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."
Well, as far as books go, I'd have to say the Dune series by Frank Herbert (ALthough, I'm sure you all know that) The way it so elegantly combines action, suspence, twisty curvey plots within plots that actually require one to think... but the prequels... they are just pieces of crap that are poorly written..
As far as movies go... Donnie Darko, although not blatently science fiction, is one great piece of film... you should all watch it...
Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
#1: Believable, REAL people.
Heinlien, Weber, Drake, Cook. All authors that have good solid characters.
#2: Believable science.
a limited number of WOW factor science. Make it easy for Me to believe, and make it well thought out and self consistant!
Arthur C Clarke's Space Oddysey series, without a shadow of a doubt. Not just a classic movie (and so-so sequel), but four incredibly compelling books which explore far more than any other sci-fi series I've ever come across.
Deliberately non-specific so as to be non-spoily for people who haven't read the books (try them, you might like them!).
Iain M. Banks' Culture.
I'd love to live in the middle of trippy post-humanist apace opera universe... wouldn't evryone?
deus does not exist but if he does
There is no greater science fiction writer than the late Douglas Adams and there is no greater work of science fiction than the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy and its five part trilogy.
Science fiction doesn't have to be dramatic to be good, but being nuts does help a little...
OFTC: By the community, for the community
Interesting question.
Mine would have to be Babylon 5. I've always been a SF fan, and enjoyed all the popular stuff, and a lot of the unpopular stuff. But B5 was great for any number of reasons, not the least of which was that it was the first major SF show with any production value to have an actual story arc, not just a series of disconnected episodes taking place in a loosely connected background.
Contrasted with most other SF series, B5 had a consistency and an appeal that made it truly great. As an example, I think it's the only SF series I can recall that even attempted to use something resembling realistic physics in its spaceflight sequences.
As far as movies go, I have to give the nod to Star Wars, just because it's great, even if it's a little (a lot) schlocky. If I had to choose one great SF film, it'd be 2001: A Space Odyssey. Once again, the use of real-world physics (or something resembling it) made a lot of difference, and as a long-time Clarke fan, I had loved the book/short story long before I saw the film.
*cough* Karma whore *cough*
Clark had no greater accuracy in fortelling the future then any other number of Science Fiction authors.
Asimov was good at logic puzzels and expository works, he could explain ANYTHING and make it sound interesting. As far as his robots go they are HIGHLY unrealistic but GREAT logical puzzles.
If you are going to whore, at least lube up first on your facts.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
I'm reluctant to cast a vote in the best SciFi category, mainly because there is so much great stuff.
I will, though, mention one author that is completely blowing me away right now. Her name is Octavia E. Buttler and for powerful, dramatic SciFi, she reigns supreme (for me at least). Clay's Ark and Patternmaster are definately not to be missed. Also, for great short stories, try her collection of short stories Bloodchild: And Other Stories
Also, for good old fashioned SciFi, check out Roger Zelazny. The first half of the Amber series is almost purely fantasy (while the second half is a mix of SciFi and Fantasy) so they probably don't count as an answer to this question. But Psychoshop and Donnerjack are definately fun to read.
Oh and I guess I might as well plug one of my all-time favorite authors, Kurt Vonnegut. All of them are so good that I can't even pick out one to recommend. Just try any (or all) of them.
"However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation."
Lately, I've been going through Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Series. Very interesting, and quite entertaining.
I think what makes it appealing to me is that it isn't too far-fetched, and also deals with the human element -- something that's all too often ignored in the terribly geeky, antisocial realm of sci-fi.
Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
It's just like things such as "what makes a great sandwich." Some swears by tomatoes while others can't stand them; the select few will go with anchovys and say that any sandwich without them is no food at all, etc.
/., eh?
/. to get them answered, anyhow... It's all about Karma-whoring right?
Furthermore, you can't really answer this without delving into a question like "what makes a good book." And if all of us had better ideas than you, we'd be making millions selling books instead of posting of
Of course, I can give you what I personally like in SciFi - imaginative worlds are always welcome (well described, mind you), and intellectually stimulating is also another plus (social / psychological / whatever problems that arise from these new and imaginative circumstances); beyond that, here and there some action / romance / whatever to help push the story along so I actually look forward to continue reading.
Of course, I have read books that may lack some of these qualities but were still very fun to read. So in the end, your question is still unanswered; but anyways... who posts questions on
My life in the land of the rising sun.
Charles Sheffield, for one.
."
:wq!
Of all the Sci-Fi authors I have read over the years I would have to say he had the formula down the best.
Hard science fiction, believeable characters and the odd McAndrew made for exellent storytelling I could read over and over again.
Too bad he passed away here lately and I won't get to hear any more of his ideas but in order of prefrence I would have to say:
hard science. Sure, you have to extrapolate a bit, but make it believable and intelligent.
Humor. That's always good. Like the alien Hollus, in his first meeting with humans. The humans thought it was all a prank at first...:
"...Of course, if you want, I could give you an anal probe . .
There were gasps from the small crowd that had assembled in the lobby. I tried to raise my nonexistent eyebrows.
(in Robert J. Sawyer's exellent Calculating God)
And finally characters you can get behind and understand. This is a lot more ephemeral and it dosn't happen to fall into a nice neat little package. Normally, you gravitate towards Sci-Fi characters you can see yourself in (or how you would like for yourself to be someday). Idealized supermen are silly.
whew! time to get back to work.
Writing.
Writing is what makes good science fiction;
a fancy, exciting world means nothing without good writing.
On the other side, a crap world can be entertaining and even enthralling, providing that the writing is good.
Last year, I had the opportunity to take a class with Joe Haldeman, here at MIT. He asked us for a challenging topic to write a short story on - the topic we chose was "Sentient Asteroids" - and, surprisingly, he made a good story for the topic, even if it was flavored by September 11th in theme.
That is why my own stories will never be good - because I am not a good writer; no matter how detailed I make the worlds, the fact is that my writing sucks.
No offense, Raymond E Feist, but the writing of those Midkemia books has gone down over the years, despite the fact that more aspects of these worlds are fleshed out with every book. I stopped reading them - who else can say the same?
Of course, place an area in the middle for capitalization on popular themes, mass market fantasy books (cough cough), and such, but if you want good fantasy or science fiction, look for the writing.
Lexx.
It's sexy.
It's weird.
It has characters I love to hate. (Prince, 790)
It has characters I despise but cheer on (Stanley!).
It has characters I want to ogle (Xev).
It's epic (C'mon, lexx = biggest weapon of destruction ever built?
The whole initial plot is serendipity so severe that it can only be called extremely dumb luck that the heroes can find themselves in such roles.
Oh,and it doesn't have omnipresent use of special effects.
Vaiyo A-O
A Home Va Ya Ray
Vaiyo A-Rah
Jerhume Brunnen G!
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
The one author I keep returning to is Stephen Donaldson. I have read the whole Gap Series 5 times now, and it remains interesting. There is nothing like the raw power, emotion, violence and vile politics that Donaldson portrays in the Gap series. Every page you think that the characters cannot endure more - cannot go further. The final book, "This Day All God Die", is one massive crescendo - a fitting finale for a space series of serious proportions.
Donaldson is the master.
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
Orwell's 1984 of grey buildings and nameless superpowers being the post war England he was living in.
Haldeman's Forever War as Vietnam.EE Doc Smith's space opera Lensman G-men Vs The Mobs in the 30s.
Clockwork Orange as swinging London.
Delany's Time Considered as a Helix of Semi-Precious Stones and Brunner's Stand On Zanzibar as New York in the 60s.
That said, my vote is for Niven's pre Ringworld Universe as it has the best of FTL and non-FTL science with good writing and his Gil The Arm stories as they succeed as mysteries as well as science fiction.
For pure science - The Cold Equations (although he's really pushing the math), Greg Bear - Blood Music.or Gibson's Count Zero for sheer flavor. The tech is glossed over but there is a real feel for a future.
For Sociology, Le Guin The Dispossesed - a frightenly relevant society.
Best story telling (IMHO) The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress as there is a good tech angle and the plot is epic while remaining about the characters.
There's always George Luca's planet of the teddy bears.
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
And god help me, I also like (gasp) L. Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth (NOT the movie) and the Mission Earth series. Those were great stories (regardless of the scientology/anti-shrink propoganda).
-jhon
Stephen Donaldson once said in his "Gap" Series that there is a difference between Drama and Melodrama.
Imagine a triangle, with each of the main character classes at a point - the Villian, the Victim and the Hero.
To truly be drama, in the course of the story, at least 2, but preferably all three of the characters must change place:
The Villain becomes the Victim, the Victim becomes the Hero and the Hero becomes the Villain. That's the essence of true drama. Otherwise it's just melodrama.
Stephen Donaldson used this to good effect in the Gap Series. Like much of Piers Anthony's work, this story featured some pretty hefty brutality and abuse of women. Unlike Piers Anthony, it's not the mainstay of Donaldson's work. Anthony has managed an entire universe based around this Hero-Pirate, but essentially the characters always stay the same, and his work never makes it past low-grade melodrama. Donaldson uses almost exactly the same pretext and gives us an epic and dramatic tale.
This is also a reason why Episode II was so poor from a narrative perspective. [*spoiler alert] We all know that Anakin becomes Darth Vader, we know what happens to Obi Wan. We know from Episode IV where all these characters must be. So unlike most stories, the interest is not derived from where the characters go, but how they get there. Which is what Lucas failed to deliver. The story of Anakin is not so much a fall from grace as a slight trip - you can believe that he becomes Darth Vader, but his personal journey to the dark side isn't particularly interesting.
I was simply blown away when Asimov linked all the Foundation story to the Robot Novels. He managed to link so many of his books together so well, and these are books that he wrote long before Foundation.
What an amazing writer.
Many other posters have stated that great science fiction is great fiction + science. Although science fiction contains both of those things, it is not nearly so simple.
Science fiction is an opportunity for us to look at uncertainties in the world as we see it, and then to draw interesting assumptions that lead us to examine and question the nature of our own lives. Look at the matrix, for example. We cannot prove that our reality is as real as reality can get, therefore there is always an uncertainty as to the true nature of reality.
The matrix draws an assumption: our reality is not real. Then the story builds a good fictional story on top of that assumption, thus causing us not only to be entertained, but to question our original position on the matter at hand. The matrix is good science fiction not because it is a good fictional story with fictional science, but because the assumption used as a plot device (reality is not real) is an interesting suggestion, which causes us to question our own reality.
It's not good science fiction unless you walk out of the theathre / put down the book and wonder if all of that crazy stuff you just saw / read is or could be true.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
IMHO, the biggest rift in Sci Fi is between devotees of "hard" Sci Fi (focuses more on the *science* than the tale - think Greg Egan) and "soft" Sci Fi (space opera - swords & sandals epics in space - think Peter Hamilton).
I like both, and have always found the zealotry on either side to be kinda childish. Think emacs v vi... (sorry kids).
The bummer with Hard Sci Fi is that a lot of the really _interesting_ stuff will go straight over the reader's head: I've got a reasonable grasp of, say, the basics of quantum physics, but I get completely lost when someone a lot smarter than me starts using more esoteric aspects of the theory as a _starting_ place for an exploration of the logical consequences of said theory in a literary context. _I_ like it though, because even if I don't completely understand, I can still muddle through and figure out the gist of what's going on. The other downside of hard sci fi is that the writing tends to be _terrible_. You effectively have scientists attempting to write engaging stories. It's not, as a rule, their forte. Too much science, not enough fiction.
Conversely, the bummer with "soft" sci fi for me has always been that it's just some-old-story-set-in-space. Star Wars is like that. In fact, it's a modern classic of the genre. Peter Hamilton is another good example. This kind of sci fi is more like fantasy than _science_ fiction. Even worse, the fiction is usually terrible too. I used to love space opera when I was young - laser beams, aliens, space ships, funky babes. But I think you kind of grow out of it unless there's something _more_ to it than big-arse space battles & galactic empires.
Which is why I'm a _huge_ fan of Iain M Banks. This is a guy who can _really_ write. His sci fi (he writes more standard fiction under the name Iain Banks) is space opera, but some of the best space opera I've ever read. Read the Culture novels - start with "Consider Phlebas" or "Player of Games". Seriously - they're worth reading just for the ship names.
So I guess what makes great sci-fi for me is great writing. There's plenty of "ideas" writers, and don't get me wrong - interesting ideas are part of what sci-fi's all about. But that's a neccessary condition, it's not a sufficient condition.
Long post - must sleep.
Jeff Noon too. I seriously recommend "Vurt" - Automated Alice says curious yellow.
This is easily the most important aspect of SciFi. Any time a story involves anything considered "fantastic," be it supernatural, scientific or whatever, the story still needs to lie within the realm of what people would deem believable. And I don't mean believe as in "Aliens in outer space scanning my mind so let me go get my tinfoil hat." It's more like stepping outside the boundaries set by your perception of how things should be.
Your actions on earth echo in eternity.
and the Giants Novels. A must read for anyone who is my friend and reads books (Very few now adays.)
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
I am too tired to explain why this is the best, so I'll just say it's my favorite, and for good reason.
Man against Man, Man against Nature, and especially Man against himself. It's a shoot-em-up. It's romantic. It's revolutionary. It's serious. It's funny.
And then throw on some accurate forecasting (such as predicting the slashdot effect and distributed denial of service attacks, the problems of security through obscurity, and even 404s) and there you have it, the best sf.
Gully Foyle is my name
And Terra is my nation
Deep space is my dwelling place
The Stars my destination
hmm, inversions is my least favorite, I would recomend "Consider Phlebas" as the beginning is aways a good place to start, or "Excession" if you like your machines to think, fast.
Cryptonomicon was truly great, but Snow Crash was boring (I totally bought the environment thought, -- franchises dominate as local authorities in the defunct US)
...). He gets into the subjects he discusses and goes on wild, but interesting tangents explaining technology, events, etc. Some of his latest work is lacking though.
I also like Michael Crichton (congo was amazing, and terminal man, and andromeda strain,
why run from Vincenzo?
The "Asimov made machines yada yada yada" part shows it is an obvious Karma whore. Nothing insightful new or different was said, two of the most prominent and popular science fiction authors had two cliche statements attached to them. zzzz
That's interesting about Issac....which story was that in?
Oh, the one where the computer creates the universe, err, Univac or whatever it is (it is late, been awhile, I have it around here someplace.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
As is the case with all fictional literature, the
:-)
"best" is that which most effectively triggers,
shapes, and gives life to the mental images which
writing can only stimulate in our minds rather
than convey directly.
Since minds are so different from individual to
individual, and sometimes utterly so, there can
never be a single "best". At most, the fact that
any given book is seen as "best" by more people
than any other simply means that there are more
people with that particular mental makeup which
allows that book to succeed. Quite often, this
translates to those people inhabiting similar
memespaces, which is very common especially in
high-bandwidth communities both online and off.
So, which SF books best trigger my mental imagery
at the present time? In several categories of
subjective assessment:
Iain M. Banks's Culture novels
-- most convincing galactic future
Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age
-- most convincing human-level future
C.J. Cherryh's The Chronicles of Morgaine
-- most forceful and single-minded heroine
Peter F. Hamilton's The Nano Flower
-- most luscious yet unobstrusive image weaving
Walter Jon Williams's Aristoi
-- most distant yet still recognizable future
E.E. 'Doc' Smith's Lensman series
-- fastest delivery of mental images
Michael Moorcock's Dancers at the End of Time
-- most endearing treatment of distant future
I'd expect a fairly good correlation with the
"bests" of other SF readers on Slashdot, as the
memespaces of the technical communities tend to
be fairly cohesive. Ultimately though, it really
doesn't matter, since "best" is a personal issue.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
There's great as in "great literary work", or great as in fun to read.
I'm gonna catch a lot of heat for this one, but I really like E.E. "Doc" Smith. It's not high literary art but if you read the Lensman and Skylark series there's an atmosphere to those books you just don't find anywhere else. I know people complain about how every gun is the new ultimate weapon, but really if you think about it that's what we do with computers, military weapons, and lots of other technology, so it doesn't bother me much. They do deserve respect as a precurser to lots of later stuff - I'm willing to bet George Lucas had read these books before thinking up the whole Star Wars thing. And I saw one of Smith's "nonsense" words appear in a modern Star Trek book, so I can't be the only one who likes his stuff. Most people would say his work isn't "great", and in a literary sense I'll agree, but they're great fun and to me that makes them worthwhile.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Best motherfucking book ever, and one of the least recognized. Imagine a more literate "Star Trek" with elements of "Alien" and "Forbidden Planet" thrown in (but it predates all of them by quite some time). Though it was born out of pulp sci-fi, it transcends the vast body of what was being written then; I'd rank it up alongside "Nightfall". Vernor Vinge is the only other author I've read who makes me feel anything like I do reading Space Beagle.
Other than that, all of Philip K Dick's short stories. His novels are even better, but most of them aren't sci-fi the way Asimov or Heinlein are; I think he just wrapped them in futuristic settings. Of all of these, I'd say "Eye in the Sky" and "Ubik" are my favorites.
I read somewhere that Herbert did 8 YEARS of research for Dune and that it was originally going to be an ecologically centered book. Large parts of Children and Messiah were written during this time, but didn't fit into Dune, so were pushed into later books.
You can see this attention to detail in the appendix. Just amazing stuff.
Dune is one of those books I go back and read again every 1 or 2 years. Always something new and interesting to discover.
Not just answers, the correct questions.
I must agree with you! Peter F. Hamilton and reality dysfunction is a very good sci-fi trilogy. To make it short - it has everything! But what is killing me is that Hamilton has no plans to write more in the same line... Let's start a petition! ;-)
From what I understand, That is exactly how most people described Heinlien's wife
1. The way it lets authors play around with and explore philosophical ideas of how society develops. Asimov did this with the Foundation series, basing a whole story on a theory of how society develops through crises, what steps are taken in what order, who gets in power when and why. That's quite hard to make in a non-science fiction novel, unless you write a historical novel which often gets more dull and predictable.
2. Separate what is undeniable facts in the world around us (i e many aspects of human nature, like love, hate, passion, greed, curiosity etc) and what is just the results of our cultural heritage (our economical system, democracy, patriarchalism, monogamy and focus on material wealth just to mention a few). A good science fiction novel can be an eye opener to what can be changed and what can not.
3. Let's us explore our possible futures. Good SF gives us a glimpse (although very simplified and exagerated) of how the future might look like. By comparing the scenarios of Star Trek with Cyberpunk and 1984, we can more easily get aware of what the future might hold and as a society make decisions on what we want and don't want of what's ahead of us. The novel 1984 has definitely helped to raise the public awareness of the threats of totalitarianism combined with technology, likewise has Cyberpunk woken up many people to how global corporations gathers more and more power and how that might affect society.
4. Epical tales. I'm personally a real sucker for this and no other category except fantasy so easily allows for grand epical tales as SF.
These are to me the promises of SF and a good SF book should take advantage of at least one of these posibilities, otherwise there is no need to put the plot/characters in another space and time. Plot and characters must still be good though, but I expect that from books of any category.
Actually, I'm a bit surprised that not more of the ./ community has more elaborate thoughts of why they've fallen in love with SF and not just books with good plots/characters...
If you're saying that Clarke owned patents on satellites, communication or otherwise, I fear you are mistaken. In one of his short stories he recounts how he was unable to patent the idea at the time because the technology to put them into orbit wasn't there yet (gettting patents used to be harder) and by the time that it was the idea had achieved public domain status.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The same could be said of Heinline's men.
His female characters don't get really strange until the later period where he ends up verging on satire. The Menace From Earth with the girl engineer, who admitedly gets the guy. Lots of his characters make speeches and a lot of his best work was aimed at teenagers.
He was, however, a very good story teller with some science to his fiction
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
Science fiction tends to break down into 2 major catagories. Hard science fiction where science and politics tend to drive the story along, and Sci-Fi which encompases all of the action / adventure / romance novells placed somewhere in the future. Needless to say I'm a major fan of hard science fiction, but almost everything I've read/seen, that I would classify "Hard Science Fiction" ultimatly ends up being distopian. It's hard to choose something from that catagory for a 'favorite universe'.
No matter how good the Mars series is by Robinson, or Moving Mars by Bear, or Macroscope by Peirs Anthony, or even the Rama series by Clarke; I woudn't want to live there. And these are just a few examples
eg.
The Mars series introduces the reader to a whole bunch of very cool technologies (space elevators, a lot of terraforming, and some genetic engineering) that ultimatly get wrapped up in a whole bunch of very very wordy politics that lead to 2 wars. By the end of the story nobody is really any better off, Earth is a f'king sess pool that can't shovel its population off the planet fast enough, and the the rest of the solar system is weighed down by billions of people who now live 500-1000 years thanks to genetic engineering. Very very good books, but not a happy universe that I'd like to live in.
On the other hand, Sci-Fi offers us the wonderfull universe concieved by Peter Hamilton, portayed in the Reality Dysfunction -> Naked God series (A nice fat total of 6 books). It's placed only 800 or so years in the future, Humaity has spread out to about 850 systems thanks to FTL travel, made contact with 2 alien races (one of which is a benevolent inter-galactic super race), and still hasn't really deleveloped socially beyond what we have now.
Except!
There's this 'splinter' scociety called Edenism, which takes its roots from the Borg and Budism. But 180% from the "Asymilate Everyone" that we all know and love. The collective link is done through either genetic engineering or for those not born with the 'Affinity Gene', through symbiotic organisms. The Edenists are the only humans that use any biotech due to religious restrictions, and use it they do! Sentient starships linked to their captains, sentient habitats orbiting gas giants and used as a container for thousands of personalities after they die. Organic computers, etc... The most stable scociety you could imagine.
This is the universe I want to live in. Sure most of the books take place during the greatest war humaity has ever faced vs. 99% of everyone who has ever died, a satan worshiping lunatick who wants to destroy Earth, and Al Capone (who don't love Big AL baybee!!) , but Edenism really makes this a wonderfull universe to live in.... as long as you aren't religious.
The hatred, bigotry, and enforced ignorance is still as rampant as it is today (and on some planets its much much worse), but it dosen't touch Edenism execpt in an economic way.
The whole series of books is THICK with 'souls' and the shortcomings of religion, science and politics when faced with the greatest unknown. It's also heavy on the combat, and does get pretty wordy in places with whole chapters you can basically skip or scim in places and not miss a thing because all he's doing is describing the enviornment.
-Opiate (I got an account, somewhere...)
Stephen baxter - the manifold series. Blew my mind, and actually got me interested in sci-fi and theoretical physics! before i thought they were the domain of geeks.
:)
turns out i was right, and i'm now a geek. doh
I once had a girlfriend who claimed to hate sci-fi. One night I got her to watch the director's cut of Blade Runner with me. She really enjoyed it. Her comment afterward was that it wasn't sci-fi. Her logic was pretty solid... she liked this film and she didn't like sci-fi, therefore this wasn't sci-fi.
I think many people think of things like Star Wars when they think of sci-fi. Just people in spaceships shooting lasers at each other. Personally, I find the ability to stretch reality very helpful in exploring human depths. Some of my favorite Star Trek episodes revolve around Data because you can expore humanity more through him than anyone else. Same with Blade Runner. Or any Bradbury story.
Devon
Don't get me wrong, I love SF. And for my money great SF is about grand ideas. Talk of characters et al, is not important.
Great literature is about the human condition, or about the magnificent use of words. It is not impossible for SF to be about either, but if it is then it is most likely that it need not be SF. Indeed, most every piece of SF I have ever read, from Benford, Bear and Bradbury through Herbert, Hoyle and Heinlein to Verne, Wells and Wyndham is not really about great literature (although some of the above have certainly approached the human condition in some of their work) but about grand ideas and the grandest ideas make the grandest SF.
I mean, Herbert's devices to eliminate technology as a factor in the Dune universe, genius. Bear's cosmic accounting to destroy planets, inspired. these are the ideas on which great SF is made.
For me, it is a tough call. I read and loved Wyndham's work when I was child, "The Chrysalids" and "Midwich Cuckoos" entranced me (perhaps because of the central role of children). But it was Dune that was the first universe that enthralled me, inspiring me to create within the constraints of that universe. I suspect that it will remain a classic, and remain read for many years to come. Perhap's that is the best measure of what makes SF great.
As for Film and TV, most 50's SF (the "golden age") was just allegory and metaphor, nothing wrong with that, and indeed some of it was fabulous, but once the object of the allegory is lost then the story loses meaning. Star Wars changed the landscape forever, for that alone it will last and is great. Bab 5, loved it, loved the vision, loved the idea of using TV as the medium for a grand arc, but in truth it was again just the first, and it (hopefully) will not remain the best. Finally the one offs like Blade Runner and Alien (the sequels _DO NOT COUNT_), are they really SF? possibly. Are they great? Definitely.
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
War of the Worlds. A plot so far ahead of its time that the ending is still being copied. Ususally badly (V, Independence Day - although I believe that film to be satire for reasons I'll be happy to debate later). Or how about The Shape of Things To Come, which correctly predicated mechanised warfare. Perhaps you prefer The Time Machine, redone yet again on film in the last year or so. Or perhaps The Invisible Man, redone as Hollow Man. Maybe even The Island of Dr Moreux, which predicts human/animal hybrid experiments like Slashdot's human/mouse hybrid thread a couple of days ago. All of the HG Well's stuff was set in this universe, so it becomes that much more believable.
No? How about Jules Verne's undersea worlds. Or the book his publisher rejected as too depressing, in which he described light railways, telephones and fax machines. The name unfortunately eludes me.
No? How about Brave New World. George Orwell's excellent and entirely depressing book, though to my mind a bit ripped of from his namesake's Shape of Things To Come (George Orwell. Herbet George Wells. Hmmm).
Films. How about 1926's Metropolis, from Fritz Lang? The film without which Bladerunner simply wouldn't exist. The short story 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep' probably would, but the short story and the film bear almost no resemblence to each other.
Need to look a bit further back than just the last few years. There's probably some visionary author writing before Wells that I've overlooked. If so, please tell me. I'd be interested to hear it.
Cheers, Ian
Secondly, the science is very hard. Hard science fiction is a genre that is very hard to pull off. A lot of authors who do hard sci-fi spend most of the pages of a book just describing their hard science. Baxter manages to seamlessly weave it in to the story and you barely notice, but is leaves an impression.
However, what truly makes it great is that he weaves the plot and the science together perfectly. A lot of sci-fi authors simply use sci-fi as a setting and tell a traditional type story. A sci-fi love story or a sci-fi crime thriller or a sci-fi horror story. These are all sci-fi, but can only achieve the rank of 'good' sci-fi. Truly great sci-fi needs to have science in it, but also relate it to the plot.
When I read a piece of science fiction, I like to know how the advanced science affected the culture. So, in the future there is some really cool technology. Well, how do people's lives change? What are the consequences? These are all focuses in Baxter's series. A big part of the plot is the interaction between the technologically superior Xeelee and the (comparitively) primitive human race, and the resulting war between the two races. Add to that the impending death of the universe and the pursuit of science among all of this, which leads to some startling discoveries about the Xeelee.
Few other sci-fi universes has these elements together. The only other one that I can think of off hand is the Foundation trilogy, which is second on my list. It only falls behind Baxter's series because the science is less than hard.
Foundation is actually the Roman Empire, and the first Foundation story (the prequel where Seldon is an actual character, and I mean the one that appears in the first book, not "Forward the Foundation" or whatever that tripe was much later published to cash in on the Foundation name) is the actual fall of Rome.
Any relationship to current times should be considered thought-provoking, but do note that to the extent we are currently stagnatng, it is not complete; technology is still developing at a rapid pace, which is a major difference from the Empire yet.
I found the best 'science' fiction was with the science of anthropology. The VERY BEST was CASTANEDA. He pretended it was real.
Instead of going to outer space he went to inner space.
And it was about real people who faced real problems.
He was so good that he had most people convinced it was real all the way up to the fourth book, where he tipped his hand. And still, it is listed as 'science, anthropology' and not as fiction, which it clearly is.
Very good books. Castaneda spent a lot of time studying mysticism and rolled it all into these fantastic stories about taking drugs. He sucked in the readers and then after a while admits that the drug aspect was a red herring.
I needed an english credit, and guess what they offer? ENGL 334 : Science fiction as literature. I bet you're all incredibly jealous. Here's the reading list: ;-)
Frankenstein (Shelley) : one of the first sci-fi novels, and written by a woman, on a dare
The Time Machine (Wells) : one of the first sci-fi authors, revolutionary at the time
"We" (Zamyatin) : Our prof had a hard-on for russians. And it was a good book.
Starship Troopers (Heinlein) : he bashed it because it was so fascist and militaristic. I dunno, I liked it a lot more than him.
Canticle for Leibowitz (Miller) : Wow, cool book. First published as 3 different novels, one of the first post-apocalyptic novels (excepting Shelley's "The Last Man")
Songs of Distant Earth (novel version, by Clarke) : First sci-fi novel to make it on the new york times bestseller list, written as a response to 2001's cold, pessimistic view of the future.
Solaris (Lem): Read the solaris thread from yesterday.
Left Hand of Darkness (LeGuin) : Our gay-lesbian-transgendered group did a discussion on this. It's a REALLY creative novel, and it's pretty good too.
City of Bones (Martha Wells) : Wells is an alumni, but she's also an amazing (but not prolific) writer. But I don't think she's been writing for long, so give her time. This was my favorite book because of it's VIVID world and realistic fight scenes (our hero is a good fighter, but loses repeatedly) and it's raw originality. Think "Dune" meets "Star Wars", but post-apocalyptic and with magic.
The verdict? Our prof also teaches russian lit, and he seems to think that all of these novels were based on either Brothers Karamazov or inspired by it, except for "We" which is the best book to come out of europe, ever. And he hates Heinlein for being politically incorrect. But he has a lot of interesting things to say, and he manages to make multiple lectures over each novel. And it sure as heck beats the other ENGL classes (except "Language of Film", which has 33 seats per year).
Austin is more fun than Dallas.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Fred Hoyle yet. In my very personal opinion, the best scifi book ever written his "The Black Cloud", which must have appeared in the 1950s.
There are no spaceships, no laser battles, no bug-eyed, man-eating aliens, and the story itself was set in the very near future (the 1960s, in fact).
One thing about this book is that it presents probably the most original alien I have ever read about. In fact, the extreme unoriginality of aliens in most scifi really pisses me off. Do you remember seeing some Star Trek film, in which other races make first contact with Earth? Here a Vulcan steps out of his spaceship (basically a human with pointy ears), and some onlooker says "It's like nothing we've ever seen before". Like, wow. Pointy ears. How amazingly exotic. The point is, any alien will be FAR LESS related to us than any of those truly weird creatures you can see in any rock pool at the beach, yet almost all scifi still treats aliens as basically human with some simple modifications (four arms, green skin, etc). I could go on about this. There are some other original creatures in the books out there: The Moties ("The Mote in God's eye", Larry Niven) are anatomically uninspired, but at least have a very interesting sociology; the Scrode-riders ("A Fire Upon The Deep", Vernor Vinge) are actually pretty cool, and I LOVE the role they play in the book. There may be some other examples, but most aliens suck in my opinion. Read the Black Cloud for the most interesting alien there is.
Besides that, the book is very nicely written, has interesting characters (one of them is very obviously Fred Hoyle himself), bashes politicians (which I always apreciate), and gives, in my opinion, a very realistic account of how things develop on Earth (administratively and sociologically) in a very special kind of crisis.
Lastly, this book can serve as the very definition of "hard" science fiction - which is to be expected, as Hoyle was in fact one of the world's leading astronomers (he coined the term "big bang, afik), and narrowly missed a Nobel Prize in physics for explaning the creation of heavy elements in stars.
"...Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
For me, at least, great sci-fi has to be realistic and believeable, and the tech has to be correct (at least, I have to be able to believe it could function and have some idea of how it is supposed to work).
I think the most wonderful genre is near-future science fiction. A lot of Asimov's work falls into this line, involving space exploration, etc... James P. Hogan was pretty good with his "Inherit the stars" trilogy, which I thought was pretty good. I like Heinlein a lot, because although some of his fiction goes pretty far into the future, at least the tech is handled in a very believeable way and he tries pretty hard to "get it right".
The whole cyberpunk genre is just awesome, Bruce Sterling, William Gibson, et al... I like the fact that they're very tech-centric, and make some pretty good predictions about the near future (some of which are already coming true).
I'm not into the "faraway galaxy" thing at all, I recoil at fantasy stuff like sword-and-sorcery, and if a story is too far in the future, and the tech is just completely pulled out of the author's butt I generally ditch the book and write the seven bucks off as a loss. I think this sort of thing is a sign of laziness on the part of the author; instead of researching, and figuring out how something could work if it was happening in real life, the author just says, "it's fiction" and pulls the whole thing out of his ass. It's crap, you know?
What pisses me off more than anything else is when an author has no understanding whatsoever of computer science and tries to make up a situation without researching it. I've seen a couple of novels about how a "biological virus" is "infecting the internet", or how someone caught a biological virus by looking at an infected system's VDT -- usually with some hackneyed explanation about how the flashing on the screen "hacked the person's brain". Don't get me wrong, it's fun to laugh at some joker lit major who saw "the Matrix" and figured he'd cash in, but reading the tripe he puts out is too painful.
I know, I'm judgemental. But, Jesus, a guy's gotta have his standards.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
First, I'd like to disagree with what many folks have said. Science fiction is not like ordinary fiction. I've read good SF that's lousy fiction; I've also read stuff billed as SF which wasn't, even though it made good fiction. Of course, SF is better if it's good fiction as well, but it's not vital. For example, SF benefits from realistic, subtle characterisation, but some of the great SF works have paper-thin, ludicrous characters, and they still work. Why? Because of the ideas.
IMO, SF is about ideas. They don't have to be about hard science, though many of the best ones are. They don't have to be physically possible, though again they often are. They don't even have to be fully comprehensible. They only have to be interesting and imaginative, and worked through with the other prerequisite: logic.
Good SF, like good humour, takes an idea and works through the consequences logically. It asks "What if?", and then goes on to tell us. This is where I think it diverges from fantasy; fantasy isn't interested in the consequences of the initial idea, merely using it as a device on which to hang a story. In SF, the plot is bound up with the idea itself. Some of the best SF takes the idea to its ultimate extreme; this may present us with a cautionary tale or dire warning, or conversely hopes or goals.
Some good SF uses the consequence of that idea to tell us about ourselves; the differences from the world of the story highlight aspects of our own world. Some great SF uses it to discuss the nature of the universe, of time, perception or reality itself. But none of these are essential. As I said, to me the essence of good SF is simply a good idea, followed through logically.
To take a few examples: I don't consider Star Wars to be real SF; it might make great fiction, but all the SF trappings are merely devices to tell a story that could be told just as well, though less spectacularly, in other ways. OTOH, I do consider The Truman Show to be great SF, for the sheer audacity of the central idea, and the wonderful logic with which it's followed through. I count some Star Trek episodes as SF; many not (though not all of those are bad stories). Blade Runner isn't good SF because it features androids; it's great SF because it uses them to ask questions about what it's like to be an android, how we develop emotions, and whether we can trust our memories.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
William Barton: Dark Sky Legion
Now, this is not High Art(tm), but its premise is very original, and Barton manages to pull it off: a galaxy-wide civilization of human colonies, established and held together solely by slower-than-light space ships. Currently out of print, but well worth tracking down.
David Brin: The Uplift Trilogies
Space Opera at its finest. If you read Brin's other works and didn't like them, try it anyway. If you read Sundiver and didn't like it, keep going anyway. Featuring truly alien aliens, insights into the thought patterns of space-faring dolphins, psi weaponry, privacy wasps, and more ways to cheat Einstein than Tesla would've dared to imagine - and all that in impeccable prose. Dune looks positively deserted in comparison.
Stanislav Lem: Golem
Lectures on life delivered by a machine vastly more intelligent than any human could hope to become. This should rightly be impossible to do convincingly, given that the writer is human after all, but at least in the German translation he is frighteningly convincing. So, until I find the time to learn Polish to read the original, I have to operate under the assumption that Lem is either an alien or a time traveller. For me, that makes our own universe a lot more interesting than any of the above.