak. The other one's dust cover called Blair "one of the twentieth centuries greatest myth makers" and added "the Totalitarian system that provoked him has passed into oblivion" I can throw away the dust cover, but I can not resell the other, that would denigrate Blair's legacy. I guess I could just cut out the offending material. I have only checked the appendix in both against my 1984 edition. Comparing the entire text in both for sacrilege may be too onerous. I may just pitch them both.
@@joebrooks4448 There are now quite a number of bad editions of 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' out there since it is out of copyright now. Many have '1984' on the cover, which is not the title of course as 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' is what Orwell wrote as the title in the ms. and of course to abbreviate to 'one nine eight four' leads to the kind of misreading I've just made here deliberately and it's also an indication of Newspeak, being an abbreviation, while the full words have weight and colour. The UK Faber edition is particularly bad, as it uses '1984' and omits the Appendix, which is of course about Newspeak but it written as Fiction, indicating subtly that in the future it is written, the Totalitarian system may well be over- so it's part of the novel, despite the firm, ironic use of 'The End' at the close of what appears to be the final chapter before the appendix. The Penguin Modern Classic edition is still authoritative, though the annotated one lacks proper indexing and the Gollancz SF Masterworks one- which no-one seems to stock- has a brilliant introduction by Ian Dunt, a British political journalist.
@Outlaw Bookseller I had no idea! I knew the old American version has been criticized a bit for changing "towards" to "toward" or vice versa, but had no clue anyone would have the gall to alter this incredibly important work. I meant my year of 1984 published edition! Are people altering Moby Dick, Babbitt, etc. now?
@Outlaw Bookseller Both the Hardbounds say Nineteen Eighty - Four. One is salvageable. It is from Everyman's Library. New printing from Germany. The other says, "Flame Tree," printed in China. This one may be salvageable. It contains Animal Farm as well. And some Jack London, and some Blair non fiction. The only film version I thought did any justice to the book is the Peter Cushing starring version.
I have watched your previous elements videos. Can you give just one example of a novel for each of Novum, Paradigm Shift, Cognitive Shift and Conceptual Breakthrough? Or perhaps a novel which has all elements? I’m thinking of this as a thumbnail for the elements.
All great SF novels have all of these elements - though many weaker ones lack the final Conceptual Breakthrough and some don't provide a fresh Novum or Cogitive Dissonance very well. I don't understand what you mean by a 'thumbnail' in this context? Let's take 'Planet of the Apes', which I know you've read - the Novum is space travel to another world, the Cognitive Dissonance for Ulysse (and also for the reader) is the strangeness of discovering that Apes are dominant on Soror and the Conceptual Breakthrough comes in the last two words of the novel, when the true nature of the frame narrative characters (Phyllis & Jinn) is revealed, turning reader expectations on their head and shifting the reality of the book into a new paradigm.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Thank you. By thumbnail I meant a representation of the element that I could visualize , say as a novel cover. Your example is succinct and illustrates each element.
I think you miss the point that all fiction is fantasy, even if it's set in a real locale, because it springs from the human imagination, it isn't real. My view on your question is that context, history, etc, are essential to the enjoyment of SF. It's because of a lack of this background knowledge that so many seem to think that SF began with fat space fantasies.
Well, I wouldn't say I miss the point, simply by using the word 'fiction' it's implicit that we're discussing something contrived. This reminds me of a friend once saying to me that because all fiction was speculative, speculative fiction wasn't a useful label- which is a good point and I tend not to use it. I often say 'Fiction is a game with no defined outcome,' which is why Art, of course, is superior to sport as in Oscar Wilde's quote about the uselessness of Art. Abd 100% with you on background knowledge.
Star Wars of course has a good amount of direct homage to classic western The Searchers, right down to reproduced camera shots? The narrative structures are similar too, but the particular narrative structure is not restricted to either the Western or Science Fiction. How do your SF characteristics apply to Star Wars? Or should we conclude that it is fantasy and not SF?
I think 'Star Wars' is Fantasy, since The Force both exists and is mystical. As you imply, a narrative structure does not a genre make. As for camera setups, I don't think that has a genre function, but as you say, is homage.
One could argue that all novels about aliens are in fact dressed up talking animal stories. My point being that assumptions are everything, and despite our best efforts there are always edge cases that break the rule.
Well yes, but I'd say that the way most authors treat aliens in fiction is as sentient intelligences above the 'animal' level re self-awareness, technology etc. But you're right, there are numerous examples of more animalistic treatments - I'm re-reading some of Garry Kilworth's early novels currently and aliens who appear to be 'mere' animals are sometimes anything but in his work. It seems to me that the creation of credible aliens is quite a challenge for any author and as we have nothing to go by, assumptions naturally arise. It's an eternally fascinating SF topic, I think.
You betcha. It's actually a Moomin lamp powered by USB. "Comet In Moominland" is in my book '100 Must Read Fantasy Novels'. Like much of her stuff, it's an odd read when you're an adult, hence its inclusion.
Although theory, history, and context in science fiction can enhance enjoyment, I don't believe it would qualify as "important." Moreover, many of these aspects will naturally and organically develop in the serious science fiction reader over a period of time.
..but to be 'serious', the point will come when 'organic' development will be superseded by actively reading up on history, context and theory. I've been talking with other SF readers in my job as a bookseller for almost forty years and I regularly meet readers with decades of books behind them who- because they've never delved into history or context other than organically- have missed lots of great material which I've then revealed to them and that they've subsequently enjoyed. Having an inquiring mind seems to me implicit in 'serious' SF readership and I can't see the additional pleasure that brings as anything other than important, pace the Socrates quotation I employed in this video.
Where is science fiction now... In some of our bookstores, it's squeezed between fantasy and young adults, and the racks are less and less full of great writers, sadly.
I think you should read whatever takes your fancy. Mixing the colours broadens the mind and helps you understand different aspects of writing. I have jumped from heart of darkness to sing backwards and weep , open the sky to other days other eyes to steppenwolf and Martian time slip to name just a few. All very different all worth a try, if it’s bad you soon know ,move on. Your recommendations are usually spot on ! Orwell , M John and Vance Next . Thanks for all the hard work Ps going to see hawkwind tomorrow 🫡
I enjoy tremendously the content on your channel, especially these Elements of SF videos and your deep dives into the history of the genre. Better than any podcast. Thank you and here is all the money I have left after buying so many of your recommended books. I just wish your nice UK editions were easy to find here in the US.
Many thanks for your exceptional kindness, super-thanks really does help the channel keep going- I hope I continue to stimulate your interest. I feel the same about US books LOL!
I like Bertrand Russell's: The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.
You said it, thanks Ian!
SF entertains in many ways, but I find its most important is how it causes one to wonder. Fundamental to experiencing happiness, (which is the result of doing pleasurable things, to my way of thinking), "wonder" is a universal exercise shared by all, it brings us together, and gives rise to consensus. Once a group of people come to an accord, or agree on the rules of the game, real progress can be made in the realm of human understanding, and advance the cause of striving for a better society and world. SF does this for me in a way no other kind of literature can. I'm hopelessly hooked on it and that's alright by me. Thanks for another mind-expanding tutorial on the genre, Stephen, your eloquence continues to astound. Love this channel! Cheers.
Completely agree, my friend. There really is nothing like it!
From 4:40 , such a good articulation of the overwhelming meta of media.
We try!
Theory, history, and context are crucial in science fiction as they provide depth, credibility, and socio-political relevance to speculative narratives. elements that help ground fantastical stories in real-world understanding, enhancing both their impact and plausibility.
Love Magazine - cut up shapes is an amazing song - a feast of sounds and the cut up concepts. Maybe SF is the hypothesis generating machine that provides the subjects for scientific research to test. In scientific academia you are likely to get your new ideas shot down but if you call it SF, there is more freedom to explore with less fear of humiliation or exclusion.
Very interesting video, Steve. I do find my enjoyment of science fiction deepening as my pool of references grows. I also agree that fiction's value proposition is not one of strict "enjoyment." Good literature asks something from us in return.
I've been thinking over the course of a few books about how preoccupied the genre seems to be / to have been with religion. The easiest explanation is also the cheapest (to me), that science fiction is a bulwark of reason against old forms of mysticism. Seems like this is a popular notion. But almost every SF book I read that deals with religion is some form of apologia on its behalf.
I think there's something there that also helps parse the differences between science fiction and fantasy. Science fiction seems much closer to religious narrative than fantasy, despite fantasy bearing closer superficial resemblance in terms of imagery and the presence of magic. Good science fiction makes large truth claims, is concerned with big picture narratives about the universe-as-it-really-exists as opposed to universe-as-pure-fabulation.
Past a certain threshold of quality, "philosophic science fiction" has a tang of redundancy to me. I can't think of any good science fiction I've read that doesn't grapple with religion-scale questions of our nature, our consciousness and our moral responsibilities. I experience it in a very similar way as I experience reading religious source texts or Christian commentary. I almost never get this sense from fantasy.
I'm sure someone has already articulated this idea better than I have. Wonder if you agree.
Hey Matt, good to hear from you as always.
It is interesting how SF does so often tackle the 'Priests in Space' thing and this has often troubled me, especially the end of 'A Case of Conscience'. SF is full of these apologia as you say, from 'A Clockwork Orange' to 'The Sparrow', 'Canticle' and so on. As I see the dividing line between Fantasy and SF as very much focused around the movement from 'Religion and the Decline of Magic' as one history book title put it- to Enlightenment rationalism, this is a clearly a potentially troublesome point. You would expect more deconstruction of Religion in SF- though you could say it is deconstructed in SF much of the time by the fact that it is basically ignored in so much genre SF. There are some definite critiques too, such as the George Zebrowksi novel I read last year which was very pointed in underlining the damage religion can do. Chelsea Quinn Yarbro's stunning historical vampire romances (The St Germain Sequence) also build up an overpowering sense of how religion has oppressed so many people and is irrational over the course of a thirty book series.
I think so many of us have come to put our faith in science to such a degree that it resembles religious belief, except of course its base is fundamentally different and always shifting as our knowledge evolves and changes. In SF, the very best of which I feel is almost always metaphoric, it seems to me that any subject is free to play- which leads me to your point on 'Philosophical SF' which is a tautology really, right? I think youtubers are just using it as a hookline, myself LOL. The thing you mention re Truth is very valid in this argument too, since what we all seem to want is certainty, but I'd make a distinction between Truth (which I use as meaning a personal and subjective view) and Fact (which is objective, provable and fundamentally a scientifically testable concept). For me, Science keeps uncertainty and possibility alive, whereas Religion simply wants us to rely on blind faith much of the time- and this is where I see the dividing line between scientific doubt and religious certainty as quantifying the divide.
I think this is where 'I almost never get this sense from Fantasy' comes in. I agree, I rarely get this either: Fantasy-even when wonderfully entertaining as story - doesn't have to be rigorous in its arguments, does not have to convince, but merely takes things on faith and trust, so it's philosophically weaker by default.
I think you put it all very well, incidentally, as you always do. I'll be in touch and thanks as ever for your insightful words.
@Outlaw Bookseller I would suggest most SF authors study History pretty closely, and if that is guiding them, they choose words carefully. Religion is tricky, agreed.
Alienating a significant part of your audience leads to starvation or another vocation.
The Golden Age writers had just seen and lived through another apocalyptic war. I think that would have a lot to do with a concern for some Moral Authority and a nod to The Ten Commandments and The Golden Rule. Star Trek Original Series clearly did. Gene Roddenberry and Gene L. Coon both saw heavy combat in WW2, and that effects everyone for life. The Forbidden Planet scene where the Captain informs Morbius: "That is why we have Laws and Religion" is quite powerful.
I saw the very wild American Comedian Lewis Black say; "Before Moses most men were 10 hairs from being monkeys." If Historical accounts are accurate, I can not disagree. Did God give Moses the Ten Commandments, or did Moses look around and think he needed to give the fear of God to the monkeys? Or, we can look at the Ancient Aliens theory, the benevolent Aliens wanted us to clean up and trade with them. I would think Moses is most likely to succeed.
Regardless, some behavioral outlines are probably a very good idea. If it slows down murderous activity, it passes The Scientific Method.
Even Bradbury wrote "The Man", which caught me off guard when I first read it.
BTW, when Gene Roddenbery was showing the restored first Pilot with Jeffrey Hunter at Colleges in 1974, he walked around and spoke with quite a few of us before it started!
I'm enjoying the Elements of SF series very much. Always inspiring and lots to think about. And - how cool is that - just one minute into the video and Magazine get a namecheck. Absolutely brilliant.
Well, Devote is such a good writer he naturally comes to mind a lot!
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Magazine sounded like a band from the future. I always heard elements of SF within their music.
@@clivesnowden4348 Yes, they were the cutting edge- some of the stuff on the second album always seemed very postnuclear and dystopian.
I really appreciate the erudition, historical context and analysis of SF and literature you provide in your videos. Your explanation as to what makes SF and how it is distinct from Fantasy is the best explanation i have encountered. I also am interested in taxonomy and the classification of things.
The breadth, width and depth of your knowledge is immense and impressive.
Thanks for educating viewers on your channel! I always come back with more things to look out for and thing about, after watching your videos.
Thanks Matthew. I feel the idea of defining SF has been shied away from for too long, even by some renowned critics. More on this to come.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal , interesting 🤔! Looking forward to seeing your critical analysis.
Another great video that is really a condensed education in a little over 20 minutes. As a former teacher of mathematics and science I've enjoyed science fiction as a way to narrate thought experiments with a "what if" focus and a sense of wonder. This thought experiment narrative can be done with style and precision which is literature. Having said that, the other side of the coin is the pulp tradition of SF. For me the enjoyment really kicks in when my brain chemistry is changed by what I read. A Clockwork Orange did that to me .
Same here Daniel. I can read most SF, but it's the mind-altering material that works best for me too.
As Ozzie WIlde once said, "an inordinate passion for pleasure is the secret of remaining young". It was a pleasure to watch this, thank you.
Exactly, Michael. Thanks for this.
Wonderful observations and discussion! Great analysis! The sense of wonder is critical to attracting new readers, and I agree with your views on History and intellectual topics. I hope for at least one character to be a competent man or woman, too. For George Lucas films, I would suggest watching his THX 1138 film prior to Star Wars.
I certainly agree The Scientific Method and Isolation Troubleshooting are critical Philosophies to utilize. I started using these at 16. I wrote an essay on Philosophy expressing that sentiment just a few days ago. I do not see much else out there of practical use.
The young SF booktubers recently renewed my interest in SF. Over the last 3 months, I have reread many books from my Library, read 5 recommended by booktubers, and reviewed Modern Philosophy. I wanted to see if my thoughts on these subjects had changed over 45 years.
From 1963 to 1970, I read hundreds of SF books and magazines, moving to more than I could track by 1990. I sold off about 1000 in 2012.
I had read RAH's History and Moral Philosophy class by 15, and then Van Vogt's interest in General Semantics spurred me to read Korzybski's Science and Sanity at 15, too. The High School had us read the big 3 - Plato, Aristotle and Socrates, with Kant, Camus, Jefferson, Hamilton, Marx, Vance Packard, The Scientific Method and a few others thrown in. 1984, Animal Farm, Anthem, Brave New World, English Lit. were also required and all read while I was 14/15/16. I added the SF class, American Short Story, a bunch of stuff! Continued that in College, more SF, Philosophy, Psychology, and History, all very interesting.
I read Kornbluth's short: "The Cosmic Expense Account" a satire of Functional Epistemology at 16. No matter how hard I tried sensory deprivation or meditation; I could not levitate, read minds, feed anyone or see alternative realities! Who knew..
Nice to hear from someone who was led into broader areas by SF. Yes, 'THX1138' is a classic, easily the best thing Lucas did- if only more 'Star Wars' fans could get to that stage...
I am a teacher of German and Philosophy at what would compare - I believe - to a grammar school in Britain. Graduates of that school are qualified to enter university.
Anyway, as the German curriculum for my eight graders gives me some freedom of choice, we are currently reading a science fiction short story: “Retrograde Summer” by John Varley in German translation.
I found, that among 25 students 3 were familiar with the term “Science Fiction”. They related it exclusively to STAR WARS. On closer inspection in appeared, that that franchise has lost much of its appeal among younger folks.
Their favourite brand of fantastic fiction still is “Harry Potter”. Also, a blend of fantasy and mild horror seems to be popular.
Even so, Varley’s story of two young adults getting trapped under rubble on Mercury, did appeal to them. We will continue our journey with “Sherlock Holmes: The Speckled Band”.
A most interesting video, by the way, as always. Cheers!
Genre SF has always struggled as literature against the entry point that most people come in from - i.e. mass media SF in cinema and TV, which is more often than not the lowest common denominator. After 'Star Wars' and in a world like ours dominated by Screens, this has intensified and expectations of SF, borne of this mass-media variant, naturally colour expectations and have, as a result, had a massively negative effect on even young SF writers, who are working from a base outside the written word. Hence the generally poor quality of contemporary written SF, I feel.
I think now young people are increasingly geared to Escapism, since the dystopian reality of a world facing climate chaos encourages them to retreat. There has always been a far bigger escapist audience, of course. It must be really interesting to teach this material to young people, good for you and thanks very much for your kind comments on my work here.
I agree, but I’d like to suggest SF as an approach/sensibility. I’m thinking of William Gibson’s Pattern Recognition. It’s written like SF based on Gibson’s focus and style. You mentioned in another video about the movie Drive being SF like. That’s also in line with what I am thinking here. I’m personally interested in writing near future crime fiction. SF as a sensibility. It’s a struggle. Especially being mindful that cyberpunk has become an aesthetic and abused badly.
Yes, this is where I use the term 'Slipstream' - in the late 80s, when it was bandied about a lot in the wake of Cyberpunk, it seemed to have two meanings: (1) a commercial one - the UK specialist SF bookshops chain Forbidden Planet would have a 'Slipstream' bay in their larger shops, stocked with titles which were not SF but read by SF readers a lot- Burroughs, Bukowski etc, And (2) as a means of highlighting how increasingly, there was fiction being published that 'felt like SF' even if it wasn't. This latter sense was how 'Speculative Fiction' was used by Moorcock et al (and Ellison) in New Worlds at the end of the 1960s to show how the contemporary world and near-future SF were infecting 'mainstream' literature.
I think this is where history and the recognition of Modernism and Postmodernism comes in. To those with an historical understanding of Cultural Production since the rise of the mass media- what McLuhan called 'The Global Village' (which only truly came onboard with the advent of the internet and smartphones), we've clearly been living in an SF world for some time. Now that pretty much everything in the history of Cultural Production is accessible to all online - photographs, text, film/video, audio recording- nothing is actually new anymore except when one is young and first discovering the arts. Now, Cultural Production, confronted with the problem that people were 'programmed' by Modernism for almost a century to expect the 'New' we see a retreat into artisanship - the recycling of ideas, perfectly underlined by the free play of surfaces and semiotics. This seems to me to underline why Space Opera, which is more often than not nostalgic, 'safe', recursive and traditional, resurged in the UK in the late 1980s - it just needed a champion like Banks, who was already popular. New Wave and Literary SF were always more established in the UK than the USA in genre publishing and as the likes of Ballard, Priest, Harrison and others burned down the curtain of genre ghetto, it was inevitable there would be a traditionalist backlash into cosiest of skiffy tropes.
Looking at 'mainstream' publishing over the last few decades, it's interesting to see how much of the very stuff of Genre SF has been used and marketed as general fiction. Not that this didn't happen before, but most serious young writers now automatically use 'speculative' elements in many of their stories- some very well and with great originality, others with no clear understanding that what they are doing is not new. For me, Gibson's 'Blue Ant' trilogy is one of the highest examples of what I guess we could call 'The New Slipstream' - fiction that feels so contemporary that it might as well be from a few minutes in the future.
Re Crime Fiction - yes, I've noticed more and more that fiction published as Crime is increasingly borrowing SF conceits and that more writers are working in both genres: another example of how traditional Realist modes are waking up to a world changed forever by technology. Good luck with your writing and thanks for your insightful comment!
I enjoyed Drive quite a bit. It did remind me of some of Keith Laumer's characters. You may like "Stretch" with Patrick Wilson.
@@joebrooks4448 Thanks, will check it out. Of course, 'Drive' is based on a novel by James Sallis, who in the 1960s was a New Wave SF writer for New Worlds magazine.
@Outlaw Bookseller I saw that, too!
Laumer was not exactly New Wave. His Retief series was highly entertaining, as well as highly educational. His Time Travel and critical SF were amazingly good. He did write some very esoteric stuff. "It Could Be Anything" is an example. Looking... Project Guttenberg has it.
The Valley of The Gwangi! We did not know what to do with it. My HS buddies were like, "Not Again!" We saw it, of course. Also, The Hammer Production of Five Million Years To Earth (restored, now) when it finally reached the US, and the Anderson's Journey to the Far Side Of The Sun.
All staples of youth!
I often associate SF with a feeling of strangeness in that it takes something familiar and twists it in some way but not so dissociated to tap the fantasy center of the Brain. It's kind of like uncanny valley phenomena with androids. You get this strange sensation in stomach- cognitively estranged as you say. Fantasy can't create that estrangement because it is too removed from familiarity - it's just escape.
Yes- Fantasy relies on anchronism, on symbolism that is already deepwired historically within us, maybe in a Jungian sense- ultimately, it's too familiar as story already.
Thanks for another stimulating video. It's amazing how much of the same ground we've covered, with Socrates and his outlining of elenchus.
I think it's impossible to read SF without even inadvertently plunging into philosophy, more than any other genre. Thanks for your comment.
Nice lecture professor 😂..Labeling a book as SF, Frankenstein comes to mind immediately. I see amongst SF readers that there is no question but horror readers might disagree. I haven't read it for awhile but as I remember there was very little science and no real explanation of theory. To me it leaned more into the psychological/philosophical genre. Wondering what are your thoughts?
Take a look at the video on my channel entitled 'Mary Shelley Was Never Cancelled!: Frankenstein, Cyberpunk and the Sublime' (or something like that- the first sentence of this may only be in the thumbhnail). Also check my videos in the 'Genre Theory' playlist on why Horror is not a genre, but a bricolage. Specifically, in 'Frankenstein', you'll recall that when Victor relates his story to Walton, he states that he is not going to give any details so that no-one can replicate his experiment because of the damage its outcome wrought - the real point of my thesis re SF is that it does NOT matter if the Science in a story is entirely credible based on our current knowledge because (1) our knowledge of science is always growing and (2) Science FICTION (note the emphasis) is about how the undeniable consistent effectiveness of the scientific method (as opposed to supernatural 'systems' such as Magic) yielded consistent proof-making results. So SF stems from the Enlightenment idea of Rationalism as superseding superstition and the irrational- it's an exploration of the Scientific worldview through fictional metaphors (the common and uncommon tropes are metaphors for actual science as well as suggestions for where science might go in the future). If a writer explains or implies his or her Novum as scientific (which it is by default), then it's SF- otherwise, they are using an Anachronism which is non-scientific, hence Fantasy.
This is where 'Frankenstein' is so credible as a claimant for the title of 'The first Modern Science Fiction Novel'. It is born out of Byron and Shelley's conversations in front of Mary Shelley about experiments in galvinism and the origin of life. Now Mary- alongside her husband and his friend- being Romantics obsessed with the awe, beauty and terror of the Sublime - were part of the Romantic reaction against the Enlightenment some thirty to forty years earlier (coming as it did alongside the French Revolution), which many feared was reducing nature to clockwork. Psychology and Philosophy are not fictional genres after all, but are applicable to all kinds of fiction- and all good fiction, I'd say, of any kind.
Talking about animal stories . I remember when i was a kid reading Animal Farm . And i enjoyed the " fairy " tale of talking animals ( i was very young...) .Years later as i matured i got the message .I saw it with new eyes and i understood why my socialist friend hated it with a passion . I gained something but at a price . I think SF does that we get some thing but the price .....I am told Animal Farm is not SF but a fable . About Star Wars , i saw SW as a fantasy quest . The original 3 . Later it tried to grow (? ) into SF ( my bias informed opinion ) . Thanks for the video .
Yes, Orwell was very clear about the Fabular form of 'Animal Farm' - and of course it was intended as a specific attack on how the Soviet revolution was betrayed from within by the power-hungry and therefore an illustration of Totalitarianism. Orwell was very much the gadfly of the Left then, believing passionately in democratic Socialism, always calling out apologists for Stalin, of whom there were many in intellectual circles then. Time proved him right, of course. When he moved into SF with 'Nineteen Eighty-Four', it's interesting that the Party follows an ideology called Ingsoc ('English Socialism') which sounds very much like National Socialism (Nazi)- and in Goldstein's book, it is made clear that what matters in the Super-States of the future is that the have identical structures despite theoretically (but actually identically Totalitarian) political systems. His use of SF and Fable in this way is typical of his mastery.
@Outlaw Bookseller I recently realized I needed to replace Blair's incredibly great works. My 1984 copy of 1984, with Walter Cronkite's brilliant introduction and Erich Fromm's equally great afterword is still viable.
Surprisingly, I was able to pick up large paperback editions of 1984 and Animal Farm at a local Target store. 1984 containing the Erich Fromm afterword. But the two hardbound copies of 1984 I purchased contain very concerning text. The introduction to one literally utilizing The Memory Hole, free speech suppression, and Doublespeak. The other one's dust cover called Blair "one of the twentieth centuries greatest myth makers" and added "the Totalitarian system that provoked him has passed into oblivion"
I can throw away the dust cover, but I can not resell the other, that would denigrate Blair's legacy. I guess I could just cut out the offending material. I have only checked the appendix in both against my 1984 edition. Comparing the entire text in both for sacrilege may be too onerous. I may just pitch them both.
@@joebrooks4448 There are now quite a number of bad editions of 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' out there since it is out of copyright now. Many have '1984' on the cover, which is not the title of course as 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' is what Orwell wrote as the title in the ms. and of course to abbreviate to 'one nine eight four' leads to the kind of misreading I've just made here deliberately and it's also an indication of Newspeak, being an abbreviation, while the full words have weight and colour. The UK Faber edition is particularly bad, as it uses '1984' and omits the Appendix, which is of course about Newspeak but it written as Fiction, indicating subtly that in the future it is written, the Totalitarian system may well be over- so it's part of the novel, despite the firm, ironic use of 'The End' at the close of what appears to be the final chapter before the appendix.
The Penguin Modern Classic edition is still authoritative, though the annotated one lacks proper indexing and the Gollancz SF Masterworks one- which no-one seems to stock- has a brilliant introduction by Ian Dunt, a British political journalist.
@Outlaw Bookseller I had no idea! I knew the old American version has been criticized a bit for changing "towards" to "toward" or vice versa, but had no clue anyone would have the gall to alter this incredibly important work. I meant my year of 1984 published edition!
Are people altering Moby Dick, Babbitt, etc. now?
@Outlaw Bookseller Both the Hardbounds say Nineteen Eighty - Four.
One is salvageable. It is from Everyman's Library. New printing from Germany. The other says, "Flame Tree," printed in China. This one may be salvageable. It contains Animal Farm as well. And some Jack London, and some Blair non fiction.
The only film version I thought did any justice to the book is the Peter Cushing starring version.
I have watched your previous elements videos. Can you give just one example of a novel for each of Novum, Paradigm Shift, Cognitive Shift and Conceptual Breakthrough? Or perhaps a novel which has all elements? I’m thinking of this as a thumbnail for the elements.
All great SF novels have all of these elements - though many weaker ones lack the final Conceptual Breakthrough and some don't provide a fresh Novum or Cogitive Dissonance very well. I don't understand what you mean by a 'thumbnail' in this context?
Let's take 'Planet of the Apes', which I know you've read - the Novum is space travel to another world, the Cognitive Dissonance for Ulysse (and also for the reader) is the strangeness of discovering that Apes are dominant on Soror and the Conceptual Breakthrough comes in the last two words of the novel, when the true nature of the frame narrative characters (Phyllis & Jinn) is revealed, turning reader expectations on their head and shifting the reality of the book into a new paradigm.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal Thank you. By thumbnail I meant a representation of the element that I could visualize , say as a novel cover. Your example is succinct and illustrates each element.
I think you miss the point that all fiction is fantasy, even if it's set in a real locale, because it springs from the human imagination, it isn't real.
My view on your question is that context, history, etc, are essential to the enjoyment of SF. It's because of a lack of this background knowledge that so many seem to think that SF began with fat space fantasies.
Well, I wouldn't say I miss the point, simply by using the word 'fiction' it's implicit that we're discussing something contrived. This reminds me of a friend once saying to me that because all fiction was speculative, speculative fiction wasn't a useful label- which is a good point and I tend not to use it. I often say 'Fiction is a game with no defined outcome,' which is why Art, of course, is superior to sport as in Oscar Wilde's quote about the uselessness of Art. Abd 100% with you on background knowledge.
Star Wars of course has a good amount of direct homage to classic western The Searchers, right down to reproduced camera shots? The narrative structures are similar too, but the particular narrative structure is not restricted to either the Western or Science Fiction. How do your SF characteristics apply to Star Wars? Or should we conclude that it is fantasy and not SF?
I think 'Star Wars' is Fantasy, since The Force both exists and is mystical. As you imply, a narrative structure does not a genre make. As for camera setups, I don't think that has a genre function, but as you say, is homage.
One could argue that all novels about aliens are in fact dressed up talking animal stories. My point being that assumptions are everything, and despite our best efforts there are always edge cases that break the rule.
Well yes, but I'd say that the way most authors treat aliens in fiction is as sentient intelligences above the 'animal' level re self-awareness, technology etc. But you're right, there are numerous examples of more animalistic treatments - I'm re-reading some of Garry Kilworth's early novels currently and aliens who appear to be 'mere' animals are sometimes anything but in his work. It seems to me that the creation of credible aliens is quite a challenge for any author and as we have nothing to go by, assumptions naturally arise. It's an eternally fascinating SF topic, I think.
@@outlawbookselleroriginal A fascinating topic indeed.
Kings Play Chess On Fine Glass Stools
I had to look that one up, I should have spotted that- and damn, I forgot 'Kingdom'! Thanks!
Back when I was young, my progression went from herpatologist to exobiologist. But ended with philosophy. So I drive a dump truck
:0
Love Magazine
Great stuff, right?
The light pours out of me!
@@thekeywitness -Well yes.
Is that a Moomin?
You betcha. It's actually a Moomin lamp powered by USB. "Comet In Moominland" is in my book '100 Must Read Fantasy Novels'. Like much of her stuff, it's an odd read when you're an adult, hence its inclusion.
Although theory, history, and context in science fiction can enhance enjoyment, I don't believe it would qualify as "important." Moreover, many of these aspects will naturally and organically develop in the serious science fiction reader over a period of time.
..but to be 'serious', the point will come when 'organic' development will be superseded by actively reading up on history, context and theory. I've been talking with other SF readers in my job as a bookseller for almost forty years and I regularly meet readers with decades of books behind them who- because they've never delved into history or context other than organically- have missed lots of great material which I've then revealed to them and that they've subsequently enjoyed. Having an inquiring mind seems to me implicit in 'serious' SF readership and I can't see the additional pleasure that brings as anything other than important, pace the Socrates quotation I employed in this video.
Where is science fiction now...
In some of our bookstores, it's squeezed between fantasy and young adults, and the racks are less and less full of great writers, sadly.
Sad but true.
I think you should read whatever takes your fancy. Mixing the colours broadens the mind and helps you understand different aspects of writing. I have jumped from heart of darkness to sing backwards and weep , open the sky to other days other eyes to steppenwolf and Martian time slip to name just a few. All very different all worth a try, if it’s bad you soon know ,move on. Your recommendations are usually spot on ! Orwell , M John and Vance Next . Thanks for all the hard work Ps going to see hawkwind tomorrow 🫡
Absolutely. Enjoy the gig, haven't seen the Hawks for eleven years!
Is Dave brock really 80 ?? Levitation brainstorm you better believe it best tracks and some warrior on the edge. Long may they fly.👍🏻