Comment Re:Hard v Soft Sci Fi (Score 2, Interesting) 1190
I personally think that the label "Science fiction" gives readers and writers the wrong impression, namely, that the science is an important part of the story. A lesson we learn from much 50's sci-fi is that the science is the part of the story that will date the fastest. Asimov's Foundation was a landmark in sci-fi, but we've learned as readers to plug our ears and go "la la la" when he starts talking about "atomic batteries" in every household item. "Speculative fiction" might be a more accurate label.
The important thing to do with science fiction (and with any fiction, really) is to pose questions about reality, and most especially what it means to be human. There's a reason why people still do Shakespeare plays, after all. The questions he asks still apply to us. This is why the writers I enjoy the most are the ones who don't pay attention to the messy details of science and instead focus on things like plot and character development.
Alfred Bester is an excellent example. He doesn't even *try* to make believable science, but instead cranks the weirdness up to 11 and just runs with it, often to stirring and astonishing conclusions. "The Stars My Destination" and "Psychoshop" are excellent examples of this.
Philip K. Dick is another writer who doesn't worry much about scientific details. Instead, Dick creates unforgettable, brilliantly bizarre characters, turns their world upside-down, and lets us watch them sort out the resulting bedlam. "VALIS" is about as unlike traditional space opera as you can get, but it's one of the best novels I've ever read.
Zelazny is another writer that doesn't get nearly enough props. His writing ekes an eerie beauty out of the strangest things. Most people know the "Amber" series, but his short story collection "The Doors of His Face, the Lamps of His Mouth" gives you a taste of what he can do with everything from post-apocalyptic noir to interplanetary romance to heart-breaking drama.
Vernor Vinge walks a delicate line. His work is space opera, to be sure, but it's wonderfully literary space opera, and he actually gets some of the science right (at least the parts that deal with computers). "A Fire Upon the Deep" is an epic with a scope that makes Star Wars look like, well, a cheesy 70's action movie.
Right. This post became a minor exegisis fairly quickly. Off to bed, then.
The important thing to do with science fiction (and with any fiction, really) is to pose questions about reality, and most especially what it means to be human. There's a reason why people still do Shakespeare plays, after all. The questions he asks still apply to us. This is why the writers I enjoy the most are the ones who don't pay attention to the messy details of science and instead focus on things like plot and character development.
Alfred Bester is an excellent example. He doesn't even *try* to make believable science, but instead cranks the weirdness up to 11 and just runs with it, often to stirring and astonishing conclusions. "The Stars My Destination" and "Psychoshop" are excellent examples of this.
Philip K. Dick is another writer who doesn't worry much about scientific details. Instead, Dick creates unforgettable, brilliantly bizarre characters, turns their world upside-down, and lets us watch them sort out the resulting bedlam. "VALIS" is about as unlike traditional space opera as you can get, but it's one of the best novels I've ever read.
Zelazny is another writer that doesn't get nearly enough props. His writing ekes an eerie beauty out of the strangest things. Most people know the "Amber" series, but his short story collection "The Doors of His Face, the Lamps of His Mouth" gives you a taste of what he can do with everything from post-apocalyptic noir to interplanetary romance to heart-breaking drama.
Vernor Vinge walks a delicate line. His work is space opera, to be sure, but it's wonderfully literary space opera, and he actually gets some of the science right (at least the parts that deal with computers). "A Fire Upon the Deep" is an epic with a scope that makes Star Wars look like, well, a cheesy 70's action movie.
Right. This post became a minor exegisis fairly quickly. Off to bed, then.
