good sci-fi?

[Soapy Sam]

I second Quarkchild's praise for Asimov's "The Gods Themselves".

Asimov wrote novels set in a human (and Robot) only universe. This was (I felt) a mistake. The fact that he created such believable aliens when he finally tried (after so many forgettable humans) suggests I'm right. I wonder what else he could have created?

On the subject of "believable" aliens- an interesting read is "What Does a Martian Look Like?" by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart. This is a serious discussion of alternative biology and definitions of "life". The authors have contributed to books by several of the writers prominent in this thread.

I find as I get older (49 next month), that SF gets less interesting. I suspect this is because I have heard most of the ideas before and because it's the shock of the new that always attracted me. (Some of the writing is truly awful, but we hang in there for the surprise twist at the end).

Also, I have lived through an era of real science so stunning that SF has been pushed to keep up. Cyberpunk promised for a time, but seems to have lost it's way. (I blame Microsoft)

 

[Bottle or the Gun]

John Barnes - Candle

Software written for the human brain takes over the world

 

[wollery]

Well I have to admit that I haven't read too widely, but if I find a writer I like I tend to read anything of theirs that I can get my grubby little paws on.

I love most of Larry Nivens' work, particularly the short stories and the early novels. His later stuff got pretty poor, culminating in The Ringworld Throne which I could barely finish. IMHO the collaborations with Pournelle and Barnes were poor at best.

Clarkes' vision was unparalleled, I think Rendezvous With Rama is a work of sheer genius. (Wasn't Childhoods End the original basis for 2001 the movie?)

Ray Bradburys' Martian Chronicles are a wonderful piece of allegory, and the ending is just fantastic.

John Wyndham should be required reading in schools, his plots are fantastic and his use of language is second to none. I just re-read Trouble With Lichen, what a book!

I agree with Thumbo, Harry Harrisons' Stainless Steel Rat books are great, SF comedy at its best.

One author who hasn't been mentioned so far is Jack McDevitt. His characters are very 3-dimensional and sympathetic, and the plots and writing style are pretty good.

 

[Zanna]

John Wyndham should be required reading in schools, his plots are fantastic and his use of language is second to none. I just re-read Trouble With Lichen, what a book!

The Chrysalids was required reading in my highschool... i thought it was a great book and have read it three times...

zanna

 

[epepke]

Clarkes' vision was unparalleled, I think Rendezvous With Rama is a work of sheer genius. (Wasn't Childhoods End the original basis for 2001 the movie?)

It was a short story named "The Sentinel."

Ray Bradburys' Martian Chronicles are a wonderful piece of allegory, and the ending is just fantastic.

I like that book, even though it's just a bunch of short stories run together in novel form.

 

[epepke]

IMO Gibson is one of the best SF authors of the past couple of decades, who injected a great deal of inventiveness, energy and style into (again IMO) what had become a rather stale and inward-looking genre (I admit I'm not a big fan of space opera/hard science stuff, what with their parade of one-dimensional characters and superficial settings from the killer-B crowd; Bova, Bear &c).

Um. Gibson was OK. A bit of style over substance, though. And he was a Johnny One-Note.

Unfortunatley, Gibson eclipsed a lot of good writers at the time, such as Lucius Shepherd, Sam Delaney, and Connie Willis. Willis, fortunately, continues to write. Delaney (the rat) stopped writing after Stars in my Pocket like Grains of Sand, which begged a sequel. I haven't seen much from Shepherd lately, but he was damn good.

 

[BillyTK]

Um. Gibson was OK. A bit of style over substance, though. And he was a Johnny One-Note.

I disagree; I can understand how Gibson's style might be... difficult for people, but there's plenty of substance; and though he's got a distinct set of concerns, I'd be hesitant about calling him a Johnny One-Note (love the pun though). Although he refines his style across his two trilogies, the concerns of the latter are substantively different to the concerns of the former. You'd love Jon Courtney-Grimwood though

Unfortunatley, Gibson eclipsed a lot of good writers at the time, such as Lucius Shepherd, Sam Delaney, and Connie Willis. Willis, fortunately, continues to write. Delaney (the rat) stopped writing after Stars in my Pocket like Grains of Sand, which begged a sequel. I haven't seen much from Shepherd lately, but he was damn good.

I don't see how you can say that about either Delaney or Shepard (Willis I've never heard of, must be that Gibson eclipsing effect). Delaney started publishing in 1962, and by the time Neuromancer came along, Delaney had already established his reputation, having published 17 novels that I'm aware of, and AFAIK going on to publish a further 10 novels as well as other writings after Stars... Now don't get me wrong, I loved Delaney's stuff, as well as Zelazny and Ellison, and I probably wouldn't have 'got' Gibson without reading their work first (well, that and Hammet and Chandler from one of the many occasions when I got bored of SF), so you could equally blame Delaney for Gibson.

I read Shepard's Life During Wartime because (a) it was recommended by a number of cyberpunk-orientated sites and (b) I've got the Talking Heads record of the same name. But Life During Wartime came out three years after Neuromancer, and what with the cyberpunk tropes at the start of Life..., if anything you could accuse Shepard of riding on Gibson's coat-tails, except that Life... certainly isn't cyberpunk (more magic realism/vaguely postmodernist/Conradian?). But Shepherd's too eclectic an author to be pigeonholed in any one genre anyway, So it's kind of like saying Easton-Ellis or Coupland eclipsed Shepard et al. Anyway, last I heard Shepard published Valentine and Lousiana Breakdown last year, and was writing a novel based on the aftermath of Sept. 11 called Only Partly Here.

 

[asthmatic camel]

By order of Mrs.Camel I have been required to prune my SciFi collection so that we actually have enough room in the house to walk around. As we are all aware, pruning is a dangerous and upsetting business so, while I cried trying to decide which books had to go, I thought I'd list those that I'd recommend for posterity.

Brian Aldiss: The Helliconia trilogy, Barefoot In The Head and Hothouse

JG Ballard: Rushing To Paradise

Stephen Baxter: Ring

Greg Bear: The Forge Of God

Ben Bova: Everything he's ever written, I'm going to hide these in the cellar.

A C Clarke: The Star

C J Cherryh: Heavytime

L Sprague de Camp: Lest Darkness Fall

Thomas M Disch: Camp Concentration

Aldous Huxley: Ape And Essence

Stanislaw Lem: Solaris

Michael Moorcock: The Dancers At The End Of Time Trilogy

Robert Silverberg: A Time Of Changes

Vernor Vinge: The Peace War and Marooned In Realtime

Ian Watson: The Martian Inca

H G Wells: The First Men In The Moon

 

[Darat]

By order of Mrs.Camel I have been required to prune my SciFi collection so that we actually have enough room in the house to walk around. As we are all aware, pruning is a dangerous and upsetting business so, while I cried trying to decide which books had to go, I thought I'd list those that I'd recommend for posterity.
..snip...

SHE MADE YOU GET RID OF BOOKS! AND YOU HAVEN'T DIVORCED HER?

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

I've never got rid of a book since I was about 11 and started to barricade my bedroom.

Love me love my books...

 

[Darat]

It was a short story named "The Sentinel."



I like that book, even though it's just a bunch of short stories run together in novel form.

Technically known as a "fix-up" novel.

Lots of these were issued (especially in the 50s) by publishers; many short-story authors wrote stories set in a common universe, often featuring a cast of common characters and publishers would gather these up, sometimes with new linking material prepared by the author, and release them as a “novel”.

 

[Bottle or the Gun]

Um. Gibson was OK. A bit of style over substance, though. And he was a Johnny One-Note.

Unfortunatley, Gibson eclipsed a lot of good writers at the time, such as Lucius Shepherd, Sam Delaney, and Connie Willis. Willis, fortunately, continues to write. Delaney (the rat) stopped writing after Stars in my Pocket like Grains of Sand, which begged a sequel. I haven't seen much from Shepherd lately, but he was damn good.

Green Eyes by Shepherd was great.

 

[diddidit]

Another vote for Stephen Baxter's work in general, and specifically for Ring, which is part of the Xeelee sequence of books, and for Manifold:Space, the second book in the Manifold trio (it's not a trilogy - same characters, different stories with similar ideas but otherwise unrelated).

Baxter sort or reminds me of a more verbose Arthur C. Clarke; the two of them collaborated on The Light of Other Days, and on another recently released book.

Clarke is one of my favorites in part because of his apparent lack of verbosity - he has a way of just suggesting something and letting the reader's imagination fill in the details. I'm recalling the lines from The Songs of Distand Earth - something along the lines of "an embarrased cough was heard from an orbiting lab; a minus had been turned into a plus, and the secrets of the universe had been revealed." Little said, much suggested.

I think I need a longer lifespan to get through all the things that look interesting, and this thread ain't helping...

did

 

[Soapy Sam]

While it is literally true that "The Sentinel" is the foundation of the "Monolith on the Moon" episode in 2001, there is also a strong echo of the spirit of "Childhood's End " about the final version of 2001.
Consider the powerlessness of mankind faced with technology so advanced as to appear magical; the transcendence of mankind into the Overmind and the transformation of Bowman into the Starchild; the feeling of a vastly ancient fate, a destiny, lying in wait. There is a flavour about the latter part of both which is very similar. Or it always felt that way to me.

 

[epepke]

Lots of these were issued (especially in the 50s) by publishers; many short-story authors wrote stories set in a common universe, often featuring a cast of common characters and publishers would gather these up, sometimes with new linking material prepared by the author, and release them as a “novel”.

It still happens. David Brin's The Postman was pretty clearly a fix-up novel, but made of novellas or novelettes or whatever you want to call them.

 

[epepke]

I disagree; I can understand how Gibson's style might be... difficult for people, but there's plenty of substance; and though he's got a distinct set of concerns, I'd be hesitant about calling him a Johnny One-Note (love the pun though).

No, it's not difficult. Actually, I find his use of style rather transparent and a bit cynical. This is not to say that his voice is cynical (which would be OK) but that the way he uses his style is manipulative in a cynical way. It seems to me that he thinks, "OK, I want this to sound profound, so I'll turn up the e. e. cummings knob."

For comparison, see Ellison's Paladin of the Lost Hour. Now, Ellison can write and has done so, but that particular story seemed to me a cynical manipulation of formulaic writing. I get the same impression from Gibson.

I don't see how you can say that about either Delaney or Shepard (Willis I've never heard of, must be that Gibson eclipsing effect).

I say it because I used to attend a lot of authors' conventions during the 1980s, and there was a big debate about what directions SF was going to take.

Connie Willis, by the way, has won more Nebula awards than any other author. You should check her out.

Delaney started publishing in 1962, and by the time Neuromancer came along, Delaney had already established his reputation, having published 17 novels that I'm aware of, and AFAIK going on to publish a further 10 novels as well as other writings after Stars...

AFAIK none in the genre of SF, though. Besides, his early novels were Wunderkind stuff that don't really hold up terribly well.

Anyway, last I heard Shepard published Valentine and Lousiana Breakdown last year, and was writing a novel based on the aftermath of Sept. 11 called Only Partly Here.

That's good news. I'll have to look for both.

 

[BillyTK]

No, it's not difficult. Actually, I find his use of style rather transparent and a bit cynical. This is not to say that his voice is cynical (which would be OK) but that the way he uses his style is manipulative in a cynical way. It seems to me that he thinks, "OK, I want this to sound profound, so I'll turn up the e. e. cummings knob."

Sorry - you'll need to explain that reference - e.e. cummings was the poet who refused to capital letters?

For comparison, see Ellison's Paladin of the Lost Hour. Now, Ellison can write and has done so, but that particular story seemed to me a cynical manipulation of formulaic writing. I get the same impression from Gibson.

I don't get that impression; it's an impression I got with Heinlein from Number of the Beast onwards, but maybe we've got different interpretations of cynicism. Or maybe we need to agree to disagree?

I say it because I used to attend a lot of authors' conventions during the 1980s, and there was a big debate about what directions SF was going to take.

I've always considered those kind of debates entertaining but ultimately pointless; I'm trying to imagine Delany and Zelazny sat around discussing guerilla tactics in the early '60s, with Moorcock and Ballard running the British cell...

Anyway, maybe it's that Bruce Stirling you need to blame for that one I think Gibson summed it up when he said that cyberpunk was always more of a marketing strategy than a genre, and I think we all know who he's referring to...

Connie Willis, by the way, has won more Nebula awards than any other author. You should check her out.

I have to say I don't normally go on the number of prizes an author has won, and at first glance Willis's work is not the kind of stuff I'd normally touch anyway. But I'll keep a look out; any book in particular you'd recommend?

AFAIK none in the genre of SF, though. Besides, his early novels were Wunderkind stuff that don't really hold up terribly well.

Hey, I love Nova and Babel-17! But I've yet to summon up enough stamina to re-read Dhalgren. Btw, do you think it might be fun to start a thread on what SF is, and then I can do my riff on why Margaret Atwood comes across as mad as a bag of spanners?

Edited to add:
A rather fun article on the cyberpunk phenomena I found whilst I was trying to google up a URL for the Swanwick article (link above) that wasn't cacky:

PILGRIMAGE TO NODE ZERO by Seth L. Lapcart (scroll down the page to find it)

Sample quote:

The Younger Polemicist put on a tape of Handel played by a Japanese 'koto' orchestra, knowing that his visitor would be unable to cope with anything more modern. "Let's face it, you don't even read ASIMOV's magazine. You hadn't heard of the Humanist Faction, till I told you about it. You probably even LIKE some of their stuff." He sneered contemptuously. "Deeply meaningful mood pieces evoking insight into the human condition -- that's what your 'new wave' was all about back in '68, wasn't it?"

 

[Bikewer]

There seems to be a tendency towards Gibson-bashing of late; not just here.
I admit I've never been one to overly analyze any sort of art, including writing. For me, it's a much more visceral experience. Either I like, and thus get involved in the story, or I don't

I've found Gibson to be immensely intertaining, especially the first three "cyberpunk" novels. The last couple, Virtual Light and All Tomorrows Parties, were excellent as well'; I've re-read them all several times.
Can't say as much about Pattern Recognition, though. Although as a stand-alone story it was OK, it seems to me that Gibson ripped himself off rather badly, with plot elements lifted from earlier stuff.

 

[BillyTK]

Can't say as much about Pattern Recognition, though. Although as a stand-alone story it was OK, it seems to me that Gibson ripped himself off rather badly, with plot elements lifted from earlier stuff.

I haven't read Pattern Recognition yet (I'm waiting for the paperback publication over here in June) but from reading reviews, it did strike me that the Cayce's ability sounds strikingly similar to Colin Laney's from the Bridge trilogy, and the plot resembles one of the arcs from Count Zero. I'll still read it because I enjoy Gibson's prose style, and I feel a great deal of empathy for a character who is allergic to logos...

 

[epepke]

Sorry - you'll need to explain that reference - e.e. cummings was the poet who refused to capital letters?

Yes, basically. I get the impression that Gibson gets blank versey when he wants to sound profound.

I don't get that impression; it's an impression I got with Heinlein from Number of the Beast onwards, but maybe we've got different interpretations of cynicism. Or maybe we need to agree to disagree?

We can agree to disagree, but I also get that impression from Heinlein as well.

As for cynicism, I'm using it in the less common sense of calculating. Mona Lisa Overdrive was the only time I felt that Gibson was really speaking to me, as opposed to running some modern variant of Plotto. I did enjoy in The Difference Engine, which seemed obviously written pairwise like the old Pohl/Kornbluth collaborations, how Gibson started out with his stock hopped-up, tough-talking Cowboy character and how Sterling killed him off. But it degenerated into mush and showed a complete lack of understanding of the Entscheidungsproblem. On the plus side, Ada Byron reminded me a lot of Donna Cox, a real person who used to be big in computing.

I've always considered those kind of debates entertaining but ultimately pointless; I'm trying to imagine Delany and Zelazny sat around discussing guerilla tactics in the early '60s, with Moorcock and Ballard running the British cell...

Heh. But on the other hand, Valis gives a good flavor of what Dick and Tim Powers were like at the time.

I have to say I don't normally go on the number of prizes an author has won, and at first glance Willis's work is not the kind of stuff I'd normally touch anyway. But I'll keep a look out; any book in particular you'd recommend?

Well, Willis isn't for everyone. As I've already pointed out (I think), she's for people who like Wodehouse. It's funny, and it's generally light social commentary. The number of awards only enters into the fact that people should have heard of her.

I'd recommend the short stories, either Impossible Things, which has the short story "Even The Queen," a big FU to people who criticized her for not writing more about "women's issues." "The Last of the Winnebagos" is one of the best stories about dogs I've ever read. Or her book of Christmas tales. I can't remember the name. On the other hand, if you like relentlessly grim, you could start with The Doomsday Book.

Hey, I love Nova and Babel-17! But I've yet to summon up enough stamina to re-read Dhalgren. Btw, do you think it might be fun to start a thread on what SF is, and then I can do my riff on why Margaret Atwood comes across as mad as a bag of spanners?

It's eminently true, but I'd like to hear your spiel anyway. I have an inherent distrust of people who insist that what they write is not SF just so they can get the BJ from mainstream lit-crits. This seems a peculiarly American disease; the British have always been more accepting.

 

[Wudang]

I like Delany and I read all through Dhalgren and enjoyed it enough but I've never felt the urge to go back and read it and this from someone who's read "Report on Probability A" several times.
Ditto the recommendation for Michael Marshall Smith - I think he's the most exciting new author I've read in years. About time he wrote something else.
It's not published as SF but Jasper Fforde's "The Eyre Affair" is good if you like quirky and literary jokes. The second book is better than the first. The third is in my holding stack.