Facing the Auditors July 2, 2012 8:08 AM Subscribe
Metafilter's own Charles Stross: Ask him anything (Previously on the blue, seems like it might be a better fit here)
cstross, or this guy. Very well regarded writer in the SF book world.
Looks like not much is getting answered at the moment, FWIW, but there's some great stuff so far.
posted by Artw at 8:33 AM on July 2, 2012
Looks like not much is getting answered at the moment, FWIW, but there's some great stuff so far.
posted by Artw at 8:33 AM on July 2, 2012
Maybe he needs a break but there is an excellent answers-to-questions ratio so far.
posted by CautionToTheWind at 8:37 AM on July 2, 2012
posted by CautionToTheWind at 8:37 AM on July 2, 2012
Thanks. BTW, does anyone have any recommendations for contemporary "hard" science fiction writers? Anyone writing like Arthur C. Clarke or Gregory Benford?
posted by KokuRyu at 8:38 AM on July 2, 2012
posted by KokuRyu at 8:38 AM on July 2, 2012
For hard SF, I would say Greg Egan but a) his output has really dropped off in the last 10 years and b) his last book (that I read, anyway) was both not hard and very, very boring.
You could still check out his earlier stuff, though. Still far, far ahead of the "talking heads" orientation of most of the field.
posted by DU at 8:42 AM on July 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
You could still check out his earlier stuff, though. Still far, far ahead of the "talking heads" orientation of most of the field.
posted by DU at 8:42 AM on July 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
KokoRyu, have you checked out Jack McDevitt? He's currently my favorite author of what I call "spaceship books."
posted by KathrynT at 8:52 AM on July 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 8:52 AM on July 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
You can blame a CStross reading binge last year for my " well I guess I should start pumping out sf books" mode which is boring everyone I talk to and playing havoc with my social life.
posted by The Whelk at 9:15 AM on July 2, 2012
posted by The Whelk at 9:15 AM on July 2, 2012
Thanks. BTW, does anyone have any recommendations for contemporary "hard" science fiction writers? Anyone writing like Arthur C. Clarke or Gregory Benford?
Alastair Reynolds. Stephen Baxter.
posted by endless_forms at 9:22 AM on July 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
Alastair Reynolds. Stephen Baxter.
posted by endless_forms at 9:22 AM on July 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
McDevitt's no more "hard" than is Stross, which is to say that both are pretty much right around the mean for SF and I wouldn't call either of them "soft".
I've recently read all McDevitt's Alec Benedict series, which is an interesting cross-genre exercise of SF and detective fiction. Better, in my opinion, than Rusch's Retrieval Artist series, which I've been reading lately, and which is also SF/detective.
If one is interested in hard science-fiction because of a fondness for "big ideas", then some of Stross's books qualify as strongly as any big idea SF, ever. Indeed, I think he's both at his best and worst in that regard, because he's so very ambitious.
I also very strongly recommend his "Family Trade" parallel universe series. I just finished two days ago the Pratchett/Baxter collaboration The Long Earth, which was okay, but really suffered in a comparison to Stross's books, which I couldn't help thinking about as I read it. Stross spent a lot of time thinking about mechanical world-building type stuff such as what it would mean, practically, when someone hopes across the universes (Melko's The Walls of the Universe is pretty good about this, too). But that's the kind of thing that one either appreciates or doesn't and it's not that important. More important, though, is that Stross has carefully thought about the socioeconomics involved — not just in universe-hopping, but in his alternate timeline parallel universes.
Stross is unusually attentive and thoughtful regarding the speculative ideas in his books — a trait that many appreciate in hard science-fiction, but which is really essential for good science-fiction of any variety. Stross isn't just writing entertainment, as many SF writers are, he's in the best tradition of science-fiction writers who have some very interesting and deep things to say, taking the form of Big Ideas. But, importantly, he's also competent at characterization, talented at wit, and also writes a plain good yarn. He really only ever stumbles when his ambition exceeds his considerable talent — an excusable vice, in my opinion.
A few years ago the academic group blog Crooked Timber had a "book event" dedicated to Stross — different contributers wrote about one or more of Stross's books. Paul Krugman participated, talking a bit about the Family Trade books and their economics.
A few days ago I read David Brin's Existence which is very much both hard science-fiction and a SF novel of Big Ideas. Unfortunately, excruciatingly so. I think it's a clumsy, cluttered, somewhat self-indulgent novel. And I say this as someone who's a longtime admirer of Brin and his books. However, I do think this is a YMMV situation where, if the primary quality you want in science-fiction are these big ideas in the form of hard science-fiction, then you may be completely forgiving of its flaws.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:27 AM on July 2, 2012 [4 favorites]
I've recently read all McDevitt's Alec Benedict series, which is an interesting cross-genre exercise of SF and detective fiction. Better, in my opinion, than Rusch's Retrieval Artist series, which I've been reading lately, and which is also SF/detective.
If one is interested in hard science-fiction because of a fondness for "big ideas", then some of Stross's books qualify as strongly as any big idea SF, ever. Indeed, I think he's both at his best and worst in that regard, because he's so very ambitious.
I also very strongly recommend his "Family Trade" parallel universe series. I just finished two days ago the Pratchett/Baxter collaboration The Long Earth, which was okay, but really suffered in a comparison to Stross's books, which I couldn't help thinking about as I read it. Stross spent a lot of time thinking about mechanical world-building type stuff such as what it would mean, practically, when someone hopes across the universes (Melko's The Walls of the Universe is pretty good about this, too). But that's the kind of thing that one either appreciates or doesn't and it's not that important. More important, though, is that Stross has carefully thought about the socioeconomics involved — not just in universe-hopping, but in his alternate timeline parallel universes.
Stross is unusually attentive and thoughtful regarding the speculative ideas in his books — a trait that many appreciate in hard science-fiction, but which is really essential for good science-fiction of any variety. Stross isn't just writing entertainment, as many SF writers are, he's in the best tradition of science-fiction writers who have some very interesting and deep things to say, taking the form of Big Ideas. But, importantly, he's also competent at characterization, talented at wit, and also writes a plain good yarn. He really only ever stumbles when his ambition exceeds his considerable talent — an excusable vice, in my opinion.
A few years ago the academic group blog Crooked Timber had a "book event" dedicated to Stross — different contributers wrote about one or more of Stross's books. Paul Krugman participated, talking a bit about the Family Trade books and their economics.
A few days ago I read David Brin's Existence which is very much both hard science-fiction and a SF novel of Big Ideas. Unfortunately, excruciatingly so. I think it's a clumsy, cluttered, somewhat self-indulgent novel. And I say this as someone who's a longtime admirer of Brin and his books. However, I do think this is a YMMV situation where, if the primary quality you want in science-fiction are these big ideas in the form of hard science-fiction, then you may be completely forgiving of its flaws.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:27 AM on July 2, 2012 [4 favorites]
KokuRyu: "Thanks. BTW, does anyone have any recommendations for contemporary "hard" science fiction writers? Anyone writing like Arthur C. Clarke or Gregory Benford?"
Iain M. Banks' Culture series.
Dan Simmons' Endymion series. Hyperion, Fall of Hyperion, Endymion, Rise of Endymion. The books vary widely in writing style. Hyperion is a scifi Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.
Alastair Reynolds
David Brin's Uplift Series (First trilogy were written in the 80's: Sundiver, Startide Rising, The Uplift War. They're classics. Second trilogy was written in the 90's and 00's: Brightness Reef, Infinity's Short, Heaven's Reach. They're slower going and deeper.)
Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series: Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars, The Martians. This is from Green Mars.
posted by zarq at 9:29 AM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
Iain M. Banks' Culture series.
Dan Simmons' Endymion series. Hyperion, Fall of Hyperion, Endymion, Rise of Endymion. The books vary widely in writing style. Hyperion is a scifi Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.
Alastair Reynolds
David Brin's Uplift Series (First trilogy were written in the 80's: Sundiver, Startide Rising, The Uplift War. They're classics. Second trilogy was written in the 90's and 00's: Brightness Reef, Infinity's Short, Heaven's Reach. They're slower going and deeper.)
Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series: Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars, The Martians. This is from Green Mars.
posted by zarq at 9:29 AM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
Seconding Stephen Baxter. Jack McDevitt is pretty great (and actually answers emails from teenage readers, or at least did in the early '00s) but there's enough handwavey FTL, etc, that I'm a bit hesitant to classify him as "hard." Then again, you could apply the same argument to Arthur C. Clarke if you accept anything after Rama II in that series as remotely canon, heh. I blame Gentry Lee.
posted by Alterscape at 9:31 AM on July 2, 2012
posted by Alterscape at 9:31 AM on July 2, 2012
Ivan Fyodorovich: " A few days ago I read David Brin's Existence which is very much both hard science-fiction and a SF novel of Big Ideas. Unfortunately, excruciatingly so. I think it's a clumsy, cluttered, somewhat self-indulgent novel. And I say this as someone who's a longtime admirer of Brin and his books. However, I do think this is a YMMV situation where, if the primary quality you want in science-fiction are these big ideas in the form of hard science-fiction, then you may be completely forgiving of its flaws."
Out of curiosity, how did it compare to Earth?
posted by zarq at 9:33 AM on July 2, 2012
Out of curiosity, how did it compare to Earth?
posted by zarq at 9:33 AM on July 2, 2012
What timing! I was going to ask him where I hid my copies of the Merchant Princes series (someone had to know!), but I found it yesterday after months of looking for it! Yay!
posted by deborah at 9:35 AM on July 2, 2012
posted by deborah at 9:35 AM on July 2, 2012
Heh...zarq, your comment reads like it was posted from 1993. I'd assumed that anyone asking for hard SF like Benford would be looking for something from the last ten years or so and would be familiar with stuff from the 80s and 90s.
Banks is a by a large margin my favorite SF writer these days, but I'd not consider him especially "hard". He's about as hard as Stross. Less so, really. In spirit he's more writing soft science fiction but cloaking it in hard-seeming space opera, which I think is kind of clever. But also I suspect he's writing space opera just for the fun of it, too.
I would consider Simmons very "hard", either. And outside of his Hyperion books, which themselves were uneven, I don't think his SF has been that impressive. As a body of work, aside from the Hyperion books, I think Simmons has been much more successful and impressive as a horror writer.
KSR's Mars books are classics of science fiction, and rightly so. But they're quite old.
Of those you mention, Alastair Reynolds is easily the most classically "hard" science-fiction writer who is actively writing today. In ways which are sometimes typical vices.
"Out of curiosity, how did it compare to Earth?"
I can't really say, as I read Earth only once when it came out and that was 22 years ago. I had to look it up just now to recall what it was about. And when I did, I immediately thought of Bear's The Forge of God, which is easily my favorite "destruction of the Earth" book of all time and which I've read several times. And that reminds me of his Eon, which is one of my top five science-fiction novels ever, and I highly recommend it for anyone interested in hard, big idea SF who's not already read it.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:44 AM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
Banks is a by a large margin my favorite SF writer these days, but I'd not consider him especially "hard". He's about as hard as Stross. Less so, really. In spirit he's more writing soft science fiction but cloaking it in hard-seeming space opera, which I think is kind of clever. But also I suspect he's writing space opera just for the fun of it, too.
I would consider Simmons very "hard", either. And outside of his Hyperion books, which themselves were uneven, I don't think his SF has been that impressive. As a body of work, aside from the Hyperion books, I think Simmons has been much more successful and impressive as a horror writer.
KSR's Mars books are classics of science fiction, and rightly so. But they're quite old.
Of those you mention, Alastair Reynolds is easily the most classically "hard" science-fiction writer who is actively writing today. In ways which are sometimes typical vices.
"Out of curiosity, how did it compare to Earth?"
I can't really say, as I read Earth only once when it came out and that was 22 years ago. I had to look it up just now to recall what it was about. And when I did, I immediately thought of Bear's The Forge of God, which is easily my favorite "destruction of the Earth" book of all time and which I've read several times. And that reminds me of his Eon, which is one of my top five science-fiction novels ever, and I highly recommend it for anyone interested in hard, big idea SF who's not already read it.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:44 AM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
The Culture books, Hyperion/Endymion, and Uplift are very far from hard SF. OTOH, if you mistakenly think Niven's Known Space is hard SF in spite of the hyperspace and psychic powers and genetically-powered luck, you might make the same mistake with those series.
RGB Mars is trying to be hard SF but has huge high-school-science howlers.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:45 AM on July 2, 2012
RGB Mars is trying to be hard SF but has huge high-school-science howlers.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:45 AM on July 2, 2012
As I've written here before, I think pretty much all science-fiction has bad science, it just depends upon how competent the reader is to recognize it. The hard/soft distinction is not very useful, in my opinion, and especially when formulated as a distinction between supposedly good or bad science.
Usually, I think, if someone cares about this, then they're looking for one or more things that are better specified explicitly. Such as strong versus weak science credibility, or an emphasis on psychology/character versus an emphasis on technology, or space opera versus near-future sociopolitics. Some of these things correlate with others and so there's some very loose correlations that reduce to "hard" versus "soft". But then often people wrongly think that those correlations are strong and therefore space opera can't be psychologically complex and credible or near-future science-fiction about politics and character can't be scientifically credible. Or whatever. And, at worst, it reduces to "male-authored space engineer == good" versus "female-authored character study == bad", which is both wrong and offensive.
For example, the difference of opinion about Banks's Culture books. Some might think them "hard" because they're space opera. Others might think them "soft" because a large portion of the implicit science is so advanced it might as well be pure magic. It's not really a useful distinction, I think. I do believe that Banks's "science" is self-consistent and he includes some credible real-world science and engineering. For credibility, which is part of the genre.
An even more revealing example is Peter Hamilton's Night's Dawn Trilogy which confuses the issue of hard vs soft entirely. The trilogy is both science- and technology-laden and fantastical. But that parallels the fact that it's both science-fiction and horror. It's space opera (with some of the best space warfare I've ever read) and character studies (I got to know Al Capone much better than I ever thought I would, for some version of "Al Capone"). And, in my opinion, it's successful at all of this and he produces some of the most interesting and enjoyable books I've read in the last twenty years. If all these things were mutually exclusive polarities, as people imagine they are, such books wouldn't be possible because supposedly the science is either credible or it's not. But these books, and science-fiction in general, is all about a mix of credible and incredible science.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 10:10 AM on July 2, 2012 [3 favorites]
Usually, I think, if someone cares about this, then they're looking for one or more things that are better specified explicitly. Such as strong versus weak science credibility, or an emphasis on psychology/character versus an emphasis on technology, or space opera versus near-future sociopolitics. Some of these things correlate with others and so there's some very loose correlations that reduce to "hard" versus "soft". But then often people wrongly think that those correlations are strong and therefore space opera can't be psychologically complex and credible or near-future science-fiction about politics and character can't be scientifically credible. Or whatever. And, at worst, it reduces to "male-authored space engineer == good" versus "female-authored character study == bad", which is both wrong and offensive.
For example, the difference of opinion about Banks's Culture books. Some might think them "hard" because they're space opera. Others might think them "soft" because a large portion of the implicit science is so advanced it might as well be pure magic. It's not really a useful distinction, I think. I do believe that Banks's "science" is self-consistent and he includes some credible real-world science and engineering. For credibility, which is part of the genre.
An even more revealing example is Peter Hamilton's Night's Dawn Trilogy which confuses the issue of hard vs soft entirely. The trilogy is both science- and technology-laden and fantastical. But that parallels the fact that it's both science-fiction and horror. It's space opera (with some of the best space warfare I've ever read) and character studies (I got to know Al Capone much better than I ever thought I would, for some version of "Al Capone"). And, in my opinion, it's successful at all of this and he produces some of the most interesting and enjoyable books I've read in the last twenty years. If all these things were mutually exclusive polarities, as people imagine they are, such books wouldn't be possible because supposedly the science is either credible or it's not. But these books, and science-fiction in general, is all about a mix of credible and incredible science.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 10:10 AM on July 2, 2012 [3 favorites]
Stephen Baxter.
Oh jesus. This is exactly who I was thinking of when I wrote "talking heads science fiction". There's no science and precious little fiction. It's just a bunch of unmotivated people having tender feelings and blundering around figuring out stuff any well-read SF fan realized on page 3.
posted by DU at 10:43 AM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
Oh jesus. This is exactly who I was thinking of when I wrote "talking heads science fiction". There's no science and precious little fiction. It's just a bunch of unmotivated people having tender feelings and blundering around figuring out stuff any well-read SF fan realized on page 3.
posted by DU at 10:43 AM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
I like Jack McDevitt for bucking the trend of dystopian finger-wagging and writing books set in a future full of both cool whiz-bang technology and people with recognizably human problems and motivations. The last couple of Alex Benedict books, though, seemed to me weaker than the first ones. It's not "hard" SF by any stretch, but they're fun to read.
And I just bought Existence yesterday. Ivan Fyodorovich's comment confirms my suspicions about it. Wish I'd read that BEFORE spending money on it. I'd have checked it out of the library instead. Eh. Too late now. FWIW, Existence is available at the same price thru Amazon and iBooks, but the iBooks version has no DRM (thanks, Tor! Y'all rule!) unlike the Kindle edition, so if you have the choice of which Big Huge Evil Publisher-Destroying Corporation to buy the ebook from, I suggest choosing Apple over Amazon this time at least.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:58 AM on July 2, 2012
And I just bought Existence yesterday. Ivan Fyodorovich's comment confirms my suspicions about it. Wish I'd read that BEFORE spending money on it. I'd have checked it out of the library instead. Eh. Too late now. FWIW, Existence is available at the same price thru Amazon and iBooks, but the iBooks version has no DRM (thanks, Tor! Y'all rule!) unlike the Kindle edition, so if you have the choice of which Big Huge Evil Publisher-Destroying Corporation to buy the ebook from, I suggest choosing Apple over Amazon this time at least.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:58 AM on July 2, 2012
DUDE GET INTO QUARANTINE BEFORE WARPING BACK FORM REDDIT LIKE THAT.
Do you want us to get memes?
This is how you get memes!
posted by The Whelk at 11:34 AM on July 2, 2012
Do you want us to get memes?
This is how you get memes!
posted by The Whelk at 11:34 AM on July 2, 2012
Ivan Fyodorovich: "Heh...zarq, your comment reads like it was posted from 1993.
The request was for contemporary authors. All of the ones I listed are contemporary.
Since you're nitpicking: KSR's The Martians was published in 2000. He's written quasi-scifi books since then, but imo they're less good than the others, so I didn't mention them. Banks, Brin, Reynolds and Simmons have all published science fiction books within the last few years. Simmons hasn't published one since 2005, I believe. Brin: June 2012. Reynolds: January 2012. Banks: coming October 2012. Simmons, July 2005.
I'd assumed that anyone asking for hard SF like Benford would be looking for something from the last ten years or so and would be familiar with stuff from the 80s and 90s.
I made no such assumption. In my experience, folks who came to scifi through the likes of Asimov, Niven, Heinlein, Clarke and Bradbury aren't necessarily going to be familiar with Banks' work. Or have delved into KSR's or Simmons'. I'd rather introduce someone to an author whose work is still being produced that they might enjoy than be unnecessarily stingy with a suggestion.
Banks is a by a large margin my favorite SF writer these days, but I'd not consider him especially "hard". He's about as hard as Stross. Less so, really. In spirit he's more writing soft science fiction but cloaking it in hard-seeming space opera, which I think is kind of clever. But also I suspect he's writing space opera just for the fun of it, too.
I would consider Simmons very "hard", either. And outside of his Hyperion books, which themselves were uneven, I don't think his SF has been that impressive. As a body of work, aside from the Hyperion books, I think Simmons has been much more successful and impressive as a horror writer.
OK. *shrug* We disagree.
I can't really say, as I read Earth only once when it came out and that was 22 years ago. I had to look it up just now to recall what it was about. And when I did, I immediately thought of Bear's The Forge of God, which is easily my favorite "destruction of the Earth" book of all time and which I've read several times. And that reminds me of his Eon, which is one of my top five science-fiction novels ever, and I highly recommend it for anyone interested in hard, big idea SF who's not already read it."
Ugh. Man, do we have different tastes. Forge of God was really nothing like Earth, by the way. They barely shared a single thematic element. The sequel, Anvil of Stars... was... well I suppose the kindest description I can give it was "it was simplistic and predictable."
Bear's work has always struck me as similar to Michael Crichton's. Both came up with good concepts and wrote treatments around them, only creating enough character and plot depth to move the story forward. Which is fine and all well and good, but there are scifi authors like Vernor Vinge who can and do write rings around them, intellectually. (See: A Deepness in the Sky) I think they're in different leagues.
posted by zarq at 11:45 AM on July 2, 2012
The request was for contemporary authors. All of the ones I listed are contemporary.
Since you're nitpicking: KSR's The Martians was published in 2000. He's written quasi-scifi books since then, but imo they're less good than the others, so I didn't mention them. Banks, Brin, Reynolds and Simmons have all published science fiction books within the last few years. Simmons hasn't published one since 2005, I believe. Brin: June 2012. Reynolds: January 2012. Banks: coming October 2012. Simmons, July 2005.
I'd assumed that anyone asking for hard SF like Benford would be looking for something from the last ten years or so and would be familiar with stuff from the 80s and 90s.
I made no such assumption. In my experience, folks who came to scifi through the likes of Asimov, Niven, Heinlein, Clarke and Bradbury aren't necessarily going to be familiar with Banks' work. Or have delved into KSR's or Simmons'. I'd rather introduce someone to an author whose work is still being produced that they might enjoy than be unnecessarily stingy with a suggestion.
Banks is a by a large margin my favorite SF writer these days, but I'd not consider him especially "hard". He's about as hard as Stross. Less so, really. In spirit he's more writing soft science fiction but cloaking it in hard-seeming space opera, which I think is kind of clever. But also I suspect he's writing space opera just for the fun of it, too.
I would consider Simmons very "hard", either. And outside of his Hyperion books, which themselves were uneven, I don't think his SF has been that impressive. As a body of work, aside from the Hyperion books, I think Simmons has been much more successful and impressive as a horror writer.
OK. *shrug* We disagree.
I can't really say, as I read Earth only once when it came out and that was 22 years ago. I had to look it up just now to recall what it was about. And when I did, I immediately thought of Bear's The Forge of God, which is easily my favorite "destruction of the Earth" book of all time and which I've read several times. And that reminds me of his Eon, which is one of my top five science-fiction novels ever, and I highly recommend it for anyone interested in hard, big idea SF who's not already read it."
Ugh. Man, do we have different tastes. Forge of God was really nothing like Earth, by the way. They barely shared a single thematic element. The sequel, Anvil of Stars... was... well I suppose the kindest description I can give it was "it was simplistic and predictable."
Bear's work has always struck me as similar to Michael Crichton's. Both came up with good concepts and wrote treatments around them, only creating enough character and plot depth to move the story forward. Which is fine and all well and good, but there are scifi authors like Vernor Vinge who can and do write rings around them, intellectually. (See: A Deepness in the Sky) I think they're in different leagues.
posted by zarq at 11:45 AM on July 2, 2012
My boas is towards short stories, so I'm going to suggest grabbing Engineering Inifity, an anthology with a lot of people who could be in the running, reading that and then following up on whichever author strikes your fancy.
Oh, and Malak, the extremely good drone based story by Peter Watts that's in there can be listened to over at StarShipSofa. He's defiantly worth checking out.
posted by Artw at 11:47 AM on July 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
Oh, and Malak, the extremely good drone based story by Peter Watts that's in there can be listened to over at StarShipSofa. He's defiantly worth checking out.
posted by Artw at 11:47 AM on July 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
Oh yeah, seconding Deepness by Vinge. Very hard SF but still manages to out-creative 10 of Baxter.
posted by DU at 12:14 PM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by DU at 12:14 PM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
Engineering Infinity could be good, but this:
posted by DU at 12:16 PM on July 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
...or simply realizing that a hitchhiker on a starship consumes fuel and oxygen with tragic results...better be The Cold Equations or I'm going to sue someone.
posted by DU at 12:16 PM on July 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
zarq, Artw, did you see there's a sequel to Fire Upon the Deep out? I just finished it. It's on a smaller scale than Fire, but I liked it very much.
posted by KathrynT at 12:36 PM on July 2, 2012
posted by KathrynT at 12:36 PM on July 2, 2012
Neal Asher writes some pretty good hard SF. He's got three series, Agent Cormac, Polity, and Spatterjay (I don't know anything about the Owner trilogy) set in his Polity universe. I've read all of Polity and Spatterjay. It looks like the Agent Cormac series is actually the first, although he gives enough backstory that I didn't have any trouble picking up the "layout" of the universe, and the series' overlap quite a bit.
posted by blm at 12:39 PM on July 2, 2012
posted by blm at 12:39 PM on July 2, 2012
KathrynT: "zarq, Artw, did you see there's a sequel to Fire Upon the Deep out? I just finished it. It's on a smaller scale than Fire, but I liked it very much."
I did! Am looking forward to it. Fire was less brilliant than Deepness, imo. But I still quite enjoyed it.
posted by zarq at 12:42 PM on July 2, 2012
I did! Am looking forward to it. Fire was less brilliant than Deepness, imo. But I still quite enjoyed it.
posted by zarq at 12:42 PM on July 2, 2012
I liked Deepness and LOVED Fire. This one is basically all Slow Zone stuff, you might like it more than Fire.
posted by KathrynT at 12:43 PM on July 2, 2012
posted by KathrynT at 12:43 PM on July 2, 2012
Thanks for posting, I would have missed it otherwise
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:46 PM on July 2, 2012
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:46 PM on July 2, 2012
KathrynT - it's near the middle of a pretty big pile - well, partially that's an ePile now - might have to move it up a few places.
posted by Artw at 12:52 PM on July 2, 2012
posted by Artw at 12:52 PM on July 2, 2012
"...but there are scifi authors like Vernor Vinge who can and do write rings around them, intellectually. (See: A Deepness in the Sky) I think they're in different leagues."
Oh, I agree that Vinge is in a different league. But I think he's in a different league than most SF writers.
I don't expect much from genre writers and so I'm quite forgiving. I loved both Eon and Forge because I loved the mind-blowing elements of the former and I loved the world-destroying elements of the latter. I think there's very little quality science-fiction these days and I've sort of lost interest nitpicking about differences in quality in what I think is all quite mediocre, all things considered. If I'm reading Dostoyevsky again, for example — or for that matter Karen Joy Fowler or Lethem or whomever — and then go back to reading some science-fiction, all the huffing-and-puffing about who is "good" and who is "bad" seems really absurd to me.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:55 PM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
Oh, I agree that Vinge is in a different league. But I think he's in a different league than most SF writers.
I don't expect much from genre writers and so I'm quite forgiving. I loved both Eon and Forge because I loved the mind-blowing elements of the former and I loved the world-destroying elements of the latter. I think there's very little quality science-fiction these days and I've sort of lost interest nitpicking about differences in quality in what I think is all quite mediocre, all things considered. If I'm reading Dostoyevsky again, for example — or for that matter Karen Joy Fowler or Lethem or whomever — and then go back to reading some science-fiction, all the huffing-and-puffing about who is "good" and who is "bad" seems really absurd to me.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:55 PM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
DU: "For hard SF, I would say Greg Egan"
Yesss. 90s Greg Egan is the bomb. Quarantine made me weep in amazement.
posted by Plutor at 1:00 PM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
Yesss. 90s Greg Egan is the bomb. Quarantine made me weep in amazement.
posted by Plutor at 1:00 PM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
Engineering Infinity could be good, but this:
...or simply realizing that a hitchhiker on a starship consumes fuel and oxygen with tragic results...
better be The Cold Equations or I'm going to sue someone.
Referenced in the blurb as the kind of thing they were after, not in the book though, it's all modern stuff.
posted by Artw at 1:07 PM on July 2, 2012
...or simply realizing that a hitchhiker on a starship consumes fuel and oxygen with tragic results...
better be The Cold Equations or I'm going to sue someone.
Referenced in the blurb as the kind of thing they were after, not in the book though, it's all modern stuff.
posted by Artw at 1:07 PM on July 2, 2012
KathrynT: "zarq, Artw, did you see there's a sequel to Fire Upon the Deep out? I just finished it. It's on a smaller scale than Fire, but I liked it very much"
Geez, would it kill you folks to maybe include a title? Had to amazon search it myself! The horror!
So anyway, I assume you're talking about The Children of the Sky, right?
posted by Grither at 1:14 PM on July 2, 2012
Geez, would it kill you folks to maybe include a title? Had to amazon search it myself! The horror!
So anyway, I assume you're talking about The Children of the Sky, right?
posted by Grither at 1:14 PM on July 2, 2012
I think there's very little quality science-fiction these days and I've sort of lost interest nitpicking about differences in quality in what I think is all quite mediocre, all things considered.
I don't know, man. I was feeling the same way for years - just reading "literary" fiction for the longest time. But honestly, I finally started getting some recommendations of more recent stuff and I've gotten on a huge kick. I mean, I don't know how recently you gave up, but stuff like The Windup Girl, and How To Live Safely in a Science Fictional Universe, or The Intuitionist have given me so much hope for the entire genre again. I mean, even stuff that's mostly a fun-ass thought experiment, like Spin, still have these really well thought out characters and emotionally involving stories. I feel like SF is in such a better place than it was back when I last gave up on it.
posted by shmegegge at 1:16 PM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
I don't know, man. I was feeling the same way for years - just reading "literary" fiction for the longest time. But honestly, I finally started getting some recommendations of more recent stuff and I've gotten on a huge kick. I mean, I don't know how recently you gave up, but stuff like The Windup Girl, and How To Live Safely in a Science Fictional Universe, or The Intuitionist have given me so much hope for the entire genre again. I mean, even stuff that's mostly a fun-ass thought experiment, like Spin, still have these really well thought out characters and emotionally involving stories. I feel like SF is in such a better place than it was back when I last gave up on it.
posted by shmegegge at 1:16 PM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
Children of the Sky, yes. Sorry. My kid was in the hospital yesterday and I'm still a little sleep deprived.
posted by KathrynT at 1:16 PM on July 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by KathrynT at 1:16 PM on July 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
Ivan Fyodorovich: "Oh, I agree that Vinge is in a different league. But I think he's in a different league than most SF writers.
Agreed.
Brin's Earth was... flawed in some ways. But it was complex and intricately woven. I appreciated it for that. The book had (at least!) six or seven main plot lines and a few brilliant asides (like this or this) that made me think he was trying to comment on *everything* he possibly could and as a result the book had difficulty finding its focus.
Anway, I've probably read Deepness 10 times? 12? I read voraciously, and it's one of only a handful of books that I enjoyed so much I'd read it again and again. His Peace War series was wonderful, too. If less epic in scope!
I mentioned this in another thread recently... the end of Deepness has a plot twist which wouldn't be apparent to anyone who hadn't read Fire. It literally transforms the sense and feel of the ending. I read Deepness first, then Fire. And having finished Fire, and then upon rereading Deepness, I was rather shocked. The end of the book literally reads differently to people depending on whether they've read Fire. This had to have been a deliberate choice on Vinge's part.
I don't expect much from genre writers and so I'm quite forgiving.
I am too... but I do have a couple of standards. ;D
I loved both Eon and Forge because I loved the mind-blowing elements of the former and I loved the world-destroying elements of the latter.
OK. I can understand that.
I think there's very little quality science-fiction these days
It's always been that way, I think. The same era that gave us Heinlein also gave us Hubbard. Also, (speaking of Heinlein) quality doesn't just vary by author -- it often varies from book to book by the same author. Which makes their work harder to recommend as a whole.
...and I've sort of lost interest nitpicking about differences in quality in what I think is all quite mediocre, all things considered. If I'm reading Dostoyevsky again, for example — or for that matter Karen Joy Fowler or Lethem or whomever — and then go back to reading some science-fiction, all the huffing-and-puffing about who is "good" and who is "bad" seems really absurd to me."
Understandable.
posted by zarq at 1:22 PM on July 2, 2012
Agreed.
Brin's Earth was... flawed in some ways. But it was complex and intricately woven. I appreciated it for that. The book had (at least!) six or seven main plot lines and a few brilliant asides (like this or this) that made me think he was trying to comment on *everything* he possibly could and as a result the book had difficulty finding its focus.
Anway, I've probably read Deepness 10 times? 12? I read voraciously, and it's one of only a handful of books that I enjoyed so much I'd read it again and again. His Peace War series was wonderful, too. If less epic in scope!
I mentioned this in another thread recently... the end of Deepness has a plot twist which wouldn't be apparent to anyone who hadn't read Fire. It literally transforms the sense and feel of the ending. I read Deepness first, then Fire. And having finished Fire, and then upon rereading Deepness, I was rather shocked. The end of the book literally reads differently to people depending on whether they've read Fire. This had to have been a deliberate choice on Vinge's part.
I don't expect much from genre writers and so I'm quite forgiving.
I am too... but I do have a couple of standards. ;D
I loved both Eon and Forge because I loved the mind-blowing elements of the former and I loved the world-destroying elements of the latter.
OK. I can understand that.
I think there's very little quality science-fiction these days
It's always been that way, I think. The same era that gave us Heinlein also gave us Hubbard. Also, (speaking of Heinlein) quality doesn't just vary by author -- it often varies from book to book by the same author. Which makes their work harder to recommend as a whole.
...and I've sort of lost interest nitpicking about differences in quality in what I think is all quite mediocre, all things considered. If I'm reading Dostoyevsky again, for example — or for that matter Karen Joy Fowler or Lethem or whomever — and then go back to reading some science-fiction, all the huffing-and-puffing about who is "good" and who is "bad" seems really absurd to me."
Understandable.
posted by zarq at 1:22 PM on July 2, 2012
Neal Asher isn't hard science fiction at all, but more "throw in everything including a sentient kitchen sink, blend well and make it into a space opera". I like his novels, but they're biological and fleshy at times, dripping ichor, gore and other precious bodily fluids.
Richard Morgan is the opposite, clinical, with the sharp pain of a fresh break or an upcoming headache, also writing adventure stories set in a space opera universe, but from a more leftwing point of view and more cynical.
On the distaff side, Liz Williams writes sort of the same sort of stories.
Ken MacLeod at this point is perhaps closest to Charlie's work; Intrusion could've been set in the same universe as Halting State. No wonder, as they're often found in the same pubs. MacLeod is of course the guy who got Iain Banks to write sf.
Jack McDevitt is just dull and nothing I've read off him or about him has changed that feeling for me. Baxter is just awful. The Windup Girl is orientalist tripe.
Nicola Griffith's Slow River is proper hard science fiction, mostly set in a sewage treatment facility even.
Anything Mary Gentle does is hard sf, if not based on any science we'd now recognised as such.
Anything Walter Jon Williams, Jo Walton, Jon Courtenay Grimwood, Gwyneth Jones, Ian McDonald or Paul McAuley write is worth checking out.
Off the top of my head.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:32 PM on July 2, 2012 [3 favorites]
Richard Morgan is the opposite, clinical, with the sharp pain of a fresh break or an upcoming headache, also writing adventure stories set in a space opera universe, but from a more leftwing point of view and more cynical.
On the distaff side, Liz Williams writes sort of the same sort of stories.
Ken MacLeod at this point is perhaps closest to Charlie's work; Intrusion could've been set in the same universe as Halting State. No wonder, as they're often found in the same pubs. MacLeod is of course the guy who got Iain Banks to write sf.
Jack McDevitt is just dull and nothing I've read off him or about him has changed that feeling for me. Baxter is just awful. The Windup Girl is orientalist tripe.
Nicola Griffith's Slow River is proper hard science fiction, mostly set in a sewage treatment facility even.
Anything Mary Gentle does is hard sf, if not based on any science we'd now recognised as such.
Anything Walter Jon Williams, Jo Walton, Jon Courtenay Grimwood, Gwyneth Jones, Ian McDonald or Paul McAuley write is worth checking out.
Off the top of my head.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:32 PM on July 2, 2012 [3 favorites]
Brin's Earth was... flawed in some ways.
But boy, did he guess right in where we would end up: a world wrecked by climate change with people fleeing online, where smoking largely is a thing of the past and surveillance is omnipresent and increasingly done by individual citizens.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:36 PM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
But boy, did he guess right in where we would end up: a world wrecked by climate change with people fleeing online, where smoking largely is a thing of the past and surveillance is omnipresent and increasingly done by individual citizens.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:36 PM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
Anyone writing like Arthur C. Clarke or Gregory Benford?
With the caveat that everyone's definition of "hard" sf is different: Greg Egan, Paul McAuley, Alaistair Reynolds, Ian McDonald, Stephen Baxter, Ken Macleod, C.J. Cherryh, Vernor Vinge, Kim Stanley Robinson (yes, Mars books are old but Galileo's Dream and the new one 2312 are also good), Robert Charles Wilson, some Charles Stross (many of his books are fantasy rather than science fiction, though all are worth recommending), Robert Reed, Justina Robson, Karl Schroeder, Ted Chiang, Joan Slonczewski, Neal Stephenson, Paolo Bacigalupi. (I'm sure I am forgetting a few I would want to include.)
posted by aught at 2:03 PM on July 2, 2012 [3 favorites]
With the caveat that everyone's definition of "hard" sf is different: Greg Egan, Paul McAuley, Alaistair Reynolds, Ian McDonald, Stephen Baxter, Ken Macleod, C.J. Cherryh, Vernor Vinge, Kim Stanley Robinson (yes, Mars books are old but Galileo's Dream and the new one 2312 are also good), Robert Charles Wilson, some Charles Stross (many of his books are fantasy rather than science fiction, though all are worth recommending), Robert Reed, Justina Robson, Karl Schroeder, Ted Chiang, Joan Slonczewski, Neal Stephenson, Paolo Bacigalupi. (I'm sure I am forgetting a few I would want to include.)
posted by aught at 2:03 PM on July 2, 2012 [3 favorites]
...stuff like The Windup Girl, and How To Live Safely in a Science Fictional Universe, or The Intuitionist have given me so much hope for the entire genre again. I mean, even stuff that's mostly a fun-ass thought experiment, like Spin, still have these really well thought out characters and emotionally involving stories.
The only one of these I tried was Safely and I only got a little ways into it. It was exactly the "great concept ruined by 'emotionally involving' story" that I hate. There's tons of sentimental junk out there. I want something to think about.
posted by DU at 2:23 PM on July 2, 2012
The only one of these I tried was Safely and I only got a little ways into it. It was exactly the "great concept ruined by 'emotionally involving' story" that I hate. There's tons of sentimental junk out there. I want something to think about.
posted by DU at 2:23 PM on July 2, 2012
yeah, I tend to fall pretty far away from the hard sci fi stuff. I've always seen the densely technical stuff as bogging down a story, and strongly prefer something that looks at what impact the setting/technology has on personal and societal relationships.
posted by shmegegge at 2:25 PM on July 2, 2012
posted by shmegegge at 2:25 PM on July 2, 2012
Kathryn, hope your kidlet is okay. :(
grither, sorry. Yes, that's the one.
posted by zarq at 2:28 PM on July 2, 2012
grither, sorry. Yes, that's the one.
posted by zarq at 2:28 PM on July 2, 2012
You can't do much better than CJ Cherryh for hard sci-fi in space. Her Chanur books are a Traveller game in novel form (which sounds like less of a recommendation than it should be, trust me she's great).
An even more revealing example is Peter Hamilton's Night's Dawn Trilogy which confuses the issue of hard vs soft entirely. The trilogy is both science- and technology-laden and fantastical. But that parallels the fact that it's both science-fiction and horror. It's space opera (with some of the best space warfare I've ever read) and character studies (I got to know Al Capone much better than I ever thought I would, for some version of "Al Capone"). And, in my opinion, it's successful at all of this and he produces some of the most interesting and enjoyable books I've read in the last twenty years
Hm. I thought Night's Dawn started really strong as crazily wide-screen baroque sci-fi and tapered off, not least because of his vocab tics - TELL ME AGAIN ABOUT NEURAL NANONICS, PETER - and adolescent approach to sex.
Peter Hamilton is the Steven Erikson of scifi, and should be recommended with caveats.
posted by Sebmojo at 2:42 PM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
An even more revealing example is Peter Hamilton's Night's Dawn Trilogy which confuses the issue of hard vs soft entirely. The trilogy is both science- and technology-laden and fantastical. But that parallels the fact that it's both science-fiction and horror. It's space opera (with some of the best space warfare I've ever read) and character studies (I got to know Al Capone much better than I ever thought I would, for some version of "Al Capone"). And, in my opinion, it's successful at all of this and he produces some of the most interesting and enjoyable books I've read in the last twenty years
Hm. I thought Night's Dawn started really strong as crazily wide-screen baroque sci-fi and tapered off, not least because of his vocab tics - TELL ME AGAIN ABOUT NEURAL NANONICS, PETER - and adolescent approach to sex.
Peter Hamilton is the Steven Erikson of scifi, and should be recommended with caveats.
posted by Sebmojo at 2:42 PM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
I'm afraid I thought 'Children of the Sky' was absolutely terrible. Not a patch on the previous books :(
posted by pharm at 2:43 PM on July 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by pharm at 2:43 PM on July 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
NB. I really enjoyed Greg Bear's "Hull Zero Three" as it happens.
posted by pharm at 2:44 PM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by pharm at 2:44 PM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
Bear's work has always struck me as similar to Michael Crichton's. Both came up with good concepts and wrote treatments around them, only creating enough character and plot depth to move the story forward. Which is fine and all well and good, but there are scifi authors like Vernor Vinge who can and do write rings around them, intellectually. (See: A Deepness in the Sky) I think they're in different leagues.
posted by zarq at 8:45 AM on July 2 [+] [!]
I thought Bear's Queen of Angels was great near future scifi with some really interesting character work. But a more... functional ... approach to character development has always been a trait of hard sci fi.
posted by Sebmojo at 2:44 PM on July 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by zarq at 8:45 AM on July 2 [+] [!]
I thought Bear's Queen of Angels was great near future scifi with some really interesting character work. But a more... functional ... approach to character development has always been a trait of hard sci fi.
posted by Sebmojo at 2:44 PM on July 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
I actually haven't read Queen of Angels. Thanks for mentioning it.
posted by zarq at 3:05 PM on July 2, 2012
posted by zarq at 3:05 PM on July 2, 2012
Oh - and one last addition to this hilariously Asky MeTa - Bruce Sterling, Schismatrix. Brilliant posthumanist solar system hopping stuff..
posted by Sebmojo at 3:05 PM on July 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by Sebmojo at 3:05 PM on July 2, 2012 [2 favorites]
Neal Asher isn't hard science fiction at all, but more "throw in everything including a sentient kitchen sink, blend well and make it into a space opera". I like his novels, but they're biological and fleshy at times, dripping ichor, gore and other precious bodily fluids.
I wouldn't say it isn't hard science fiction at all. I've always taken hard SF to be SF that emphasizes the natural sciences, which certainly includes biology as well as chemistry and physics, so I don't think dripping ichor immediately disqualifies a story, particularly in Asher's case where he takes biology in the same "indistinguishable from magic" direction he takes chemistry and physics. And even if I were to accept he doesn't write hard SF, I'd still recommend him to someone interested in Clarke or Benford.
Jack McDevitt is just dull and nothing I've read off him or about him has changed that feeling for me.
I liked his early stuff, but I've been reading the Academy series and although I think there are some good ideas in there, he really needs an editor that forces him to chop at least half of what he writes. Yes, flying long distances alone in FTL is boring, you don't need to bore me to convince me of that.
You can't do much better than CJ Cherryh for hard sci-fi in space.
Long ago I read The Faded Sun trilogy and hated it. I couldn't get into it, I didn't understand what was going on... Admittedly I was fairly young, so it's on my reading list to try again, but in my opinion (and I realize lots of people would disagree with me), there are a lot of other authors mentioned here I'd try before her.
I'd also repeat the recommendation for early Greg Egan. Admittedly that fails the "contemporary" test, but I think his early stuff is definitely worth reading.
I'd also recommend David Zindell's Neverness. It's probably not hard SF either, although it certainly contains hard SF elements (and also fails the "contemporary" requirement). I haven't read the other two books in the trilogy so can't say anything about them.
posted by blm at 3:24 PM on July 2, 2012
I wouldn't say it isn't hard science fiction at all. I've always taken hard SF to be SF that emphasizes the natural sciences, which certainly includes biology as well as chemistry and physics, so I don't think dripping ichor immediately disqualifies a story, particularly in Asher's case where he takes biology in the same "indistinguishable from magic" direction he takes chemistry and physics. And even if I were to accept he doesn't write hard SF, I'd still recommend him to someone interested in Clarke or Benford.
Jack McDevitt is just dull and nothing I've read off him or about him has changed that feeling for me.
I liked his early stuff, but I've been reading the Academy series and although I think there are some good ideas in there, he really needs an editor that forces him to chop at least half of what he writes. Yes, flying long distances alone in FTL is boring, you don't need to bore me to convince me of that.
You can't do much better than CJ Cherryh for hard sci-fi in space.
Long ago I read The Faded Sun trilogy and hated it. I couldn't get into it, I didn't understand what was going on... Admittedly I was fairly young, so it's on my reading list to try again, but in my opinion (and I realize lots of people would disagree with me), there are a lot of other authors mentioned here I'd try before her.
I'd also repeat the recommendation for early Greg Egan. Admittedly that fails the "contemporary" test, but I think his early stuff is definitely worth reading.
I'd also recommend David Zindell's Neverness. It's probably not hard SF either, although it certainly contains hard SF elements (and also fails the "contemporary" requirement). I haven't read the other two books in the trilogy so can't say anything about them.
posted by blm at 3:24 PM on July 2, 2012
"Peter Hamilton is the Steven Erikson of scifi, and should be recommended with caveats."
That's really a pretty good comparison. They have the same virtues and vices. I like them both a lot — quite a lot — but they're both, um, undisciplined.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:30 PM on July 2, 2012
That's really a pretty good comparison. They have the same virtues and vices. I like them both a lot — quite a lot — but they're both, um, undisciplined.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:30 PM on July 2, 2012
"I'd also repeat the recommendation for early Greg Egan."
Permutation City is pretty great.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:31 PM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
Permutation City is pretty great.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:31 PM on July 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
I really liked my first couple McDevitt books (beginning with Chindi), but once I started reading past those first couple I realized that he uses the same exact formula for each book, which kinda took the suspense out of things.
posted by Evilspork at 3:36 PM on July 2, 2012
posted by Evilspork at 3:36 PM on July 2, 2012
Oh, and I really enjoy Asher but I'm always aware that I'm reading pulp. I sort of feel like I'm reading a science-fiction equivalent to a Mack Bolan book or something. That doesn't make his Polity books any less fun.
I'm ambivalent about Cherryh because, for example, in both her Faded Sun books and her Foreigner books, she makes a much stronger effort than usual to use SF to explore other cultural values and perspectives (as opposed to Americans In Space, ugh) and that's really cool. On the other hand, I think she's a little two-dimensional about it. These other cultures are sort of caricatures of ones we're already kind of familiar with.
I wish there were some cultural anthropologists writing science-fiction. Imagine a world where science-fiction was written mostly by anthropologists and political scientists and economists rather than physicists and engineers.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:40 PM on July 2, 2012
I'm ambivalent about Cherryh because, for example, in both her Faded Sun books and her Foreigner books, she makes a much stronger effort than usual to use SF to explore other cultural values and perspectives (as opposed to Americans In Space, ugh) and that's really cool. On the other hand, I think she's a little two-dimensional about it. These other cultures are sort of caricatures of ones we're already kind of familiar with.
I wish there were some cultural anthropologists writing science-fiction. Imagine a world where science-fiction was written mostly by anthropologists and political scientists and economists rather than physicists and engineers.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:40 PM on July 2, 2012
Zarq, it was croup. He didn't respond to two rounds of treatment so they admitted him until he'd passed some nebulous not-great-but-ok threshold, which he has continued to remain on the right side of.
posted by KathrynT at 3:42 PM on July 2, 2012
posted by KathrynT at 3:42 PM on July 2, 2012
Pretty sure there's more soft science folk and academics than engineers writing SF right now.
posted by Artw at 3:43 PM on July 2, 2012
posted by Artw at 3:43 PM on July 2, 2012
I just recently finished a run through (most of) Cstross's books, which I hadn't gotten to yet for some reason.
My indepth review: I liked 'em! Thanks, Charlie!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:54 PM on July 2, 2012
My indepth review: I liked 'em! Thanks, Charlie!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:54 PM on July 2, 2012
I really liked my first couple McDevitt books (beginning with Chindi), but once I started reading past those first couple I realized that he uses the same exact formula for each book, which kinda took the suspense out of things.
Chindi's actually the 3rd book in the Academy series (after The Engines of God and Deepsix), but reading the first two won't change your opinion about McDevitt, it will only strengthen it, as they follow the same formula as Chindi and Omega (that's as far as I've gotten so far).
Oh, and I really enjoy Asher but I'm always aware that I'm reading pulp. I sort of feel like I'm reading a science-fiction equivalent to a Mack Bolan book or something. That doesn't make his Polity books any less fun.
For sure. I really like Asher, but I'd never argue that his stuff is great literature or particularly deep. They're fun stories with interesting characters (human, alien, and AI) and settings, lots of "gee whiz" technology, and fairly interesting (if sometimes kind of obvious) plots, and I've enjoyed most of what I've read (I didn't particularly like Hilldiggers, but that's the only exception so far).
posted by blm at 4:06 PM on July 2, 2012
Chindi's actually the 3rd book in the Academy series (after The Engines of God and Deepsix), but reading the first two won't change your opinion about McDevitt, it will only strengthen it, as they follow the same formula as Chindi and Omega (that's as far as I've gotten so far).
Oh, and I really enjoy Asher but I'm always aware that I'm reading pulp. I sort of feel like I'm reading a science-fiction equivalent to a Mack Bolan book or something. That doesn't make his Polity books any less fun.
For sure. I really like Asher, but I'd never argue that his stuff is great literature or particularly deep. They're fun stories with interesting characters (human, alien, and AI) and settings, lots of "gee whiz" technology, and fairly interesting (if sometimes kind of obvious) plots, and I've enjoyed most of what I've read (I didn't particularly like Hilldiggers, but that's the only exception so far).
posted by blm at 4:06 PM on July 2, 2012
To me Neal Asher is fun pseudo Star Treky/ Banks-lite space opera stuff about fighting giant crabs and such. Fun enough, but I wouldn't say it had much weight.
posted by Artw at 4:11 PM on July 2, 2012
posted by Artw at 4:11 PM on July 2, 2012
Both came up with good concepts and wrote treatments around them, only creating enough character and plot depth to move the story forward. Which is fine and all well and good, but there are scifi authors like Vernor Vinge who can and do write rings around them, intellectually.
I agree regarding Bear and limited characterization and plot. But the settings (and description) of Thistledown and the Way from Eon remain perhaps the most prominent images in my mind when I think of all the science fiction I've read.
As for talking heads, I'm currently making my way toward the end of John Wright's Golden Age trilogy. Once again, the setting and the concepts are intriguing, but I almost gave up in the first book having to wade through pages and pages of character dialogue that tells instead of shows. At times it feels like reading Plato.
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:50 PM on July 2, 2012
I agree regarding Bear and limited characterization and plot. But the settings (and description) of Thistledown and the Way from Eon remain perhaps the most prominent images in my mind when I think of all the science fiction I've read.
As for talking heads, I'm currently making my way toward the end of John Wright's Golden Age trilogy. Once again, the setting and the concepts are intriguing, but I almost gave up in the first book having to wade through pages and pages of character dialogue that tells instead of shows. At times it feels like reading Plato.
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:50 PM on July 2, 2012
The easy way to think about Neal Asher is that if the Culture books are LeCarre spy novels about the psychological damage they endure or the moral ambiguities of their work, the Polity books are James Bond novels about how totally awesome it is to swing from a chandelier firing your zap gun wildly at a whole shitload of bad guys.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:54 PM on July 2, 2012 [3 favorites]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:54 PM on July 2, 2012 [3 favorites]
"At times it feels like reading Plato."
That's probably not a coincidence.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:27 PM on July 2, 2012
That's probably not a coincidence.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:27 PM on July 2, 2012
KathrynT: "Zarq, it was croup. He didn't respond to two rounds of treatment so they admitted him until he'd passed some nebulous not-great-but-ok threshold, which he has continued to remain on the right side of."
I'm sorry. I'm glad for all your sakes that he's ok, even if he's not great right now.
posted by zarq at 8:49 PM on July 2, 2012
I'm sorry. I'm glad for all your sakes that he's ok, even if he's not great right now.
posted by zarq at 8:49 PM on July 2, 2012
I'm slightly surprised that we're this far in without a mention of mefi's own John Scalzi. The Old Man's War series are good old fashioned space opera, but worth characters you can care about.
Also, he invites other authors to explain the ideas behind their work in his 'Big Idea' feature on his blog. You'll find a heap of new writers there.
posted by Combat Wombat at 4:22 AM on July 3, 2012 [1 favorite]
Also, he invites other authors to explain the ideas behind their work in his 'Big Idea' feature on his blog. You'll find a heap of new writers there.
posted by Combat Wombat at 4:22 AM on July 3, 2012 [1 favorite]
As a body of work, aside from the Hyperion books, I think Simmons has been much more successful and impressive as a horror writer.
Hnnng, god, STAY AWAY from Ilium/Olympos. ATTEMPT NO READINGS HERE. I read 1550 pages of that shitpile and stopped 50 pages from the end, deciding I'd rather not put in the last hour's worth of effort.
Summer of Night, however, I couldn't put down and think it would make a great movie.
posted by adamdschneider at 6:29 AM on July 3, 2012 [1 favorite]
Hnnng, god, STAY AWAY from Ilium/Olympos. ATTEMPT NO READINGS HERE. I read 1550 pages of that shitpile and stopped 50 pages from the end, deciding I'd rather not put in the last hour's worth of effort.
Summer of Night, however, I couldn't put down and think it would make a great movie.
posted by adamdschneider at 6:29 AM on July 3, 2012 [1 favorite]
adamdschneider: " Hnnng, god, STAY AWAY from Ilium/Olympos. ATTEMPT NO READINGS HERE. I read 1550 pages of that shitpile and stopped 50 pages from the end, deciding I'd rather not put in the last hour's worth of effort."
It didn't get better.
The concepts were interesting, and you could tell he started off intending to be ambitious. Shakespeare. Homer. Greek Mythology. Time Travel. Teleportation. Robots. Terraforming the rest of the solar system. All of human history and "post-humanity." But the characters were mostly flat and two-dimensional. By the time Olympos began, you could tell he had written himself into a corner and then completely lost the narrative. Plus, the entire series relied WAY TOO MUCH on deus ex machina, which in a book that stars Homeric Greek Gods is really saying something.
The Hyperion Cantos were finely crafted epics, with suspense and action, thoughtful dialogue and concepts. Believable characters. Simmons paid attention to the minute details, and remembered things from book to book. In fact, the Cantos series was a paean to humanity's potential, and the literal power of love, human endurance and remembrance. By contrast, the Illium / Olympus series was just terribly disappointing. So much potential, wasted.
posted by zarq at 7:32 AM on July 3, 2012 [1 favorite]
It didn't get better.
The concepts were interesting, and you could tell he started off intending to be ambitious. Shakespeare. Homer. Greek Mythology. Time Travel. Teleportation. Robots. Terraforming the rest of the solar system. All of human history and "post-humanity." But the characters were mostly flat and two-dimensional. By the time Olympos began, you could tell he had written himself into a corner and then completely lost the narrative. Plus, the entire series relied WAY TOO MUCH on deus ex machina, which in a book that stars Homeric Greek Gods is really saying something.
The Hyperion Cantos were finely crafted epics, with suspense and action, thoughtful dialogue and concepts. Believable characters. Simmons paid attention to the minute details, and remembered things from book to book. In fact, the Cantos series was a paean to humanity's potential, and the literal power of love, human endurance and remembrance. By contrast, the Illium / Olympus series was just terribly disappointing. So much potential, wasted.
posted by zarq at 7:32 AM on July 3, 2012 [1 favorite]
The Terror is great though. Not read his Drood thing. Neither are really SF of course.
posted by Artw at 7:42 AM on July 3, 2012
posted by Artw at 7:42 AM on July 3, 2012
If there were a MetaFilter's own Gene Wolfe or a MetaFilter's Jack Vance, or heck, even a MetaFilter's own Jack Womack, I might get exercised of the whole MetaFilter's own thing as being some sort of concept having some some sort of merit. Your light speed may vary.
posted by y2karl at 9:10 AM on July 3, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by y2karl at 9:10 AM on July 3, 2012 [1 favorite]
Drood was amazing, fwiw. just read The Terror a month or two ago and loved it as well.
posted by shmegegge at 11:17 AM on July 3, 2012
posted by shmegegge at 11:17 AM on July 3, 2012
"If there were a MetaFilter's own Gene Wolfe or a MetaFilter's Jack Vance, or heck, even a MetaFilter's own Jack Womack, I might get exercised of the whole MetaFilter's own thing as being some sort of concept having some some sort of merit. Your light speed may vary."
Well, there's nothing wrong with you having the opinion that Stross and Scalzi compare unfavorably to those writers, but the fact of the matter is that Stross and Scalzi are solidly among the best-regarded and selling science-fiction writers working today. They're neither obscure nor lacking continued and wide critical praise. (And it's not as if they're the only genre authors on mefi and that therefore they're relatively big fish in a small pond. They're absolutely big fish that happen to frequently visit this small pond.)
Frankly, they're so prominent and well-regarded that it makes me more than a little uncomfortable — all such discussions like this have a bit of a distorted character. If they were obscure, or if they were talentless, we would just ignore them in such discussions about written science-fiction. But we can't, and we know they are either here in spirit or in actuality. I think it somewhat inhibits any criticism of them that they'd otherwise receive, and increases praise.
I'm not saying that's any major problem — I'm not really the sort to be concerned about such very natural social forces except when they, in my opinion, create sufficient hypocrisy to cause systematic injustice (as can sometimes happen in these sorts of celebrity-type situations, but isn't happening here). It's not that big of a deal. But I feel it's a little bit awkward. Your comment is sort of both an example and counter-example of this. It's a little uncomfortable, because we can imagine that one or both may read your unfavorable comparison and that's how it's an example. And that there aren't more such critical comments. Its presence, on the other hand, is a counterexample. I guess it's a good thing you feel free to be critical, but it also feels a bit callous (to me).
Similarly, while I've enjoyed many or most of the books from both, there's some pretty strong criticism I've made privately and publicly about some of their work and if they weren't mefites, I would have done so in this thread. (Though, over the years, I've mellowed about the specific criticisms I have in mind.) So, yeah, again...it's awkward.
And there are people participating in these discussions who are published writers who are very knowledgeable about this topic and have all sorts of interesting things to contribute because of a combined perspective as fan and writer — and we know this applies to Scalzi and Stross, too, but their high-profile means they can no longer really discuss this sort of thing freely. And, well, also because of personal relationship with some or many of the writers we might discuss. That's too bad, really, because I feel certain that both would have fascinating and knowledgeable things to say about all the various stuff we've discussed in this thread, and others.
Regardless, they truly are among the very most prominent mefites who are actually moderately active, long-time participants. I feel that "mefi's own" is both accurate and earned, intended to be admiring, in a way that is very often not the case when it's someone prominent who only joined, comments, and then disappeared; or, alternatively, not really that prominent. I'm proud that both Scalzi and Stross are part of this community and I'm glad that they continue to be part of it.
"Drood was amazing, fwiw. just read The Terror a month or two ago and loved it as well."
I've read a lot of Simmons's books. I think he deserves a great deal of credit for being so successful, both commercially and artistically, at publishing in several (not just two!) genres at once. I really can't think of anyone else who's done this. Has anyone read The Crook Factory? I thought it was quite well done, a kind of thriller-historical-romp. But, all in all, I think he's much stronger at horror than anything else he's done. The Hyperion books are his best-regarded, but no small aspect of them was their horror undercurrent. Carrion Comfort is superb; so is Summer of Night and Song of Kali. Children of Night may be one of my favorite vampire books ever, and it's pretty original. I read The Terror in a couple of days and it dominated the background of my thoughts for a week after. Plus, I spent a lot of time on the web learning more about the Arctic and these expeditions.
But, yeah, Ilium and Olympos were huge failures, just bad. This was tremendously disappointing to me because, being a johnnie and having studied the Iliad extensively, even translated a bit of it, I was hugely excited at the very idea of the book. Like so many people, I have some strong ideas and theories about Achilles; and how can any book with Odysseus as a protagonist not be awesome? He should just magically make any work featuring him be intriguing and fun. Alas, Simmons just fumbled on this and it's a damn shame.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 2:37 PM on July 3, 2012 [3 favorites]
Well, there's nothing wrong with you having the opinion that Stross and Scalzi compare unfavorably to those writers, but the fact of the matter is that Stross and Scalzi are solidly among the best-regarded and selling science-fiction writers working today. They're neither obscure nor lacking continued and wide critical praise. (And it's not as if they're the only genre authors on mefi and that therefore they're relatively big fish in a small pond. They're absolutely big fish that happen to frequently visit this small pond.)
Frankly, they're so prominent and well-regarded that it makes me more than a little uncomfortable — all such discussions like this have a bit of a distorted character. If they were obscure, or if they were talentless, we would just ignore them in such discussions about written science-fiction. But we can't, and we know they are either here in spirit or in actuality. I think it somewhat inhibits any criticism of them that they'd otherwise receive, and increases praise.
I'm not saying that's any major problem — I'm not really the sort to be concerned about such very natural social forces except when they, in my opinion, create sufficient hypocrisy to cause systematic injustice (as can sometimes happen in these sorts of celebrity-type situations, but isn't happening here). It's not that big of a deal. But I feel it's a little bit awkward. Your comment is sort of both an example and counter-example of this. It's a little uncomfortable, because we can imagine that one or both may read your unfavorable comparison and that's how it's an example. And that there aren't more such critical comments. Its presence, on the other hand, is a counterexample. I guess it's a good thing you feel free to be critical, but it also feels a bit callous (to me).
Similarly, while I've enjoyed many or most of the books from both, there's some pretty strong criticism I've made privately and publicly about some of their work and if they weren't mefites, I would have done so in this thread. (Though, over the years, I've mellowed about the specific criticisms I have in mind.) So, yeah, again...it's awkward.
And there are people participating in these discussions who are published writers who are very knowledgeable about this topic and have all sorts of interesting things to contribute because of a combined perspective as fan and writer — and we know this applies to Scalzi and Stross, too, but their high-profile means they can no longer really discuss this sort of thing freely. And, well, also because of personal relationship with some or many of the writers we might discuss. That's too bad, really, because I feel certain that both would have fascinating and knowledgeable things to say about all the various stuff we've discussed in this thread, and others.
Regardless, they truly are among the very most prominent mefites who are actually moderately active, long-time participants. I feel that "mefi's own" is both accurate and earned, intended to be admiring, in a way that is very often not the case when it's someone prominent who only joined, comments, and then disappeared; or, alternatively, not really that prominent. I'm proud that both Scalzi and Stross are part of this community and I'm glad that they continue to be part of it.
"Drood was amazing, fwiw. just read The Terror a month or two ago and loved it as well."
I've read a lot of Simmons's books. I think he deserves a great deal of credit for being so successful, both commercially and artistically, at publishing in several (not just two!) genres at once. I really can't think of anyone else who's done this. Has anyone read The Crook Factory? I thought it was quite well done, a kind of thriller-historical-romp. But, all in all, I think he's much stronger at horror than anything else he's done. The Hyperion books are his best-regarded, but no small aspect of them was their horror undercurrent. Carrion Comfort is superb; so is Summer of Night and Song of Kali. Children of Night may be one of my favorite vampire books ever, and it's pretty original. I read The Terror in a couple of days and it dominated the background of my thoughts for a week after. Plus, I spent a lot of time on the web learning more about the Arctic and these expeditions.
But, yeah, Ilium and Olympos were huge failures, just bad. This was tremendously disappointing to me because, being a johnnie and having studied the Iliad extensively, even translated a bit of it, I was hugely excited at the very idea of the book. Like so many people, I have some strong ideas and theories about Achilles; and how can any book with Odysseus as a protagonist not be awesome? He should just magically make any work featuring him be intriguing and fun. Alas, Simmons just fumbled on this and it's a damn shame.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 2:37 PM on July 3, 2012 [3 favorites]
Ivan Fyodorovich: " I really can't think of anyone else who's done this."
Iain Banks. Books published crediting him as "Iain M. Banks," (with his middle initial,) belong to his science fiction series, which includes 9 Culture Universe novels and at least a couple of short story collections, as well as three additional scifi novels which are not considered part of the same universe.
His fiction novels credit him as author without his middle initial.
Banks has written books in both genres throughout his career. His fiction work is less impressive than his scifi, imo. But a number of them have been adapted by the BBC, as television movies.
Inversions, which was written under his scifi moniker, is ostensibly part of his Culture series, but it takes place entirely on a planet with a culture in the developmental equivalent of Earth's Middle Ages, and really contains only a couple of scifi elements. References to the Culture universe and its technology in the narrative are rare and quite subtle, and would perhaps only be understandable to folks who have already familiarized themselves with that series.
posted by zarq at 7:51 PM on July 3, 2012
Iain Banks. Books published crediting him as "Iain M. Banks," (with his middle initial,) belong to his science fiction series, which includes 9 Culture Universe novels and at least a couple of short story collections, as well as three additional scifi novels which are not considered part of the same universe.
His fiction novels credit him as author without his middle initial.
Banks has written books in both genres throughout his career. His fiction work is less impressive than his scifi, imo. But a number of them have been adapted by the BBC, as television movies.
Inversions, which was written under his scifi moniker, is ostensibly part of his Culture series, but it takes place entirely on a planet with a culture in the developmental equivalent of Earth's Middle Ages, and really contains only a couple of scifi elements. References to the Culture universe and its technology in the narrative are rare and quite subtle, and would perhaps only be understandable to folks who have already familiarized themselves with that series.
posted by zarq at 7:51 PM on July 3, 2012
Also, Isaac Asimov, who wrote extensive non-fiction works intended to make science accessible to children, as well as science fiction, fiction, joke books (limericks!) and mystery novels, the latter including the Black Widowers and The Union Club Mysteries. He wrote a ton of short stories, mostly published in magazines, and added his name and content to many short story anthologies, too.
Asimov was incredibly prolific. I believe he's counted as one of the most prolific authors of all time.
posted by zarq at 8:00 PM on July 3, 2012
Asimov was incredibly prolific. I believe he's counted as one of the most prolific authors of all time.
posted by zarq at 8:00 PM on July 3, 2012
Ooh! Stephen King! And H.G. Wells. And Jerome Charyn. All published successfully across multiple genres.
posted by zarq at 8:05 PM on July 3, 2012
posted by zarq at 8:05 PM on July 3, 2012
David Brin's Earth was a masterpiece in worldbuilding. As a story, it was mostly bleh, and I really wasn't into the central conceit of "artificial black hole power-generating plants stable and affordable enough to be used in the developing world... by 2038." But really, the book is just so full of verisimilitude. Fake encyclopedia entries were the tip of the iceberg- fake book passages, fake ideological rantings, fake online message board postings and fake spam (and this a book written in 1988 and published in 1990). I would have just been as happy to read a book by David Brin if it was only a collection of false artifacts from the future. But that's just me. I'm a sucker for tantalizing references to Important Historical Events offscreen.
It's not just the false document style that made the setting compelling to me, though. It's the amount of substance to it. I don't think Brin is some sort of clairvoyant, but he certainly got quite a few things right (changing demographics leading to huge elderly populations in the developed world, and repercussions of that), and quite a few wrong (the world nations- including a still existing Soviet Union- putting aside their differences to wage war on environmental devastation instead of each other).
But even the stuff that's flagrantly wrong is amusing and darkly charming, like the whole backstory about a war between the world against Switzerland for decades of protecting dictators and criminals with banking privacy, or the Sea State (though that's rather similar to the Raft from Snow Crash). Regardless, Earth had a compelling enough setting for a wiki to be made about its 'predictions'.
Having skimmed Existence, the book seems to be similar in style, which makes me happy. It really is a treat for an author who was predicting the near future 20 years ago to try it again now. I feel that many of the '80s cyberpunk authors are either writing about the present, and much of future-prognostication sci-fi these days in general are about the Singularity.
Finally, it's quite appropriate that Kim Stanley Robinson's 2312 was released recently, as well. Another author who wrote as much about the social, economic, and political changes of the future as well as the technological ones.
To those who actually read this post, a question: are there any authors lately who wrote about the nearish future, about a humanity who is recognizable (despite AI or space colonies), and the details of such a setup? By details I mean the nitty-gritty of the culture, creeds, and causes of such a future. For instance, Ian McDonald's various novels on future India, Brazil, and Turkey. Or Dan Simmons' insanely right-wing Flashback. See the author's own description for his hellish depiction of future America. Certainly that particular book isn't going to win any Hugo's, or points for reasoned political discussion and balance, but I have to at least commend its author for putting a lot of content into the setting.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:21 PM on July 3, 2012 [1 favorite]
It's not just the false document style that made the setting compelling to me, though. It's the amount of substance to it. I don't think Brin is some sort of clairvoyant, but he certainly got quite a few things right (changing demographics leading to huge elderly populations in the developed world, and repercussions of that), and quite a few wrong (the world nations- including a still existing Soviet Union- putting aside their differences to wage war on environmental devastation instead of each other).
But even the stuff that's flagrantly wrong is amusing and darkly charming, like the whole backstory about a war between the world against Switzerland for decades of protecting dictators and criminals with banking privacy, or the Sea State (though that's rather similar to the Raft from Snow Crash). Regardless, Earth had a compelling enough setting for a wiki to be made about its 'predictions'.
Having skimmed Existence, the book seems to be similar in style, which makes me happy. It really is a treat for an author who was predicting the near future 20 years ago to try it again now. I feel that many of the '80s cyberpunk authors are either writing about the present, and much of future-prognostication sci-fi these days in general are about the Singularity.
Finally, it's quite appropriate that Kim Stanley Robinson's 2312 was released recently, as well. Another author who wrote as much about the social, economic, and political changes of the future as well as the technological ones.
To those who actually read this post, a question: are there any authors lately who wrote about the nearish future, about a humanity who is recognizable (despite AI or space colonies), and the details of such a setup? By details I mean the nitty-gritty of the culture, creeds, and causes of such a future. For instance, Ian McDonald's various novels on future India, Brazil, and Turkey. Or Dan Simmons' insanely right-wing Flashback. See the author's own description for his hellish depiction of future America. Certainly that particular book isn't going to win any Hugo's, or points for reasoned political discussion and balance, but I have to at least commend its author for putting a lot of content into the setting.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:21 PM on July 3, 2012 [1 favorite]
You may think of him as Metafilter's own Charlie Stross. I think of him as demon.ip.support.mac's own Charlie Stross.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:12 AM on July 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:12 AM on July 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
the Sea State (though that's rather similar to the Raft from Snow Crash)
This seems like you are wagging your finger at Brin for copying Snow Crash, but if so better wag it at Stephenson instead, because Earth was first by two years.
Also, near future, big social changes brought on by technology: Daemon and Freedom by Daniel Suarez, though it's closer to Tom Clancy than David Brin. Suarez has a new one coming in a few days about drones called Kill Decision. Can't wait.
posted by adamdschneider at 6:55 AM on July 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
This seems like you are wagging your finger at Brin for copying Snow Crash, but if so better wag it at Stephenson instead, because Earth was first by two years.
Also, near future, big social changes brought on by technology: Daemon and Freedom by Daniel Suarez, though it's closer to Tom Clancy than David Brin. Suarez has a new one coming in a few days about drones called Kill Decision. Can't wait.
posted by adamdschneider at 6:55 AM on July 4, 2012 [1 favorite]
The Astronomical Society of the Pacific posted this list of science fiction stories "that use more or less accurate science."
posted by aught at 7:41 AM on July 6, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by aught at 7:41 AM on July 6, 2012 [2 favorites]
I guess it's a good thing you feel free to be critical, but it also feels a bit callous (to me).
The comment was more off the cuff than critical and, then, meant to be more critical of the celebrity suckup part of the concept, and, overuse as such of Mefi's own. And, at any rate, I have to assume that Mr. Stross and Mr. Scalzi could care less about nor be inhibited less by any comment I made.
That said, while I can offer no informed opinion on the worth of either as writers, I must say that reading the interview and background on Mr. Scalzi in today's New York Times article about his latest work, made me very much like, respect and admire him as a person, and think that, as a person, rather than celebrity, he very much deserves a Mefi's own as an honorific, in my opinion. After all, we are all in this together. So, there is that.
posted by y2karl at 2:46 PM on July 7, 2012
The comment was more off the cuff than critical and, then, meant to be more critical of the celebrity suckup part of the concept, and, overuse as such of Mefi's own. And, at any rate, I have to assume that Mr. Stross and Mr. Scalzi could care less about nor be inhibited less by any comment I made.
That said, while I can offer no informed opinion on the worth of either as writers, I must say that reading the interview and background on Mr. Scalzi in today's New York Times article about his latest work, made me very much like, respect and admire him as a person, and think that, as a person, rather than celebrity, he very much deserves a Mefi's own as an honorific, in my opinion. After all, we are all in this together. So, there is that.
posted by y2karl at 2:46 PM on July 7, 2012
And, at any rate, I have to assume that Mr. Stross and Mr. Scalzi could care less about nor be inhibited less by any comment I made.
That may not be a good assumption. While it may be possible that one or both of them of them don't care what you say about them, I believe one of the darkest flaws of internet culture is the pervasive belief that one can say as many unpleasant and potentially unfair things as one wants about others and have no impact on their feelings or personal confidence.
posted by aught at 12:08 PM on July 9, 2012
That may not be a good assumption. While it may be possible that one or both of them of them don't care what you say about them, I believe one of the darkest flaws of internet culture is the pervasive belief that one can say as many unpleasant and potentially unfair things as one wants about others and have no impact on their feelings or personal confidence.
posted by aught at 12:08 PM on July 9, 2012
You might be right, but, in this case, the potential unpleasantness and unfairness was so trivial and insignificant that I stand by the comment you just quoted.
posted by y2karl at 1:32 PM on July 9, 2012
posted by y2karl at 1:32 PM on July 9, 2012
Well, I think that it could be read different ways. It seemed pretty dismissive of their worthiness to be lauded, because you explicitly compared them to people you seem to think very laudable (and those were people I think many others would agree with you about). So, it's hard not to see it as dismissive of their talent, as opposed to dismissive of people sucking-up to them here.
However, it's not a big deal and I intended to only be slightly critical and to be so as subjectively as possible. But I responded to it and used it as an example because I think you're mistaken in your assumption that they wouldn't care.
The problem with this, in my opinion, is that this space, for someone like these two authors, straddles two worlds that they normally keep somewhat independent. They're public figures and this is a public place and we discuss public figures frequently and critically. But this is also a community and they're also part of this community. It's one thing for a writer to read some random person's critical or dismissive thoughts about them in the public sphere, and it's another to read them within the context of a community they're a part of and from people they know and have (probably) interacted with.
I think both you and I care about what people here think of us and if, suddenly tomorrow, we were both famous writers, we'd both care about what people here thought of us as famous writers, especially if they thought we were overrated or untalented or whatever. It would bother me, anyway, more than it would bother me to read the same things from people who I don't feel like I have any personal connection with at all. But we form personal or quasi-personal connections here and this becomes problematic when it's with people who are public figures and/or the subjects of posts.
A good example of this is anildash, whom I long haven't much liked, but who is a friend of Matt's and as long a member of this community as anyone. His existence within mefi-the-community is distorted because he's both a member of the community and someone that people here know pretty well in real life, and also someone who is a public figure and who has controversial things to say about stuff that MetaFilter collectively is pretty interested in, and so on. We'd respond to him very differently than how we do if he were either just another member or just another public figure we're discussing. But he's both, so it's just weird. The same is true of Stross and Scalzi and in all these cases it's difficult to figure out what line to walk in terms of somewhere in the middle between treating them (mercilessly) like any other public figure we're discussing, or (generously and sensitively) like just another active member of our community.
It's tempting — I've certainly felt the temptation and I've succumbed to it — to just say, dammit, I refuse to withhold criticism or even scathing criticism that I'd otherwise deploy against anyone else because this person is also "MeFi's own"...and then let fly. I've done it and, well, I regret that I've done it. But I'm also not comfortable with not being critical at all or otherwise not discussing these people as public figures, either. Somewhere in there a middle-ground is best, but it's an unclear line to walk.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 1:54 PM on July 9, 2012
However, it's not a big deal and I intended to only be slightly critical and to be so as subjectively as possible. But I responded to it and used it as an example because I think you're mistaken in your assumption that they wouldn't care.
The problem with this, in my opinion, is that this space, for someone like these two authors, straddles two worlds that they normally keep somewhat independent. They're public figures and this is a public place and we discuss public figures frequently and critically. But this is also a community and they're also part of this community. It's one thing for a writer to read some random person's critical or dismissive thoughts about them in the public sphere, and it's another to read them within the context of a community they're a part of and from people they know and have (probably) interacted with.
I think both you and I care about what people here think of us and if, suddenly tomorrow, we were both famous writers, we'd both care about what people here thought of us as famous writers, especially if they thought we were overrated or untalented or whatever. It would bother me, anyway, more than it would bother me to read the same things from people who I don't feel like I have any personal connection with at all. But we form personal or quasi-personal connections here and this becomes problematic when it's with people who are public figures and/or the subjects of posts.
A good example of this is anildash, whom I long haven't much liked, but who is a friend of Matt's and as long a member of this community as anyone. His existence within mefi-the-community is distorted because he's both a member of the community and someone that people here know pretty well in real life, and also someone who is a public figure and who has controversial things to say about stuff that MetaFilter collectively is pretty interested in, and so on. We'd respond to him very differently than how we do if he were either just another member or just another public figure we're discussing. But he's both, so it's just weird. The same is true of Stross and Scalzi and in all these cases it's difficult to figure out what line to walk in terms of somewhere in the middle between treating them (mercilessly) like any other public figure we're discussing, or (generously and sensitively) like just another active member of our community.
It's tempting — I've certainly felt the temptation and I've succumbed to it — to just say, dammit, I refuse to withhold criticism or even scathing criticism that I'd otherwise deploy against anyone else because this person is also "MeFi's own"...and then let fly. I've done it and, well, I regret that I've done it. But I'm also not comfortable with not being critical at all or otherwise not discussing these people as public figures, either. Somewhere in there a middle-ground is best, but it's an unclear line to walk.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 1:54 PM on July 9, 2012
My comment was directed to aught, not you.
You and I have had such an unpleasant relationship in the past, that I wish to have no conversation with you in your present incarnation whatsoever.
As you well know. So, please, just leave me alone.
posted by y2karl at 3:07 PM on July 9, 2012
You and I have had such an unpleasant relationship in the past, that I wish to have no conversation with you in your present incarnation whatsoever.
As you well know. So, please, just leave me alone.
posted by y2karl at 3:07 PM on July 9, 2012
OK, that was unfair and hypocritical, since I did respond to a comment you made. All the same, I do wish you would leave me alone.
posted by y2karl at 3:12 PM on July 9, 2012
posted by y2karl at 3:12 PM on July 9, 2012
I'm not going to ignore you when you participate in the same discursive space in which I do, sorry. I will endeavor to engage you fairly, as I have in this thread. If that's not good enough for you, then you'll just have to live with it.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 5:54 PM on July 9, 2012
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 5:54 PM on July 9, 2012
One person's fairly is another person's Self-Serving Outcome-Biases in Trait Judgments about the Self.
Just sayin'...
posted by y2karl at 7:18 PM on July 9, 2012
Just sayin'...
posted by y2karl at 7:18 PM on July 9, 2012
OOps -- sorry about that, didn't read that title either. No insult was intended.
It's just that I find the concept that two people with our history could be objective about each other to be ludicrous.
Which is why I don't comment on your comments when I disagree with them. In this regard, I trust my judgment as little as I do yours.
posted by y2karl at 7:34 PM on July 9, 2012
It's just that I find the concept that two people with our history could be objective about each other to be ludicrous.
Which is why I don't comment on your comments when I disagree with them. In this regard, I trust my judgment as little as I do yours.
posted by y2karl at 7:34 PM on July 9, 2012
I don't read everything you say prejudicially, I only read some of the things you say prejudicially, and I'd like to avoid reading anything you say prejudicially. But, in any case, I had no particular bone to pick with you in our exchange here, I responded as I would have responded to anyone who'd written what you wrote, and I hope that I'll avoid responding on those occasions where you do happen to push my buttons. But that won't be, and it has not been, everything you write. Mostly, you're just another familiar mefite to me, unless and until you write comments like the last few.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:29 PM on July 9, 2012
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:29 PM on July 9, 2012
I wish I could believe all this but I am dubious and that colors my thoughts on the matter.
All the same, I do think that your intentions are good and that you care about doing the right thing.
Also, for a fact, your original point is taken. Unlike yourself, I doubt I will ever be accused of overthinking a topic -- it is very easy for me to say something off the cuff in the heat to tepidity of the moment and I have often regretted it later.
And I am truly sorry that I was mean to you in the past.
And, aught, I appreciate what you said, too.
posted by y2karl at 9:57 PM on July 9, 2012
All the same, I do think that your intentions are good and that you care about doing the right thing.
Also, for a fact, your original point is taken. Unlike yourself, I doubt I will ever be accused of overthinking a topic -- it is very easy for me to say something off the cuff in the heat to tepidity of the moment and I have often regretted it later.
And I am truly sorry that I was mean to you in the past.
And, aught, I appreciate what you said, too.
posted by y2karl at 9:57 PM on July 9, 2012
Cool. Peace.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 10:12 PM on July 9, 2012
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 10:12 PM on July 9, 2012
I just disappointed that more people don't want to talk about Earth or Existence.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:00 AM on July 10, 2012
posted by Apocryphon at 12:00 AM on July 10, 2012
I have yet to read Existence but I did read Earth after once asking a question about a short story derived from an excerpt that I read some years ago.
Earth is one of the few works of science fiction with anything like the internet in it. I assume that was because Brin was in on the ground floor in ARPANET days, although I do not know that for sure. And, certainly, it addressed the surveillance society, climate change and the end of Nature more than any book of its time.
But then I never thought of science fiction as predictive of the future so much as regard it as being something more along the lines of religious literature and always being very much a reflection of the hopes and dreams of the time in which it was written. So, the so-called hard science science fiction has always moved me less.
(I suppose I could articulate that more elegantly were I more awake....)
My take on Earth was that it was grandly ambitious, juggling several kitchen sinks and the contents therein, but in the final analysis, I think Brin went a sink or two too far. While he didn't particularly drop any, it was a bit of a clunker overall.
But I do recommend it to my nonscience fiction reading friends who are looking for something along the lines of futurological forecast.
posted by y2karl at 7:36 AM on July 10, 2012 [2 favorites]
Earth is one of the few works of science fiction with anything like the internet in it. I assume that was because Brin was in on the ground floor in ARPANET days, although I do not know that for sure. And, certainly, it addressed the surveillance society, climate change and the end of Nature more than any book of its time.
But then I never thought of science fiction as predictive of the future so much as regard it as being something more along the lines of religious literature and always being very much a reflection of the hopes and dreams of the time in which it was written. So, the so-called hard science science fiction has always moved me less.
(I suppose I could articulate that more elegantly were I more awake....)
My take on Earth was that it was grandly ambitious, juggling several kitchen sinks and the contents therein, but in the final analysis, I think Brin went a sink or two too far. While he didn't particularly drop any, it was a bit of a clunker overall.
But I do recommend it to my nonscience fiction reading friends who are looking for something along the lines of futurological forecast.
posted by y2karl at 7:36 AM on July 10, 2012 [2 favorites]
Also on Reddit: David Brin on his comic on spat with Orson Scott Cloud
posted by Artw at 9:24 AM on July 18, 2012
posted by Artw at 9:24 AM on July 18, 2012
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Wolof at 8:21 AM on July 2, 2012