Why is Science Fiction so unappealing?

Some of the early Heinlein is now required reading at West Point as part of a course dealing with the Theory of War.

0 Replies

I dig swords & sorcery. Actually, I like almost any book with reasonable character development and an intriguing plotline. And I'm the guy that you can easily sell tablewine to while claiming it's an old Merlot.
Meaning I have little taste as far as the quality of a product goes. So I can read something awful (for most authors) and still like it. Which is the main reason I will NEVER write even a halfway decent story, too bad, since I like writing.

I'd suggest the Mars series by Kim Stanley Robinson. I found little negative in the books (three of them) (but read the above), apart from many technical details which don't really interest me. I found it hard to read, but people with a technological background might like it.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Hey kicky-man, sobered up from last night yet?

How'd you know I was drunk saturday night...oh, right, I'm always drunk on saturday night.

Carry on...

0 Replies

P.S. I still think sci-fi still blows.

0 Replies

Ha. This turned out to be a circular thread-- Some concrete attitudes in the beginning, then some open discussion, then to the finale...it blows.

0 Replies

I strongly object... to the thread having a finale already!

My living room in three pics:

http://static.flickr.com/49/139510862_37589914df.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/44/139510863_05f55a7323.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/45/139510864_4e998f495a_o.jpg

I own about 5 thousand books, and 90% of them are fantasy or scifi.

I've probably read another 2 thousand scifi/fantasy in my lifetime; I doubt there's a series out there that I haven't read from time to time.

The imagination and ideas inside fantasy and scifi far surpass any other creative works. There just isn't much media out there that can open your mind up to new thoughts, not just about technology and outer space, but about psychology, government, inter-personal relationships, religion and spirituality, and the general 'purpose of life,' just to name a few.

We humans are largely creatures who define our lives through the boundaries set upon us. Fantasy and Scifi remove those boundaries from the storyteller, allowing him to truly utilitze creative and interesting ideas to a far greater extent than those writers constrained by 'reality.'

Of course, there is both good and bad scifi. Someone earlier in the thread - ebrown? - stated that they had just finished Ender's Game; if you haven't read that book, please do, it's one of the best.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Lol!

You have a Hulk doll.

I rest my case.

Just kiddin'...kinda.

0 Replies

Noddy24 wrote:

I think in order to enjoy Science Fiction or Fantasy the reader must have a code of behavior that permits toying with reality.

I know a number of intelligent people of passion and wit who can't believe impossible things before or after breakfast. Their minds are grounded in reality and they do not enjoy flights of fancy.

Hmmm...where does magical realism fit in with all this, i wonder?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Noddy24 wrote:
I think in order to enjoy Science Fiction or Fantasy the reader must have a code of behavior that permits toying with reality.

I know a number of intelligent people of passion and wit who can't believe impossible things before or after breakfast. Their minds are grounded in reality and they do not enjoy flights of fancy.

Hmmm...where does magical realism fit in with all this, i wonder?

I'm a total sci-fi failure too. But I enjoy Salman Rushdie's books and other authors that use magic realism.

0 Replies

ditto. love magical realism, but i think plenty realistic enough novels employ just the same amount of fantasy and imagination as any sci-fi. it's just used differently. i'd pick a 19 centure russian romanticism period novel over any sci fi anytime. Though i am a fan of the Hitchhiker's guide and and and the Stalker (by the two russian brothers...filmed by Tarkovski as the Zone...) and a few others.

0 Replies

sakhi wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Noddy24 wrote:
I think in order to enjoy Science Fiction or Fantasy the reader must have a code of behavior that permits toying with reality.

I know a number of intelligent people of passion and wit who can't believe impossible things before or after breakfast. Their minds are grounded in reality and they do not enjoy flights of fancy.

Hmmm...where does magical realism fit in with all this, i wonder?

I'm a total sci-fi failure too. But I enjoy Salman Rushdie's books and other authors that use magic realism.

Yes, I think there is sophisticated psychological realism and exploration of humanity in these books.

I guess in SF the point of the exercise is the philosophical/scientific issue and its implications, the point in magical realism is still the human aspects?

Actually, I find non SF books, like Ayn Rand's, that illustrate a philosophical or polemic point without any depth or complexity to the characters to be similarly unsatisfying to most SF....hmmmm....

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

ditto. love magical realism, but i think plenty realistic enough novels employ just the same amount of fantasy and imagination as any sci-fi. it's just used differently. i'd pick a 19 centure russian romanticism period novel over any sci fi anytime. Though i am a fan of the Hitchhiker's guide and and and the Stalker (by the two russian brothers...filmed by Tarkovski as the Zone...) and a few others.

Can you say how you see it as being used differently, Dagglepuss?

0 Replies

I like science fiction, or at least some of the lit that gets that label.

I like the exploration of 'what if' where you get to piggy back on someone else's imagination.

I'm a bigger fan of short stories as opposed to novel length stuff. I grew up with Larry Niven, but I read a bit of Clarke, Dick, Aldiss, McCaffrey, Le Guin, Heinlen, Farmer, Anthony and Asimov (who was a pretty good science writer, but not a fantastic story teller IMHO).

I'll pick up a best SF of the year compilation at least once a year, just to see what's happening. I'd recommend them to anyone who doesn't think they like SF - you'll find at least one story that will get you thinking and maybe see what all the geeks are going on about.

Why wouldn't anyone enjoy Joe Haldeman's 'Forever War', or 'Flowers for Algenon' or 'A Canticle For Liebowitz'?

Haven't read Enders game but I read a short Card wrote in that universe and it was great. I liked the Dan Simmons Hyperion books too.

I think what hard core fans think is good is often offputting for the new initiate. As a dabbler I'd be happy to come up with a list of short stories that weren't university physics or triplebreasted monsters that were memorable.

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

I like science fiction, or at least some of the lit that gets that label.

I like the exploration of 'what if' where you get to piggy back on someone else's imagination.

I'm a bigger fan of short stories as opposed to novel length stuff. I grew up with Larry Niven, but I read a bit of Clarke, Dick, Aldiss, McCaffrey, Le Guin, Heinlen, Farmer, Anthony and Asimov (who was a pretty good science writer, but not a fantastic story teller IMHO).

I'll pick up a best SF of the year compilation at least once a year, just to see what's happening. I'd recommend them to anyone who doesn't think they like SF - you'll find at least one story that will get you thinking and maybe see what all the geeks are going on about.

Why wouldn't anyone enjoy Joe Haldeman's 'Forever War', or 'Flowers for Algenon' or 'A Canticle For Liebowitz'?

Haven't read Enders game but I read a short Card wrote in that universe and it was great. I liked the Dan Simmons Hyperion books too.

I think what hard core fans think is good is often offputting for the new initiate. As a dabbler I'd be happy to come up with a list of short stories that weren't university physics or triplebreasted monsters that were memorable.

Short stories ARE a great form for SF, I agree.

0 Replies

well..... some are imagining what could be.... others (sci-fi, fantasy writers) what most likely couldn't be... that's all. but they're using equal amount of imagination. simple.

0 Replies

I don't think that's completely right Dagmar 'proper' science fiction extrapolates from reality, and says 'what if?' and that isn't much different from regular fiction.

For example 'The Death Of Grass' was about a virus that killed everything in the botanical family Gramineae, and what that meant for human society. ie no wheat, rye, oats, corn etc. 'Inconstant Moon' speculated on the immediate affects of our sun having a massive solar flare, both in modern times.

Is that any less likely than the president single handedly saving air force one from a bunch of terrorists?

I think it's all a bit grey. No-one really agrees on what science fiction is, it's almost a marketing term, like 'world music'. I will think on it some more.

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

I don't think that's completely right Dagmar 'proper' science fiction extrapolates from reality, and says 'what if?' and that isn't much different from regular fiction.

For example 'The Death Of Grass' was about a virus that killed everything in the botanical family Gramineae, and what that meant for human society. ie no wheat, rye, oats, corn etc. 'Inconstant Moon' speculated on the immediate affects of our sun having a massive solar flare, both in modern times.

Is that any less likely than the president single handedly saving air force one from a bunch of terrorists?

I think it's all a bit grey. No-one really agrees on what science fiction is, it's almost a marketing term, like 'world music'. I will think on it some more.

Lol...but the president saving Air Force One thing isn't magical realism, it's total bullshit!

0 Replies

Noo, no no no! The president saving Air Force one from terrorists would be an excellent publicity campaign for said president!
I can already see the pictures, Bush, toting a nice Uzi (How OmSig would love this image...), having a stub of a cigar mashed in between his teeth (like Schwarzenegger in his early movies, Commando for example) and a five o clock shadow, preferably wearing a red bandana on his head and shirtless, so we can see those rippling muscles...
What that wouldn't do for his war on terrorism!!!
You'd almost hope he would try to act on that vision...

Naj

0 Replies

najmelliw wrote:

Noo, no no no! The president saving Air Force one from terrorists would be an excellent publicity campaign for said president!
I can already see the pictures, Bush, toting a nice Uzi (How OmSig would love this image...), having a stub of a cigar mashed in between his teeth (like Schwarzenegger in his early movies, Commando for example) and a five o clock shadow, preferably wearing a red bandana on his head and shirtless, so we can see those rippling muscles...
What that wouldn't do for his war on terrorism!!!
You'd almost hope he would try to act on that vision...

Naj

Fantasyland, the happiest kingdom of them all....

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

sakhi wrote:

I'm a total sci-fi failure too. But I enjoy Salman Rushdie's books and other authors that use magic realism.

Yes, I think there is sophisticated psychological realism and exploration of humanity in these books.

I guess in SF the point of the exercise is the philosophical/scientific issue and its implications, the point in magical realism is still the human aspects?

Actually, I find non SF books, like Ayn Rand's, that illustrate a philosophical or polemic point without any depth or complexity to the characters to be similarly unsatisfying to most SF....hmmmm....

are you implying that *some* SF is satisfactory, or that some non SF with a philosophical or polemic point is satisfactory, or that you have other reasons for dissatisfaction with either or both? on the subject of psychological realism, do you ever enjoy reading something that is a bit less sophisticated than Proust? SF is intended to entertain first, so i think it ought to be compared to other forms of genre literature.

i'm tossing out the name of Phillip K. Dick for consideration. much of his writing had a strong psychological element to it, while still employing SF themes. his novels are mostly too esoteric for me, actually, but he wrote many classic short stories and had a special knack for evoking paranoia (for all i know, he may actually have been somewhat paranoid). the most familiar Dick work for the non-SF public is probably Do androids dream of electric sheep, which was the basis for the film Blade Runner.

0 Replies

Why is Science Fiction so unappealing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know