Comments on: The Trouble With Science Fiction http://asymptote.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/the-trouble-with-science-fiction/ Tales from a wandering mathematician. Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:09:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: “Extreme Science Fiction” « The Life of a Math Major http://asymptote.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/the-trouble-with-science-fiction/#comment-2073 “Extreme Science Fiction” « The Life of a Math Major Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:33:46 +0000 http://asymptote.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/the-trouble-with-science-fiction/#comment-2073 [...] June 20, 2008 — asymptote Last December, I wrote a poorly-argued post about the trouble with modern science fiction. Almost immediately, someone viciously cut me down, and I put up a rather pathetic defense against [...] [...] June 20, 2008 — asymptote Last December, I wrote a poorly-argued post about the trouble with modern science fiction. Almost immediately, someone viciously cut me down, and I put up a rather pathetic defense against [...]

]]> By: asymptote http://asymptote.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/the-trouble-with-science-fiction/#comment-1954 asymptote Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:01:57 +0000 http://asymptote.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/the-trouble-with-science-fiction/#comment-1954 That's fair enough, I suppose. That's the reason I never re-write things (I'd started this post once, but then, for one reason or another, ended up having to re-write it), because I tend to lose track of my main points anyway. That’s fair enough, I suppose. That’s the reason I never re-write things (I’d started this post once, but then, for one reason or another, ended up having to re-write it), because I tend to lose track of my main points anyway.

]]> By: Blue Tyson http://asymptote.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/the-trouble-with-science-fiction/#comment-1953 Blue Tyson Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:24:48 +0000 http://asymptote.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/the-trouble-with-science-fiction/#comment-1953 If you are going to complain about SF being mostly about the science, etc., then using Asimov as one of your paragons of when things 'used to be good' is a really bad idea, as he is the famous archetype of what you started to complain about. I haven't noticed any movies that are really full of science, either. Basically what you have written here contradicts itself multiple times, so it is no surprise that someone misses your point. Otherwise, as the previous poster points out, you are stuck somewhere in 1969, Stross aside. Go have a look at the LibraryThing suggester, for example. If you are going to complain about SF being mostly about the science, etc., then using Asimov as one of your paragons of when things ‘used to be good’ is a really bad idea, as he is the famous archetype of what you started to complain about.

I haven’t noticed any movies that are really full of science, either.

Basically what you have written here contradicts itself multiple times, so it is no surprise that someone misses your point.

Otherwise, as the previous poster points out, you are stuck somewhere in 1969, Stross aside.

Go have a look at the LibraryThing suggester, for example.

]]> By: asymptote http://asymptote.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/the-trouble-with-science-fiction/#comment-1952 asymptote Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:12:35 +0000 http://asymptote.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/the-trouble-with-science-fiction/#comment-1952 In the interests of full disclosure, I must admit that this post was more of a general impression based on scant "research" on my part. I am not nearly as well-read in this "genre" as I'd like to be. Still, with that in mind: While I very much appreciate your comment, I fear you may have missed my point -- which is in all likelihood my fault, not yours, since I seem to have a talent for making my points easy to miss. I am aware that there are still some great science fiction writers out there -- how could there not be, in a "genre" with such a rich history? -- but that wasn't the real purpose of this post. The real purpose (and I apologize if I'm sounding defensive here, but I'm simply hoping to clarify my point, especially for those who might read my words and come to the same conclusion: that I don't think there's any good science fiction out there), was to serve as a cautionary tale. The post wasn't so much a condemnation of one particular author or group of authors, but as a warning against a trend that I've observed. It simply seems to me (and I'm known for being a cynic, so I may be wrong on this account), that the balance of science fiction is drifting dangerously above Sturgeon's 90% ratio. All I really meant to do was to encourage neophyte authors of science fiction, and also to put in my two cents on the topic. In the end though, you're absolutely right: If I'm going to write something that sounds like I'm trying to prove a point, I'd better have something to back that point up. But as I said -- and used so many words to say above -- this was more of a general impression than a reasoned argument. Thanks, anyway, for your comment! I keep hearing Alistair Reynolds's name, and I intend to read him as soon as I get the opportunity. In the interests of full disclosure, I must admit that this post was more of a general impression based on scant “research” on my part. I am not nearly as well-read in this “genre” as I’d like to be. Still, with that in mind:

While I very much appreciate your comment, I fear you may have missed my point — which is in all likelihood my fault, not yours, since I seem to have a talent for making my points easy to miss. I am aware that there are still some great science fiction writers out there — how could there not be, in a “genre” with such a rich history? — but that wasn’t the real purpose of this post. The real purpose (and I apologize if I’m sounding defensive here, but I’m simply hoping to clarify my point, especially for those who might read my words and come to the same conclusion: that I don’t think there’s any good science fiction out there), was to serve as a cautionary tale. The post wasn’t so much a condemnation of one particular author or group of authors, but as a warning against a trend that I’ve observed. It simply seems to me (and I’m known for being a cynic, so I may be wrong on this account), that the balance of science fiction is drifting dangerously above Sturgeon’s 90% ratio.

All I really meant to do was to encourage neophyte authors of science fiction, and also to put in my two cents on the topic.

In the end though, you’re absolutely right: If I’m going to write something that sounds like I’m trying to prove a point, I’d better have something to back that point up. But as I said — and used so many words to say above — this was more of a general impression than a reasoned argument.

Thanks, anyway, for your comment! I keep hearing Alistair Reynolds’s name, and I intend to read him as soon as I get the opportunity.

]]> By: Torbjørn http://asymptote.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/the-trouble-with-science-fiction/#comment-1951 Torbjørn Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:09:43 +0000 http://asymptote.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/the-trouble-with-science-fiction/#comment-1951 PS: Theodore Sturgeon said (Sturgeon's Law) that "90% of science fiction is garbage" and then clarified that "90% of everything is garbage." PS: Theodore Sturgeon said (Sturgeon’s Law) that “90% of science fiction is garbage” and then clarified that “90% of everything is garbage.”

]]> By: Torbjørn http://asymptote.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/the-trouble-with-science-fiction/#comment-1950 Torbjørn Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:02:52 +0000 http://asymptote.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/the-trouble-with-science-fiction/#comment-1950 Do you feel that you have a great knowledge/overview of current science fiction writers/writings? Who are these unimaginative writers you're talking about? In any genre you will have bad writers and bad stories, but there surely are a lot at the other end of the spectrum as well. It's also quite funny that you compare Stross to Asimov and Clarke, when Stross surely is as current as you get. What happened to the Charles Strosses? They are right there! Some modern science fiction writers I enjoy in addition to Stross.., feel free to tell me what you think about them: * Peter Watts (quite scientific, but also very original) * Alastair Reynolds (some rehashing, but also mind bending) * John C. Wright * Ian Watson (he's still around, have you read Mockymen?) * M. John Harrison (still going strong) * Richard Morgan (great thrillers with strong character development) Personally I also enjoy Peter F. Hamilton, but he might actually fit your group of genre slaves. But what about Vernor Vinge.., to old? Do you feel that you have a great knowledge/overview of current science fiction writers/writings? Who are these unimaginative writers you’re talking about?

In any genre you will have bad writers and bad stories, but there surely are a lot at the other end of the spectrum as well.

It’s also quite funny that you compare Stross to Asimov and Clarke, when Stross surely is as current as you get. What happened to the Charles Strosses? They are right there!

Some modern science fiction writers I enjoy in addition to Stross.., feel free to tell me what you think about them:
* Peter Watts (quite scientific, but also very original)
* Alastair Reynolds (some rehashing, but also mind bending)
* John C. Wright
* Ian Watson (he’s still around, have you read Mockymen?)
* M. John Harrison (still going strong)
* Richard Morgan (great thrillers with strong character development)

Personally I also enjoy Peter F. Hamilton, but he might actually fit your group of genre slaves. But what about Vernor Vinge.., to old?

]]>