sci-fi recommendation?

[orpheus]

Hello, all.

I've entered one of my least favorite periods - that awful time between novels when I try to decide what to read next. (Funny thing - when I was a child, I never had this problem; I just devoured the next available thing. But now I can spend more time trying to find the "right" book to read next than it might take to read several long chapters! Grrrrr.)

So here's my question: can anyone nudge me in the direction of a good sci-fi read? Sci-fi is particularly problematic for me, since so much of it is not very well-written. (Philip K. Dick is a good example, though others may disagree. I'm fascinated by the ideas he explores, and that makes it worthwhile. But, as Stanislaw Lem said once, I have an urge to read Dick at top speed, since the quality of the writing is often not good; one doesn't want to linger.) So it's frustrating to look at a book, judge it by its cover, get excited about what it seems to promise, want to like it, salivate over starting it, dig in, and then find that my idea of what it should have been is much better than what it actually is.

Sci-fi I've enjoyed: Many of Dick's novels, some of Aldiss's short stories, a lot of Lem, some of Neal Stephenson (though I bogged down 2/3 of the way through Quicksilver), some A.C. Clarke.

Other writers I've enjoyed: Calvino, Borges, Robbe-Grillet, Perec, Beckett, and Russell Hoban.

Sci-fi writers I want to like but wonder if they'll disappoint: Gregory Benford, Greg Bear, David Brin, Stephen Baxter, Gene Wolfe, Olaf Stapledon, Samuel Delany.

Any thoughts? (other than that I should get over my neuroses...)

 

[Foolmewunz]

A whole depends on your own taste, of course. There's a pretty long thread, here..... http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59571

Ignore the thread title - although there are good recommendations for start-up, you're obviously not a newbie if you've delved into P.K. Dick, and the others you mention. I hate to admit it, but I sort of suspend literary tastes when reading murder mysteries or sci fi. Ripping through them is de rigeur.

With that in mind, the original Dune (not so much the sequels) is fun. I like the Foundation books, and Robot stories. If you dabble in fantasy, try The War of the Flowers by Tad Williams.

 

[Ryokan]

Two words : Isaac Asimov

Try the Foundation series. It made me the person I am today.

 

[orpheus]

Thanks, Foolmewunz and Ryokan. I'll check out that thread. And it's interesting about Asimov: I've always loved his non-fiction, but never got into his sci-fi. Perhaps it's time to start. I've heard that The Gods Themselves is also good. What do you think?

 

[Brainache]

I recommend you try Stephen Baxter. I find him a far better writer than Asimov or Clarke.

This is a fansite for him, but it will give you an idea of the kind of author he is:

http://www.themanifold.co.uk/news.php

Or if you like older stuff try The Forever War by Joe Haldeman.

Have you read any of John Wyndham's cosy catastrophes?

What about Heinlein's Future History stories or The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress?

 

[Mojo]

Sci-fi I've enjoyed: Many of Dick's novels, some of Aldiss's short stories, a lot of Lem, some of Neal Stephenson (though I bogged down 2/3 of the way through Quicksilver), some A.C. Clarke.

Other writers I've enjoyed: Calvino, Borges, Robbe-Grillet, Perec, Beckett, and Russell Hoban.

Sci-fi writers I want to like but wonder if they'll disappoint: Gregory Benford, Greg Bear, David Brin, Stephen Baxter, Gene Wolfe, Olaf Stapledon, Samuel Delany.

I can recommend Baxter, Bear, Benford (although I found one of his recent ones slightly disappointing) and Delaney. I haven't read much by the others.

You could also try Greg Egan, Paul J McAuley, Christopher Priest, Kim Stanley Robinson, Adam Roberts, John Sladek...

If you're interested in some of the sub-genres, there's the whole cyberpunk thing: William Gibson, Bruce Sterling, Jack Womack, Pat Cadigan, Jon Courtenay Grimwood...

There's some quite good space opera around at the moment too: Ken MacLeod, Iain M Banks (note the "M" ), Alastair Reynolds, Neal Asher...

 

[Chaos]

Go here: http://www.baen.com/library/

You can read a lot of books for free, online, or download them. Look around if there´s anything you like.

 

[fuelair]

Hello, all.

Sci-fi writers I want to like but wonder if they'll disappoint: Gregory Benford, Greg Bear, David Brin, Stephen Baxter, Gene Wolfe, Olaf Stapledon, Samuel Delany.

Any thoughts? (other than that I should get over my neuroses...)

Haven't read Baxter - but the others have not disappointed in the past. Stapledon is the odd one in your list since he died or halted late 40's, early 50's. Very philosophical bent. read and enjoyed in late teen's (Odd-John) and early 20's Star-Maker and Last and First Men (titles may be slightly off, I am 60 so that would be 30 + years ago). Also, enjoy much Poul Anderson, Gordon Dickson (Dragon and the George, Dorsai and related series), Heinlein (Starship Troopers-dummies left jump suits and 30-second bombs out of movie. wish we had 30-sec. bombs, real fun) (many others). Good luck on your quest!!

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Stephen Baxter bothers me with all his errors.

In normal scifi i don't care if there is stuff that goes contrary to science. But when you try to make hard scifi, and work with all the real theories and stuff like that. Then it really bothers me when your science is wrong.

Which it, unfortunatly, is with Stephen Baxter.

 

[Bikewer]

Just like any other branch of literature, there are many sub-genres, and some folks get all hung up on that. I remember being in a bookstore and talking with a couple of other scifi fans. I mentioned that I liked Harlan Ellison, and one fellow elevated his nose and said, "I don't read SOFT science fiction!"
His loss...

You might try picking up a copy or two of the always excellent Asimov's Science Fiction magazine. Short stories and novellas have always been a strong part of the genre, and Asimov's publishes the best.

 

[Morwen]

I also recommend Asimov. And Lois McMaster Bujold (the Vorkosigan novels, not the Chalion ones), Connie Willis (Doomsday Book, To Say Nothing of the Dog) and C.J. Cherryh, especially Cyteen and Chanur's Pride. Recently I've discovered Robert J. Sawyer (I've just translated one of his books) and he's not half bad. Daring and "hard" SF. There's lots of stuff out there.

 

[Brainache]

Stephen Baxter bothers me with all his errors.

In normal scifi i don't care if there is stuff that goes contrary to science. But when you try to make hard scifi, and work with all the real theories and stuff like that. Then it really bothers me when your science is wrong.

Which it, unfortunatly, is with Stephen Baxter.

Which books are you referring to here? I find his stuff fairly compelling and I always thought he had a pretty solid science background(astronaut training etc)

Of course I'm no scientist, but I haven't read anything in Baxter's books which is any more outrageous than most other SF.
Maybe my standards of what constitutes Hard SF varies from yours.
Have you read Voyage? Titan? Evolution?
Most of his other books I suppose fall somewhere in between Hard and Soft SF

 

[Worm]

Asimov (Foundation, Robots etc.)
Iain M. Banks (Player of Games et. al.)
Frank Herbert (Dune)
Robert Heinlein

Asmiov is my great first love, but I quickly got turned on to many others.

 

[Ryokan]

I've heard that The Gods Themselves is also good. What do you think?

It's a very different Asimov book, but it's still pretty good. It's his only science fiction that includes aliens.

(If you disregard Gaia in the later Foundation books)

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Which books are you referring to here? I find his stuff fairly compelling and I always thought he had a pretty solid science background(astronaut training etc)

Of course I'm no scientist, but I haven't read anything in Baxter's books which is any more outrageous than most other SF.
Maybe my standards of what constitutes Hard SF varies from yours.
Have you read Voyage? Titan? Evolution?
Most of his other books I suppose fall somewhere in between Hard and Soft SF

All his three manifold stories had huge gaping errors in them. For one.

I also remember some stuff in the Xeelee Sequence, but not as much as in the manifold series.

And i've only read those two series by him.


From the Xeelee Sequence he does the woo thing and explain how everything must be observed(from quantum mechanics), the woo thing being that it has to be a human that does the observation. Basicly, untill a human has gone around(At the end of time) and watched everything, all artifacts, etc, the history is still in flux as to what has happened. I guess it doesn't have to be a human, might have been a Qax or a Xeelee as well, but, it was some sentient being that had to do it.

From the manifold series the "Carter Catastrophe" is used as being something real.

Imagine that two big urns are put in front of you, and you know that one of them contains ten balls and the other a million, but you are ignorant as to which is which. You know the balls in each urn are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 ... etc. Now you take a ball at random from the left urn, and it is number 7. Clearly, this is a strong indication that that urn contains only ten balls. [...]

But now consider the case where instead of the urns you have two possible human races, and instead of balls you have individuals, ranked according to birth order. As a matter of fact, you happen to find that your rank is about sixty billion. Now, say Carter and Leslie, we should reason in the same way as we did with the urns. That you should have a rank of sixty billion or so is much more likely if only 100 billion persons will ever have lived than if there will be many trillion persons. Therefore, by Bayes' theorem, you should update your beliefs about humankind’s prospects and realize that an impending doomsday is much more probable than you have hitherto thought.

http://www.anthropic-principle.com/

As in, because you and me are both alive right now(which is statisticaly inprobable if the human race will go on for some 60 billion years more) it means that the human race will end soon.

In the book it is some 150-200 years away. Or maybe it was less.

The problem with the argument above is, of course. That for it to make sence you and me have to somehow be "special". In reality all the balls in the urn would just be red, and have nothing to distinguish them. So after you have taken 5 balls you still have no idea if there was 10 to begin with, or 1000.

And yes, it really bothered me a LOT while reading those books.

Good enough for you?

 

[TobiasTheViking]

It's a very different Asimov book, but it's still pretty good. It's his only science fiction that includes aliens.

(If you disregard Gaia in the later Foundation books)

Wrong, there is a short that happens during Empire where there are aliens. Yes, in the robot -> empire -> foundation series.

If you really care i guess i could find the name. I liked the story.

 

[Ryokan]

Wrong, there is a short that happens during Empire where there are aliens. Yes, in the robot -> empire -> foundation series.

If you really care i guess i could find the name. I liked the story.

And now that you mention it, there's a robot short story with aliens on Jupiter as well. Pretty good story, actually.

But I was thinking about his novels.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

And now that you mention it, there's a robot short story with aliens on Jupiter as well. Pretty good story, actually.

But I was thinking about his novels.

Ah, oki, well, as it says in my title i have autism, and you didn't say book, you said "It's his only science fiction that includes aliens.", so hehe


No, i honestly did wonder if you meant book or not. You might have meant both, but there was nothing to lose by me posting what i did. Not like i could offend or anything

And i had totally spaced the robot and jupiter thing.. That is.. till now. I was thinking about it all the time i was writting this. Was just about to ask what story when i remembered.

 

[Brainache]

All his three manifold stories had huge gaping errors in them. For one.

I also remember some stuff in the Xeelee Sequence, but not as much as in the manifold series.

And i've only read those two series by him.


From the Xeelee Sequence he does the woo thing and explain how everything must be observed(from quantum mechanics), the woo thing being that it has to be a human that does the observation. Basicly, untill a human has gone around(At the end of time) and watched everything, all artifacts, etc, the history is still in flux as to what has happened. I guess it doesn't have to be a human, might have been a Qax or a Xeelee as well, but, it was some sentient being that had to do it.

From the manifold series the "Carter Catastrophe" is used as being something real.


http://www.anthropic-principle.com/

As in, because you and me are both alive right now(which is statisticaly inprobable if the human race will go on for some 60 billion years more) it means that the human race will end soon.

In the book it is some 150-200 years away. Or maybe it was less.

The problem with the argument above is, of course. That for it to make sence you and me have to somehow be "special". In reality all the balls in the urn would just be red, and have nothing to distinguish them. So after you have taken 5 balls you still have no idea if there was 10 to begin with, or 1000.

And yes, it really bothered me a LOT while reading those books.

Good enough for you?

Umm I think that statistics thing is a plot device. If you are going to get all huffy about SF books with unrealistic plot devices, maybe you should stick to reading text books.

Don't get me started on "psychohistory", FTL, positronic brains, force fields, transporter beams, time travel, anti-gravity, galactic empires, or any one of a thousand other concepts in so-called "Hard SF". None of them work as real science in our current understanding.

Expecting an SF author to stick to the laws of physics as currently understood is just silly.

It is fiction, not science. It should be enjoyed as a story, not held to some standard of scientific rigour. If it fails to entertain, then it fails as fiction. It can't fail as scientific fact, because it isn't supposed to be scientific fact.


Oh and did anyone mention Brian Aldiss? I like his early stuff and his anthologies. His "Billion Year Spree" is a pretty good reference book for finding highlights from the pulps.

 

[tomgv15]

Go wacky with Rudy Rucker. Software, Wetware, Freeware and Realware.