Main > Everything Else
The SF (as in literature) thread
CheffoJeffo:
Hmmm ... this thread seems familiar ... hmmm ...
;)
Ummon:
--- Quote from: pinballjim on November 24, 2008, 11:06:23 pm ---So instead of slamming all of our definitions of what constitutes 'SF' how about you offer up some examples of your own? (besides that one author nobody else has ever heard of)
I've read people arguing over the debate... and the soft scifi guys will cite Clarke, Heinlein, and Anderson as examples.
The hard scifi guys will also cite Clarke, Heinlein, and Anderson as examples.
:dizzy:
--- End quote ---
I already mentioned Saint and you had pretty good ones, and added that it's hard to generalize much further. Especially with this kind of thing, it depends somewhat on era, though generally HardSF has a scientific problem(s) as backdrop if not the plot-driving device of the story. In that sense, very few of the early novels were Hard SF. The pulp fiction stuff doesn't really count either way.
--- Quote from: boykster on November 25, 2008, 01:49:03 am ---
--- Quote from: Ummon on November 24, 2008, 08:55:17 pm ---JOB is just a farce. Fun, but not SF or scifi. I lost interest with Gibson in Pattern Recognition and put it down less than a hundred pages in.
Night's dawn is great - except the second book of The Naked God, which was sort of a let down, partly because he invoked a Deus Ex Machina sort of thing. Commonwealth was very similar. Mostly great and fun, but the ending of Judas Unchained, and the whole motivation of the 'alien', was unsatisfying. And the asian detective chick was annoying because she couldn't see her function was totally reliant on any particular social mores she happened to serve under (and arbitrary because of this).
The Algebraist was slow. But what caused me to lose interest was that it seemed the same forumula as his Culture novels without anything new. Add to that his recent Matter - the latest Culture novel - that adhered to the old formula but lacked any of the rich wit and intensely black humor common in the earlier books. Or maybe it was just me, I dunno.
--- End quote ---
Find a copy of "The Man in the High Castle". Thank me later. Take that pompous, stick in the mud definition of "SF" vs Sci-Fi and read the authors who built the foundation of a legitimate branch of fiction that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for pulp novels and dime-store books.
--- End quote ---
I don't know about that. Verne and Wells were - and another American author, I want to say Hawthorne, as well as a French novelist in the late 1900s, I forget his name - were writing SF and it wasn't of the pulp style to come, though the pulp authors would surely rip from them.
boykster:
I guess I'm confused about your definition of SF - I was under the impression that you were looking for recommendations of serious authors writing in the field of science fiction (SF). Not bug-eyed monsters and laser guns, but real fiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick_Award
:dunno
Ummon:
--- Quote from: boykster on November 27, 2008, 01:17:55 am ---I guess I'm confused about your definition of SF - I was under the impression that you were looking for recommendations of serious authors writing in the field of science fiction (SF). Not bug-eyed monsters and laser guns, but real fiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick_Award
:dunno
--- End quote ---
I explained that abofe. Also, I think you may be confusing The War of the Worlds with The Time Machine, though the former was still to some degree for the time SF. Like I said, I don't call it science fiction, but science fiction is different than sci-fi. And Verne was more literarily-endowed than Wells. In any case, there's no argument here. We're all just comparing notes. Some of them are the same or similar. Some not. The real point of the thread is to talk about the stories themselves, of which no on else really has.
Ummon:
Hahahah. I've read that his stuff is pretty heady. I haven't decided to try him out yet. I've seen a lot of stuff online saying Snow Crash is phenomenal, but the premise didn't grab me. Granted, it was written in '92 when VR was becoming a mainstream buzzword and all, but the 'what is reality?' thing was already old hat to me. Maybe I'll have to go back and look again.
In the other thread, you said Canticle was difficult reading. How so?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version