Slashdot Mirror
What Makes Great Science Fiction?
cheesethegreat writes "Have you ever noticed how everyone breaks down into a near-religious frenzy when the topic of the "best" science fiction universe comes up? Everyone has a favorite universe, be it the Foundation Series by Asimov, or the classic Star Wars trilogy. So tell Slashdot what your favorite is, and what the most important part of a science fiction universe is to you."
As much as I like nearly all science fiction universes, my favorite is that of Dune. Herbert's universe is filled with politics, planets, populations and dozens of complicated plots that could affect whole galaxies. He manages to convey a vast and complicated universe through his works. I am always amazed.
Sci-Fi needs to tell a story, period. Many times you read a sci fi novel and the author is obviously in love with how clever he can be. Sci-Fi is about expanding ideas, not how clever an author can be. An author needs to suspend disbeleif, this can almost be as easy as Orson Scott Card (enders game) when he assumes technology exists, because then we can see how it affects the characters and devise how we beleive it works. Or an author can take the road of Peter F. Hamilton (reality dysfunction) and completely describe every minute detail about how things interact and function. Both authors achieve a suspension of disbeleif about things that are scientifically fictional, and they mix it with the good elements of a story, that are not sci fi at all. The blending of sci-fi concepts and ideas and a good solid story seemlessly make a good science fiction novel.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
As good literature: nontrivial (but feasible)technical ideas, good non-cartoonish characters (read: NOT Luke Skywalker or Captain Kirk), interesting plot (read: not necessary ends with happy end). In general, one may actually have more questions after finishing the book than he had in the beginning. BTW, Lem is one of such authors. Philip Dick is another.
I think what makes great science fiction isn't the universe, it's the concept behind it. Of course, you can argue that this is what distinguishes short stories (which tend to be much more concept-oriented) from novels (which need to develop deeper characters, unless you can figure out a device like Asimov used in Foundation to get away with shallow character development). Still, I can think back on the great science fiction I've read, and most of it is really about the ideas, not about the universe.
After all, most sci-fi universes are just our own universe with something changed - a more complicated version of a Sliders episode. If everything were actually different, we'd have no reference point and it wouldn't mean anything. It's the fact that almost everything is the same except for some crucial difference (more advanced technology, or the Nazis winning WW2, etc.) that makes the stories compelling. That's why so many of these stories include some kind of foil character that the reader can identify with (Arthur Dent is a good example of this, but literally almost every single sci-fi book ever written contains at least one main character that is strikingly similar to people contemporary to the author's own culture). The story can often be created simply by allowing the contemporary typical person to clash with the changes introduced in the universe.
I really am a big Gibson fan. And no, not just because of the hacker-of-the-future thing. I think that when he writes (every 8 years or so, the lazy canadian bastard) he creates a future that could damn well be tomorrow. Granted, it's no Dune or LOTR, but I think he has a great mind.
Really, it's the same thing that makes any story good:
1) GOOD CHARACTERS
2) Good plot
3) Well-written imagery and narrative
Too many sci-fi writers seem to forget those rules. They take a gadget or a concept or an individual occurrence and try to stretch it into a novel, because it's sci-fi and "people who read sci-fi" (insert Trek convention stereotype here) will buy it no matter how shitty it is. They don't even TRY to be good writers.
Also, and even good writers can be guilty of this, they write into the genre rather than letting the genre be a non-factor. They don't develop a plot or a character in a logical way because that's "not sci-fi enough." You can always tell when a writer has shoehorned something into what they percieve as a sci-fi limitation.
Asimov, Clarke, Bradbury, were the trinity of SF when I was a kid. The genre offers too much to be limited in thi way.
For really great SF look to Gibson, Stephenson, Sterling, Vonnegut...
Dont forget to read mary Shelley's Frankenstein, or Twain's Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.
The list of great SF goes on and on, basically because stories of the future answer or us the question "where are we going?"
The essence of great science fiction, to me anyways, is taking ordinary people as we know them in real life, then placing them in extraordinary (but still believable) situations. Of course, science and technology should be present, but it shouldn't dominate the story. If you let it upstage the rest of the story, you get garbage like Independence Day (which wasn't even very science-fictional, if you ask me).
Great science fiction sheds light on the inner workings of what people are like, by showing them in a different light. It serves as a warning about possible futures, examining implications of technologies both good and bad. And perhaps most of all, great science fiction has ideas and themes in it that can survive the test of time.
Cecil
One thing that makes great sci fi is when the story and setting can not only withstand the implications of the science, but grow naturally from it. Examples of science fiction stories that really reflect an understanding of their science are: everything by Vernor Vinge (particularly A Fire Upon the Deep, anything by Greg Egan (I particularly love Permutation City), and even the classic '50s film Forbidden Planet, whose plot is almost inevitable given its compelling techno-sociological premise.
Examples of Science Fiction that cannot withstand the implications of the science presented include Star Trek (particularly the later series) and the Star Wars franchise. Neither of them really know what they're getting themselves into with their technological advancements. Replicator technology in particular would be so transformative in reality that we would not recognize the society that resulted from its existence.
Niven is one of my personal favorites - you can't go wrong with the Ringworld books, or the Smoke Ring books(a world consisting of a gas torus around a white dwarf star, giant trees and humans evolved to live on them. Tech from when they first arrived is highly prized and guarded. Great stuff!) Pretty much all his books are good, I have noticed a battle of the haves and have-nots theme reappearing here and there.
Clarke is great and has put out alot of '2 hour' books, finish them on a long car ride - if you can stand your wife's/gf's driving ;)
Asimov is wonderful and has written something about everything. Clarke and Asimov I found while buying cheapy sci fi books at garage sales and thrift stores. I will *always* buy anthologies - they never fail to provide a story that amazes me, and authors that I've never heard of writing incredible stories. I'll post some when I find my books...
Nudity, robots and nude girls, nude girls floating in zero-g, nude girls in futuristic cities, and umm, nude girls.
I really love the classics:
Asimov, especially the original "Foundation" trilogy.
Clarke's "2001"
Heinlein's "Stranger In a Strange Land"
Niven's "Ringworld"
Among more modern works, I'm a big fan of Neil Gaiman("Neverwhere", "Sandman", "American Gods"), William Gibson("Neuromancer", "All Tomorrow's Parties") and Neil Stephenson("Snow Crash", "Cryptonomicon")
What I like about them differs. Asimov does large stories and themes well. There aren't any big characters in "Foundation", but the story is so beautifully put together, spanning hundreds of years. "Stranger In a Strange Land" is barely science fiction, dealing almost exclusively with people's perceptions and beliefs. Gaiman has an excellent knowledge of classical myth and legend and how to weave it into more modern stories. Gibson deals with themes and problems that are just starting to become an issue today. Stephenson's books vary in type and character, but most are pretty good. "Snow Crash" is a pretty out-there half cyberpunk/half action-flick novel, it's a great quick read. "Cryptonomicon" has two separate but related storylines fifty years apart, and he plays them off each other very well.
There's nothing specific to any one of these authors or their novels that I can single out, aside from good writing skills. Their novels are enjoyable and intelligent, which is all I require from any genre.
>Believable, REAL people.
Can't argue with this.
>Believable science.
Can argue with this. Look at Zelazny; often remarked that Zelazny "made magic feel like science, and science feel like magic" (forget the source). Coils, despite the dubious nature of the science, was still a good book. The Madness Season, terrible science, but still, fun book.
Believable science is good for HARD SCIENCE science fiction. A sci-fi story that isn't strictly old-school doesn't always suffer from a unbelievability.
Grok me?
To me, good science fiction starts with what makes good fiction. You need good, believable characters, an interesting plotline, etc. The difference between science fiction and other genres is the fact that there's science involved in it. There should be some correlation to real physical laws in the universe that may or may not have been discovered yet.
Science fiction is similar in some regards to horror and fantasy genres. They both are fiction that hold themselves within limitations that are commonly known. (Horror titles probably have a good amount of leeway. Fantasy titles enjoy more leeway than science fiction, also.) In my opinion, it is these limitations that make good science fiction.
Great science fiction asks, "What if?" questions that provoke our mind, but it'll do so within a hypothetical context. Take a look at LeGuin's Left Hand of Darkness for instance.
My personal favorite episode of Star Trek (Original) is City on the Edge of Forever. It asks the question of how important can a single person be? How important is a single moment in time? It also provides some great scenes with the interplay between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. (There's also that memorable line at the end, with McCoy saying, "I could have saved her! Do you know what you just did?" And Spock replying, "He knows, Doctor. He knows." Love it!)
I also personally enjoy Larry Niven's Known Space stuff. Hard science fiction is great. As a reader, you exercise your mind and get entertained. "Science fiction without a net" is the perfect way to describe it.
Finally, I really enjoy Gibson's stuff. I must have read Neuromancer about twenty times, and there's always something new to find in there. Great books are like that.
Where the wind blows, the tumbleweed goes.
I think RD is *VERY* funny, but one has to have a seriously bent sense of humor to truly appreciate it :)
I like other Sci-Fi as well and have recently just gotten hooked on Louis McMaster Bujold.
Fuzdout
..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
LeGuin's sci-fi (Left Hand of Darkness, Hain cycle, etc.) always struck me because of it's cultural realism. Even though the alien species posited are humanoid, the extreme difference in culture between the species makes for a great dramatic device (especially when help is decades away!). By giving them such different points of view from our own, she makes her writing much more humanly thoughtful than a lot of sci-fi out there. Just as she built up the world of Earthsea with offhand anecdotes regarding the world around the characters, building up the cultures of her alien worlds gives her novels both a satisfying completeness and a believable internal consistency.
No, he's answering the correct one.
The question was WHAT MAKES GOOD SCIENCE FICTION, not "what's the best sf out there".
Very big difference.
As for his opinion, he's dead right. Plot is the only place people have a lot of room to argue on; I say "plot" is good, but traditional plot structure blows. Traditional plot structure could not accomodate the story of an interstellar tyrant defeating his enemies to the point of extinction, assuming they offer no fight, and his race is unified, without identifying his conscience as the antagonist. However, from another standpoint, that could be really interesting; you might want to read it just for the sickness of it, or because the tyrant's mindset was so peculiar that you wanted to read it.
Sort of the BOFH, except interstellar war.
Thoughts?
I prefer to make a distinction between the three, because I think there can be great stories in all of them, however, if you block them together as tends to happen, you don't have good criteria with which to judge.
I think science fiction is fiction in which the science plays a major role. My example here is David Webber's Honor Harrington series: I think it's a good story, but obviously not fantasy: he takes too much care in making sure there are realistic scientific devices with known limitations, and builds his characters inside a world with that science.
Fantasy is simply where that doesn't happen: magic is the canonical example here: World XYZ has magic. We don't know *why* they have magic and we don't, but they have magic.
Speculative fiction, on the other hand, I characterize as the types of stories when the author says "what if this happened?" My classic example is the movie Pleasantville: "What if we were all in a black and white world and suddenly there was color?"
Speculative fiction can be either of the above catagories, but is unique in that it is usually a social commentary. As a book example, consider any of Ben Bova's novels. Especially his near-future ones, like "The Kinsman Saga". When it was written it was speculation about the future. What if the military took a real interest in space and we got missile defense to really work? And what if local problems like overcrowding and such were growing? Most good speculative fiction changes a few things, very few, and just paints a picture of what the world might be. Orwell's 1984 is just like that: "What if the government was always watching?".
In any case, there are many great novels in each category, but the distintions are so rarely made that trying to choose the best often leads to trying to pick one. I think it'd be much much easier (but still nontrivial) to pick a best in each catagory, rather than one overall. My picks:
Fantasy: LotR (Tolkein)
Speculative Fiction: Colony (Bova)
Science Fiction: The Worthing Saga (OSC)
These are just a few, there are many just as good. But I think it's a few good picks.
Heinlein had the ability to make his characters grow as the story progressed. I have always loved his story writing. And he never let technology bog down a story. Technology is a crutch to some writers...Look at StarWars II.
I also loved Zelazny's Amber series, although I guess that was more Fantasy than Sci-Fi.
Its hard to pick out the greatest, because there are several good ones. Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, Card...and the list goes on.
Vertical
72 CD D7 52 D0 7E D8 47 44 91 D5 84 D1 59 F1 A9-This is my 128bit integer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I was wondering when someone would bring up the Mars trilogy. Excellent excellent books. Some people don't like all the political stuff, I guess, but I thought it was intriguing, and seemed fairly realistic.. if people now could break away and start their own society "from scratch", the Martian society described by Robinson is a very credible possibility. Some of the "capitalism == evil" bits were somewhat annoying, but I don't have to agree with the book to be entertained by it. :)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Lovecraft's genius was to tap into the human anxiety about what might exist beyond the limits of reason and the safe, predictable, knowable world ,and the nagging thought that perhaps the universe itself might harbor malevolent intent toward our fragile planet and the humans who dwell on it (Lovecraft's characters would often go insane when faced with these alien horrors). .
These fears have manifested themselves throughout history in everything from witch trials to UFO scares. Lovecraft was so good at playing off this ancient unease, in the process creating his own universe of alien gods and beings, that his legacy lives on decades after his stories (never out of print) were first published, in the form of countless "Cthulhu Mythos" stories, games, and of course tribute websites.
You really think Heinlein wrote believable characters?
Sure he created INTERESTING characters, but believeable?
His characters were two-dimensional macho-man stereotypes. Oversexed geniuses spouting half-baked libertarian claptrap.
Gender-swapping pirates who walk around naked?
Nymphomaniac housewives who collect PhDs and shag their own children?
Dimension-hopping perverts who cavort with dragons and vacation in the land of Oz?
Interesting, sure. Believable is another matter.
The most important thing in Science Fiction is to never ever, under any circumstances make up any science. All the really good series have fantastic machines, faster than light travel and all kinds of silly impossibilities, but they never try to explain how they work. Fiction stories exist in a realm that we choose to believe for the time being. This suspension of disbelief (as the lingo goes) lasts only as long as the reader can imagine such a world.
Take, for example, the world created by Orson Scott Card in Ender's Game. The world is great and totally believable. The greatness even lasts into a sequel. In the third book (the name escapes me) Card starts to explain the physics of his world and the storyline breaks down. It is no longer believable. Go ahead and flip back through the series. The instant that he starts to mention this new, crazy physics of his is the instant the story falls apart into completely unbelievable crap. You just can't make up physics. Stretch it, bend it, but never try to tell the reader how it happens. That's the trick to good science fiction.
SadSaddened to read Iain M. Banks isn't popular among the US bookshops, in my opinion he has to be the best Sci-Fi writer I have read.
l ture.html for an explanation of his unique Utopian universe.
and he has the best ship names in the business...
(seems to have influence Xbox Halo a fair bit as well)
His non Sci-Fi Iain Banks (winner of most transparent nom d plume award) is pretty good too.
Others I have introduced to him too were blown away, so I wholeheartedly encourage you to seek him out.
Read http://homepages.compuserve.de/Mostral/artikel/cu
I think you are missing something. What makes great science fiction is politics and psychology. I have never read a single science fiction piece that really got into my skull that wasn't challenging some present-day assumption about society or the individual.
I think all great science fiction seeks to answer not just "what if?" but "where do we go from here?". The technology in science fiction is not just a prop, it is usually a disguise for an topical issue in the here-and-now. "Sci-fi" that uses technology as a "gee-whiz" element is just fantasy or action dressed up as science fiction.
Personally, the best stuff I've ever read has been short stories. Something about SF has always lent itself to short, concise explorations of a single theme. I think novels tend to get tricky, since you need a few themes and a really strong philosophy to back it up.
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
For me, it is not what is in it, or what it is about, or how realistic the science is. Good science fiction is science fiction that makes me think about themes and ideas that are sometimes only barely explored by the work itself. It's usually the kind of story that sticks with me for only a little bit, and then when I think that I've forgotten all about it, it comes back and plows me over.
Kubrick's version of The Clockwork Orange might fit this definition for me.
Maybe Socrates' (Plato's) story of the cave.
Roger Zelazny's lyrical short story Frost comes back to me every now and then, as well as Wolfe's even more lyrical and adept New Sun books.
Tsutomu Nihei's manga series Blame is remarkable for its visual style, and what is even more remarkable is the story it contains--one that can only be told through the particular medium which Nihei has selected.
And of course, my favorite place to find good science fiction is in Gardner Dozois' yearly anthology of short stories, The Year's Best Science Fiction. The summation at the beginning of the past year in science fiction is worth the price of the book, and the many stories inside are pure gold.
I'm a big fan of P.K. Dick.
Whenever they make a Dick book into a movie they change things around, but his characters tend to be schlubby middle aged guys teetering on the brink of loserdom.
In Blade Runner Decker is a guy whose greatest ambition in life is to have a sheep, a real one, not a synthetic animal.
Dick's view of the future was all about the countless new ways things will suck.
And then there's the madness that crept in at the end.
Yep. Dune is the best. Well, at least, the Frank Herbet ones are. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for his Son's work - The Brian Herbet Prequels just don't cut it. The writing is very weak and the characters are one-dimensional. Still, the Prequels are nevertheless entertaining. My advice to a Dune Newbie is to read the Frank herbet novels first.
... and here's how you can convince yourself: generalize your question to
..." qualification, you can find something that violates those criteria that you *still* think is GREAT.
What makes Great Fiction?
or
What Makes Great Literature?
or, even better,
What Makes Great Writing?
I can guarantee you, that for any criteria you care to propose for "Great
Heinlien,
In a word, no. Most of the female characters in his books were just his libertarian wet dreams. How realistic are super-proficient women, who just happen to dress provocatively and mouth his beliefs perfectly?
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
There's little if anything is unique to great science fiction versus great fiction in general.
So what's great fiction? Great fiction changes the reader; for better or for worse it leaves the reader in a subjectively significantly different state after reading. It can be subtle, it can be life founding, it can simply illuminate a viewpoint, but it leaves a mark in a manner the reader knows of or about (if only long after the fact).
Why and how does it leave a mark? That rather depends on the exact mark left on which exact reader. Social, cultural, and educational background play a huge role and don't even begin to define the set.
That said, what do I consider makes for great SF? Something that leaves me thinking, especially if it leaves me thinking months or years later. There are works which achieve that mark. David Zindell's Neverness is one. L E Modesitt Jr's Adiamantine is another. Stepping outside the SF boundary Myer's Silverlock has left such deep marks I'm forced to renew them regularly. The list goes on.
As a kid, I read just about anything sci-fi...but even then, I think I recognized the gems of the genre. The books I kept, versus the books I gave away or sold, includes a list of the authors I still read and enjoy today. Back then, if there were robots or sex or spaceships, it was probably good enough for me to read it once...but what I kept has some qualities that the majority of the pulp stuff just doesn't have.
I think sci-fi without a real science underpinning is generally crap. The science doesn't have to involve mechanical technology in the form of spaceships or robotics, it can just as easily be the science of sociology or the science of medicine. But where "sci-fi" pulp fiction often fails is in being too dedicated to mysterious magical developments...I'm afraid the Star Trek and Star Wars universes often fail because of this reliance on trappings of mystery. The explanation of The Force as a virus just seems forced, if you'll forgive the pun. Star Trek has too many dramatic dying scenes and too many dramatic miraculous healing scenes for either to be believable.
Good sci-fi asks tough questions about how the human race will realize some dream, and what the cost will be. Great sci-fi shows us the fallacy of common truisms, and makes a case for the other side. As has been said many times before, science fiction is about asking "What if?" and making an honest attempt to figure it out.
Asimov, of course, deserves the title of great science fiction writer. The Foundation novels are compelling for their sweeping vision of a human future (not The human future, as no one knows what The human future will be, and there wouldn't be so much point to sci-fi if we did). History and social sciences are merged and theorized into a strikingly convincing future. One comes away from them with a little more understanding of human history, and human behavior on a grand scale. Of course, it wouldn't be very much fun if the story wasn't worthwhile as fiction. In that regard too, Asimov is a lonely figure (though not entirely alone) in the sci-fi landscape. Humor permeates his every novel and story, along with a profound sense of joy and surprise at the diversity of the human race. Every character is real, complete and knowable. Without the human element, science fiction is just more useless techno-babble.
Heinlein too, has persisted in my book collection, and his best works are capable of impressing even people ordinarily bored to tears by sci-fi. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, perhaps my favorite, provides laugh-out-loud comedy, strikingly human personalities (even on Mike the computer), and a great story of "what if?". What if a computer developed "life"? What if the moon housed a colony of humans, growing tired of being dominated by Earth? What makes a revolution? The best of Heinlein is respectful of history, is lovingly impressed with and in equal part disgusted with the human race (to know us is to love us...and hate us), and perhaps most importantly, fun as hell to read.
Stanislaw Lem is a new one for me, but one that I can't help be impressed with. I recently picked up Peace on Earth because of frequent Slashdot recommendations, and was simply blown away. Lem knows science, and is convincing whenever he wanders into imagining the future of technology. Lem also knows the human mind, and presents it in all its glory and fallability. But the key to Lem is his feel for the movement of a story. The story flows from beginning to end with the majestic and impossible force of a glacier...it is unstoppable, and yet it is almost unnoticeable in its momentum. It reaches its conclusion with almost crushing force, and leaves the reader satisfied at having made good use of the time spent reading.
All of that said, I keep finding myself wanting to differentiate the above authors from run of the mill science fiction by talking down the things they are not. They are not writing fantastic tales of improbable outcomes in entirely fictitious universes. That is the realm of fantasy writers. Science fiction requires a respect for science, not a mindless fascination with explosions and shiny things. Of course, great science fiction isn't just respectful of science, it remembers what its purpose is...to entertain. Without that, any other reasons are moot, as no one will read the story to find them. So, great science fiction is also great fiction, and can stand beside other great works of fiction...if it can't, then it is merely an interesting footnote into predicting the future (if the predictions within prove correct in some respect). I wouldn't be ashamed to suggest Asimov's Nightfall or Bicentennial Man, be read alongside Huckleberry Finn in a study of great American literature. Ray Bradbury doesn't really need my endorsement, as he has already received much of the respect amongst the literati that he deserves, but is worth mentioning anyway, as he is a shining example of great science fiction. Nearly everything he has written is simply stunningly pretty to read, all the while answering all of the other requirements for great science fiction.
I would like to think that the tripe (even the tripe I enjoyed as a child) will be filtered out of our collective memory over time...There just isn't any point in wasting more peoples time or money on L. Ron Hubbard books. I attempted to reread Battlefied Earth when the movie was nearing release, and was just astonished at how bad the book really is (I loved it when I was a kid). Full of paper thin caracitures posing as human, overwhelming in its scientific and historical ignorance, and painfully obvious in its every twist and turn. A more thoroughly pulp sci-fi space opera has yet to be constructed (Ok, Star Wars comes close, but I still love the original episodes as well as the next nerd, despite its flaws).
I'll stop talking now, as I'm back to wanting to bash the stupid 'sci-fi' products of the world rather than talking up the good fiction and film. There's just so much crap to talk about...
Jules Verne was more of a visionary but I like Clarke. He's got some interesting tales to tell.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
The Babylon 5 first season DVDs are now available for sale.
Babylon 5 had a problem in that many viewers expected another Star Trek, where each episode is more or less self-contained. This is a very efficient medium for "light" sci fi, but is terrible for telling a real story. Babylon 5 had a real story. Several, really, as at any one time there were generally a good 3-5 subplots going on. Some long, long term (over the course of several real years) and some as short as a single episode, and everything in-between.
What I thought made the series so great wasn't that--it was the stories themselves. The plot is one of the most skillfully crafted I have ever seen in any medium; book, television, movie, video game. Problem is, you must see the episodes in order and not miss many, if any. The plot is very tightly woven in with each episode, and many references are made that are not designed to make sense to viewers who haven't seen the episode in question.
That said, I know a professor who purchased a Super VHS VCR for the sole purpose of recording Babylon 5 in the highest possible quality he could afford. This was not a well paid professor, and he spent over $1,000 on the device, not including tapes.
My aunt, far more watchful of accurate physics than even most Slashdotters (considering she is, or was, literally a rocket scientist) watches an unhealthy amount of television and considers Babylon 5 to be the best series ever written,
I resisted watching the series for over a year, probably because several friends tried to get me to see it with so much effort. (why I resist that I do not know, I did the same thing with the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy). Once I got into it, which wasn't extremely fast considering that the first season isn't very strong, I spent all of my spare money on tapes to record it.
When J. Michael Straczinski was asked to visit MIT, he found that the general consensus ther (among the film students, or whatever MIT's equivalent is) is that there were three seminal American science fiction series on television: The original Star Trek series, The Twilight Zone, and Babylon 5.
The single most important factor, at least to me, in any television series/novel/video game is the story. Let me reiterate that Babylon 5's story is truly a work of art. Far and above any mere television series or movie, it approaches, in my view, the greatest stories every told in all literature, though I admit I am a bit biased towards the science fiction genre. The second most important factor, to me, is the character development. The characters in Babylon are better developed than some characters I know in real life. (of course, with some people that isn't much of a challenge, but the characters are extremely well developed--honest)
I may sound like some sort of TV freak or science fiction gung-ho psycho, but this is not the case. I like various Star Trek series but have certainly never purchased one of the movies or been to any sort of sci fi convention, and I watch perhaps 10 hours of television per month. I have actually watched even less after B5 ended because everything on television seemed so bland in comparison, though I am sure there are many fairly good productions now (the 5% out of the rest of the crap that seems so popular).
Anyway, if any slashdotters get a chance, give it a try. Do NOT, however, start in the middle, or you will have NFI what is going on, and will probably hate it. Watching B5 like Star Trek is like reading ten random pages of a book each day. Books simply do not work like that. Babylon 5 does not either.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
To return to what was asked in the original post, the coolest, best realized and with the greatest 'damn, I'd live there' factor universe in all of Science Fiction is without a doubt Iain M Banks's 'The Culture'.
I would recommend anybody wanting to try it to get started with 'Excession', and then move on to something heavier, such as 'Use of Weapons' or 'The Player of Games'.
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
red dwarf fuckin' rocks. Anyone that disagrees is a smeghead.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Enough said
Hot chicks and Lasers!
...might be a very eurasian p.o.v., but the strugazki brothers have released some very intelligent scifi, in which technology is a) a utility and b) mostly enhances mens capability to build a better future. which it should be, in my humble opinion. although some of their books (the stalker, the far rainbow) have a quite pessimistic view, it is always the responibilty of the individual what to make of it. most of their books (e.g. troika) belong to the wittiest scifi ever written.
Both _Hyperion_ and _Fall of Hyperion_, by Dan Simmons, are wonderful.
Totally engrossing, thematically complex, gorgeous writing, a world so well-realized that reading about it feels like travelling, and just a dash of cheese. When I finish these books I feel almost bereft.
(I'm surprised that no one has mentioned them yet. Or have I just missed that thread?)
As I'm reading the comments here, I'm thinking a majority of you people have (no offense) not a clue about science fiction. All that's being discussed here is space opera and sci-fi. To be sure, that's fun and entertaining and occasionally thought-provoking, but it's also very shallow. This is the literature that indeed _needs_ a good plot and believable characters and everything to be worth reading, because without those it's hopelessly lost and just fumbling along with concepts that are never clearly expressed or explored.
/That/ is what real science fiction is all about.
/mean/ to us, little humans? What does it mean to life? How does it affect us, and how /should/ we be affected by it?
But science fiction can be so much more. True science fiction dares to dream big, true science fiction explores our position in the universe and digs deep into the consequences of all manner of developments. What's more, this kind of science fiction takes you along for the ride and manages to open your mind for new insights. Or, far more often, for old insights seen in a new light, for old insights suddenly connected to other ideas and thus reformed, seen completely anew.
The characters and the plot are never the point of science fiction; this does not mean that they should be ignored by authors, but as long as they do a passable job portraying them, that'll suffice. It's the journey and the insights that matter. It's the soaring of the mind, the "oh my god, this is so huge!" feeling you get when you first glimpse where the author is taking you, as you first realize the scope of his vision.
Not these silly spaceships and laserguns, and not even the alternate histories, moralistic fights against technology, carefully crafted cultures and political insights of most of the better known books in the genre.
The primary task of science fiction has always been to explain, and to set thoughts onto a path to thinking along beyond the boundaries in the story. Originally concepts such as "the fourth dimension" or "time travel", but nowadays life on the cosmic scale. Evolution of universes, minds, the structure of time and space. Abstract, unknown, horribly wrong; yes, to be sure. But not per definition unknowable, and these first tentative steps already can do so much... But it's not all flightly and reamy, this kind of science fiction looks at it from the human perspective, grounds it back in reality; taking the ideas just presented and proddnig it with a large stick. What does this
As Stephen Hawking says about science fiction, "It's really the only fiction that is realistic about our true position in the universe as a whole."
Consequences and possibilities, soaring minds and dreams; that, far more than characters and plots is what matters. The best books manage to combine both, but plots and characters will never be what sets science fiction apart, and if they were all that mattered, I'd be reading a different genre.
Of course, which books do for individual people what I've just tried to describe is not set in stone. Robert J. Sawyer might do the trick for some, while others will be lightyears ahead of him with their thoughts.
For me the two clearest examples of truly good science fiction are Greg Bear's "Darwin's Children" and David Zindell's "A Requieum for Homo Sapiens", but there are many others. Not nearly enough, mind you, as most science fiction authors take only the most tentative of steps instead of boldly leaping forward. But there are some.
(Arthur C. Clarke might have been like this once upno a time - "2001" to be sure is truly a classic and has much o what I talk about here; but if you look at some of his recent work such as "3001" or "The Light of Other Days" he's clearly lost it.)
I feel kinda silly saying this, because it just seems so obvious. But I haven't seen anyone who said it yet.
All that's really important is a good story.
I will believe in any bullshit technology, I will suffer through any cliche characters, I will keep reading as the author fills page after page about any breakfast cereal he likes. As long as it's in service of a good story.
I think 'Culture' is a good name because it implies that humanity is like a yeast or a mould -- diverse in nature, difficult to kill off, and both useful and a nuisance at different times. :)
:) The main danger to the Culture would seem to be, well, cultural: different sections growing apart and making a strong enough point of that apartness to turn on the rest of the Culture while becoming something different, a little like the Mechanist/Shaper split in Bruce Sterling's early works. It seems to be a pretty broad church otherwise.
Possibly the most interesting part of the Culture though is Special Circumstances because it's culture seems so different to that of the Culture as a whole. Extremely manipulative of the rest of the Culture. If there's any chance of the Culture turning on itself then that's where it lies.
The most interesting area in any fiction is usually in the delineated border zones, "the tension between the self and the Other" as someone like Barthes would probably have put it -- and SC is that area in the Culture books. I liked that Consider Phlebas featured a character who was, again, outside yet involved, and wasn't on the side of the Culture. It was a good introduction to the entire concept to see it from that perspective.
I'd love to see the Culture have a few more internal difficulties. The only conflict in the books seems to be for the individuals in the story. The Culture as a whole seems to breeze through anything.
Because it's so damn big
deus does not exist but if he does
'Known Space'. Larry Niven, et. al.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
For me, the answer is the universe of the First two books of Fredrick Pohl's 'Gateway' series. Those books provided one of the most interesting worlds I've read about. It is rare in that it required the kind of real imagination that many sci-fi writers spend lucrative careers demonstrating that they lack:
Gibson and the Cyberpunks were largely a matter of predicting technical trends and greasy sociology.
Niven and other intelligent, highly technical sci-fi writers get the physics right, but write like virgins discussing sex when it comes to human nature... including sex.
Far-future, galactic empire fictions like Dune and Star Wars, tend to impose anachronistic systems of government onto far distant futures with such regularity that the result often looks more like a cheap device than a towering work of the imagination.
By contrast, the Universe in Gateway, is close enough to our own time frame in terms of its sociology and economic perspective that the characters it gives rise to are understandable in present terms; they seem relevant in that they are driven by the same forces that drive us.
Dune offers the reader the story of the son of a fallen Duke rising to fulfill the messianic prophecy of an indigenous people, but his journey provides no characters whose motivations a normally functioning reader can really relate to (i.e., how much time have *YOU* spent with a poisoned needle to your neck?). By contrast, in addition to its many stunning visuals, 'Gateway' offers us a glimpse into human nature using a story in which the science is more than just a backdrop to feudalism and this is the best kind of science fiction; the telling of a story that would be impossible to tell without the science.
Most readers have very little experience of nobility in a time of vendetta, but it's hard to imagine anyone who has never seen the results of greed and guilt.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
It's amazing. In the same slahdot main page, we can see a review of Stanislav Lem's Solaris (well, the film). Ok, the Wired article explains why so few Americans do not know this author (he writes in Polish, and most novels are not translated or only poorly). However, also non-Amreicans read Slashdot, and being German, I can only say: After reading Lem, you stop reading Asimov, and others (just the Hitchhiker will still be considered good SciFi). And, Lem's books are translated into German where he sells millions. The only hope for the Americans is that the film Solaris will be a blockbuster -- and trigger the editors to newly traslate all other Lem books as well.
Generally, what churns my butter in a science fiction story is how thought provoking or insightful it can be. Greg Egan is one of my favourite authors despite the fact that his characters can be flat listless plot devices that are there to put a human face on an abstract concept. (In fairness, this does not speak to all his characters or stories.)
Science fiction allows authors to explore themes that come off as contrived at best in regular fiction: explorations of human nature, information theory, the role of power in nature, the true implications of the existence of X. My rule of thumb is that if a story can leave you pondering something, it's a successful science fiction story.
That doesn't excuse some of the piss poor hacks who have a cool idea and a word processor. Neato factor does not a successful story make. A harlequin romance could be brilliantly written (in theory I guess, I'll never know) and the best story concept ever could be given to the Eye-of-Aragon guy.
I guess what I'm getting at is that if all the other elements of a good story - interesting & believable characters, gripping plot, well developed setting, good writing are there what separates a good read from a brilliant story is the underlying concept.
That said, Ian Banks (anything), Neal Stephenson (Snowcrash and Diamond Age), Orson Scott Card (Pastwatch and Enders Game), Harry Turtledove (Guns of the South, How Few Remain and the Great War Series), Peter Hogan (The Giants Series and some of his other stuff), Joe Haldeman (Forever War), Peter F. Hamilton (Reality Dysfunction) and Robert J. Sawyer (Calculating God, The Terminal Experiment and Factoring Humanity) are off the top of my head examples of great vs. good science fiction.
How realistic are super-proficient women, who just happen to dress provocatively and mouth his beliefs perfectly?
If Friday is an example that comes to mind, I suggest you re-read Friday and Star Ship Troopers with a more critical eye. Heinlien is NOT Friday or a Star Ship Trooper, he's used the character's to mouth a future he considers nighmarish. The characters are imperfect and unable to understand their situation as well as we do.
Our Star Ship trooper is happy to see the entire planet turned into a war machine. He even smiles when he sees his own father drafted. Would you want to live in a world like that?
Friday is not supposed to represent any living person either. She is a poorly educated sex slave with extraordinary strength and mental ability. Friday demonstrates both her mental power and lack of education by a nauseasingly detailed recitation of events that span years. She remembers every single meal she eats in every greasy spoon and tells us all about it years after the fact! Clearly, Heinlien wanted to paint a mind that was not trained to disregard extraneous details but strong enough to not need to. The average person who burdened themselves with all those kinds of details would run like M$ XP. What appears to be poor story telling is crucial to our understanding of the character! That Heinlien can pull it off without losing the reader is awsome. Yes, she was concieved and bred to be some adolescent man's dream toy. Sterile, with low self esteem and taught only those things that might sexually please before being recruited to other things. It is doubtful that any Libertarian would want anyone else treated that way.
In any case, both of these stories demonstrates what makes good science fiction: they take a few postulated technical inovations, understand how they might effect society and it's members, then create an entertaining story of entrapment or escape. Good science fiction, like any story telling, requires an understanding of both human nature and creation. I see a kind of triad, character insight, technology insight and storyline. Strengths in one area can make up for weakness in others, depending on the tastes and education of the reader. My favorites are short stories that have all the elments.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I don't know how to define greate SF, but I know it when I read it. Here are some Authors: Bruce Sterling, Greg Egan, Stephan Baxter, Robert Heinlein, Greg Bear, John Varley, David Gerrrold, Neil Stephonson, Kurt Vonnegut, Arthur Clarke, James Helperun, JR Dunn, Carl Sagan (book "Contact").
There is some Sci-fi that I consider greater than Iain M. Banks (namely, the Hyperion Cantos), but the main reason I love Banks is the phenomenal inventiveness of the guy. He has a greater density of ideas per square inch than any other writer I've seen - ideas that other authors would devote entire books to come and go within a paragraph.
:)
Also, he credits readers with a little intelligence - some things are merely sketched out, or mentioned in passing as an accepted and integral part of the reality he is describing. For example, an author now would not (unless they were incredibly dull) devote pages to the inner workings of televisions, telephones and cars - they are normal, everyday tools that fade into the background of a story. Banks doesn't devote pages telling you exactly what a Knife Missile is or how Fields work the first time you encounter this stuff - he gives you just enough to work out for yourself what you think it is and it forms a seamless part of the story. And I'm not restricting myself to his Culture novels either - Feersum Endjinn is my favourite Banks novel, Scifi or otherwise.
As another note, I met Banks shortly after he wrote Excession, and I told him how much I loved the names the ships give themselves (Grey Area, Of Course I Still Love You, A Frank Exchange Of Views, etc. etc...). He Said he gets a lot of that sort of thing, and its the subject most commented on by his fans. Interesting that in his next overtly Culture novel, Look To Windward (Yes, I know Inversions was a Culture novel too...), he seemed to devote a couple of pages to conversations revolving entirely around the names of starships.
Perhaps he just wanted to get them all out of the way in one go, to shut the fans up
Although some may argue they aren't sci-fi, the universes created by Philip K. Dick are my favorite. Reading his work seems to turn me into one of the paranoid, twisted characters that populate it.
You can never be sure of anything while reading a Philip K. Dick novel. This makes you feel more like a character in the story, instead of the omniscient reader.
Learned to play chess at age 4.
Attended the US Naval Academy, competed in fencing and marksmanship. Graduated 20th in a class of 243 with a degree in engineering.
Served in the Navy until honorably discharged at rank Lieutenant because of Tuberculosis.
Ran as a Democrat for representative in California on a platform of ending poverty (lost). Was active in politics as a fundraiser, speaker, and committee member throughout most of his life. His 'libertarian claptrap' was, right or wrong, the product of his disaffection with politics through years of direct personal experience.
Amon his many interests and careers, he dabbled in mining, photography, and masonry.
During WWII he worked with the US military on high altitude aviation suits, the precursor to modern day astronaut uniforms.
Designed and built his own house while in his 50s.
I'd say it's fair for a writer that happens to be a jack of all trades, sexually open-minded, highly intelligent, libertarian, and reasonably athletic to write about characters that also have those characteristics, don't you?
A good book has to
a) Provoke thought
and/or
b) Stimulate the imagination
Scenario (a) often applies to the non-fiction works, or works based on comtemporary/historic/near-futuristic reality. You have events that happened, or events that very possible could have happened, had things been a bit different, or could happen in the future. It gives you that sense of "what if" that makes you think, and also leads you into scenario (b).
Scenario (b) works often start in the fictionous/fantasy realm. Characters are very far out, not believable in physical definition, but (for their fictive archetype), believable in action. Things like being able to fly, or use magic, etc are often based around childhood imaginations or fantasy. It doesn't really make for a "what if this happened today", but more of a scenario where the reader thinks: I wish life were more like this.
Don't cross me boy, you'd make an ugly toad!
For me the true test of the best sci-fi is this...RE-READABILITY!
If I can't read it at least two or three times without becoming bored or disgusted it's not worth the paper it is written on. More important is the book that makes you WANT to re-read it the moment you are done. Or the kind that has you begging the writer for a follow up book.
Oddly enough, some of the great books a I have read don't generate in me the desire to re-read them. Asimov's Foundation series is a one example. Loved it, but didn't want to go back there. Some of Heinlein's work was the same way, but most I have read three or four times and still love em.
The works of Niven have withstood my best efforts to wear them out. Probably due to the great central characters he creates, the mystery plots, and the hard sci-fi edge he incorporates into his stories. Integral Trees, Ringworld and the Ringworld Engineers, The Mote in God's Eye and following books, the great short stories, all seem to endure without fail. Truly, in my mind, one of the greatest sci-fi writers ever.
Card is another who wites stories that can be re-read obsessively. Treason is a lesser know favorite of mine. Similarly to Niven, Card creates great central characters. Unlike others, Orson's explores his characters weaknesses as much as thir strengths. And, oddly, some of his characters' strengths ARE their weaknesses. Think about it when next you read Card.
One of my other favorites it Tuf Voyaging by George R. R. Martin. Sort of a one hit wonder: it's kinda campy, but the story is so entertaining, and the characters so quirky that it never fails to reel me back in. By the way, this story was originally written as a series of short stories in "Analog" magazine.
Another great series is the Gateway/Heechee series by Fredrick Pohl. Nice hard Sci-Fi with a great cosmoligical twist. Complex, human characters. Describes time dilation from black holes and faster than light travel as an integral part of the story (in my case it was a great way for a ninth grader to be exposed to the concepts).
Last, but not least, Adams. Of course the Hitchiker's Guide and associated books rock, and the humor never ceases to amaze and amuse me. Teatime and Holistic Detective are also wonderful. Worn out a few paperbacks of both!
Oh, The Godmakers, by Herbert(and many others Dune and such included), and Catseye By Norton are also great re-readers.
I haven't included any Tolkien here because I don't consider his books Sci-Fi.
Any suggestions on other books that I can read (and then re-read!) would be helpful. Thanks!
It is completely impossible to say anything intelligent or enlightening in a space this size, excep
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Um... ok... and your point is?
I have to admit that one reason that Clarke is my favorite is that he is my first. I bought a paperback copy of "Against the Fall of Night" in the early 60's (I think I paid about 50 cents), and it absolutely and permanently, I'm afraid, bent my mind. I don't think anything in this book has come true yet, but what the hell, it takes place about 1,000,000,000 A.D.
"Childhood's End" is still my favorite. The magic of both of these epics is a) he tells a story and b) that story has great amounts of imagination. For today's readers, many will find this style rather slow, as he paints the scenery with lavish descriptions. No CGI in paperback.
Now, I must also give due to the other three members of the B.A.C.H. partheon of science fiction, Bradbury, Asmiov, and Heinlein. In many ways, they stand the standard in the Golden Ages and all who come after own them a Great Debt. And of course, they themselves would probably agree that with Galileo when he said, "if I have seen farther, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.
Early giants would have to be Jules Verne and H.G. Wells. Today's giants must include Ursula K. LeGuin (before she switched to fantasy), Anne McCaferry, Harlen Ellision, and that great, great screenwriter, J. Micheal Strayskiicn (but unspellable, I'm afraid!)
You got me started here!!!!!!!
Yah I like Jeeves and Wooster too, but then I like anything Steven Fry does because he is just too funny for words! :)
British and Canadian shows are really big in the Northwest here. If you ever find away to tune into The Red Green Show, you'll never stop laughing, guaranteed!
Fuzdout
..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?