On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:59:26 +0000, Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:30:07 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> Stories of how medieval peasants deal with the first knights in 
>>> armor would be SF in my book.
>> 
>> Sorry, for me this is historical fiction. It did happen, you know. :) 
>
>Try Pasquale's Angel, by Paul J McAuley. How Florence might have turned 
>out if da Vinci had leaned more towards engineering than art. 
>Contemporary celebrities are some of the main characters. A very good read!
>

I've never been able to enjoy alternative history novels, I don't know why. I
read some of McAuley's earlier work but found it too dark for my liking. I might
give him another try if I can find anything in the library. 

>> I like a) hard SF best followed by b) fantastical SF and only if there is
>> nothing else to read c) space operas (Cowboys with space guns, I call them)
>
>Hmm, sounds like everyone else has a different definition of space opera 
>to me. 

Naturally :)

>I always thought that galaxy-spanning adventure and action were 
>the main staples, which clearly can include hard sf as well as fantasies 
>like Star Wars or Lensman. I'd put Iain M Banks' Culture novels into 
>both categories without even thinking about it.

So do I but a lot of the plots are so derivative. It always brings to mind
Battle Beyond the Stars which was a remake of the magnificent seven which was a
remake of the seven samurai.
Have you tried Alastair Reynolds's Revelation Space series. IMO that is both
hard and a space opera.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Have you tried Alastair Reynolds's Revelation Space series. IMO that is both
> hard and a space opera.

I have, and they're exceedingly good, some of the best sf I've ever 
read. I've read Revelation Space and Chasm City; both very different 
stories but I like the way some of the characters overlap - people 
mentioned in passing in RS are the main characters in CC...

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:16:56 +0000, Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> Have you tried Alastair Reynolds's Revelation Space series. IMO that is both
>> hard and a space opera.
>
>I have, and they're exceedingly good, some of the best sf I've ever 
>read. I've read Revelation Space and Chasm City; both very different 
>stories but I like the way some of the characters overlap - people 
>mentioned in passing in RS are the main characters in CC...

I enjoyed "The Prefect" the latest in the series. I also really liked "Century
Rain" and "Pushing Ice". He is one of my favourite authors.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> I need to read that one one of these days - got a copy out in the other
> room, just never got around to it...

I have that same problem with "Huckleberry Finn"... going on thirty years now :D

Dan
--
See my movies -- http://goofygraffix.com
Read my blog  -- http://goofygraffix.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

stbenge <stb### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
(quoted out of order)
....
> Poll: What do you like more?
> a) hard science fiction
> b) fantastical sci-fi
> c) space operas

Sort Answer: a) & b)... NOT c)

I enjoy works that creatively explore the realm of possibilities, especially
those that provide a brief excursion, albeit an imaginary one, outside the
sphere of the mundane.  Generally, I'm a fan of "The Classics": Asimov,
Bradbury, Heinlein, Clarke, Pohl, Kornbluth, del Rey, and the rest of that
beloved old rouges gallery.  Doug Adams was a true genius and any zarking
turlingdrome who says otherwise is full of jujuflop and can go straight to
Belgium!  Interesting ideas can come out of either the "hard" or "fantastical"
styles, so I like them both.  Generally, mixing the two styles is a bad idea,
but a truly inventive writer just might create an exception to just about any
rule.

I find "Space Opera" wholly repugnant.  The same modern pop culture mass
marketing mindset that gives us fat-free ice cream and decaffeinated coffee
brings us idea-free science fiction... "all the spaceships, explosions and
blinky lights that the public loves, with none of those annoying challenging
concepts to dilute the nonstop ACTION!"

....
> How about a nice redirect of attention? Something to take your minds off
> of possibilities which may or may not exist. A good read.... something
> about.... well, possibilities which may or may not exist :) Of course
> I'm talking about Science Fiction.

Like many who have read Heinlein, I often find myself thinking "That's really
clever!" one moment and "How can you say THAT!" the next. This having been
said,  I present the following excerpts to bridge the gap between threads:


From: "Notebooks of Lazarus Long" By: Robert Heinlein



"History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational
basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the
unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and
spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from
fiddling with it."

"Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods
have the manners and morals of a spoiled child."

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent-it says so right here on the
label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine
attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks,
please. Cash and in small bills."

"The most preposterous notion that H. Sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the
Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the
saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and
becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy,
without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest,
largest, and least productive industry in all of history."

(end quotations)
=========================================

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> How about things like Orwell's 1984 then? That extrapolates many 
> possible paths from its time, but doesn't really dwell on technology. Or 
> would you put this into 'speculative fiction' but separate from sf?

Good question. I'd call it more speculative, because it's mostly about 
people affecting people, rather than technology. If it was about how 
people were monitored, and about how people found ways around the 
monitoring, for example, it would be more science fiction, I think.

I recently read a book called "The Wittling" (or some such spelling), 
wherein the humans get stranded on a planet with natives who have the 
natural ability to teleport. They are at medieval technology levels, but 
it's still SF, as it's how the humans cope with people who can teleport 
you or themselves.

> Niven must be my favourite author, I think. 

I gain a new appreciation every time I go back and read his stuff again. 
The way those two hold together an entire universe of 
reasonably-interacting but very different peoples over the course of a 
dozen books is pretty amazing.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
>> Stories of how medieval peasants deal with the first knights in 
>> armor would be SF in my book.
> 
> Sorry, for me this is historical fiction. It did happen, you know. :) 

Well, yes. And Jules Verne's stuff was SF, even tho it became real. :-)

OK, so do the Mark Twain bit. That was SF too.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:50:58 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>>> Stories of how medieval peasants deal with the first knights in 
>>> armor would be SF in my book.
>> 
>> Sorry, for me this is historical fiction. It did happen, you know. :) 
>
>Well, yes. And Jules Verne's stuff was SF, even tho it became real. :-)

I won't argue with that :)

>OK, so do the Mark Twain bit. That was SF too.

I've only read "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" * and yes I would
class it as SF. 
Remember that he is not one of my national authors so the "so do the Mark Twain
bit." intrigues me. Over here he is mostly known for Tom and Huck with a lot of
irrelevant shouts of racism. But I believe that he is required reading in the
US. Is there an old chestnut in your words?  

*	That could be classed as SF

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:41:33 -0000, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at  
vtSPAM.edu"> did spake, saying:

> Dan Byers wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>>> Hmm, maybe Brook's Magic Kingdom For Sale. Heinlein's Glory Road comes
>>> to mind, too.
>>
>> I grew up on Brooks' "Shannara" series (LOTR for dummies, like me).   
>> Never read
>> the "Magic Kingdom" series, though.  I was under the impression that was
>> fantasy, not sci-fi...
>
> It's been ages since I read it. I just recalled the start of it,
> something about an amulet that transported a person from a spot just a
> few miles up the road from me into another world.
>
> Guess the difference in that is if it's science that transports him,
> it's fantastical scifi. If it's magic, it's fantasy. Guess I need to
> re-read it and find out.

I'd put the series in the same fantasy category as the Xanth series, which  
it resembles closely.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:07:21 -0000, stbenge <stb### [at] hotmailcom>  
did spake, saying:

> Grass, Sheri S. Tepper
> http://www.amazon.com/Grass-Sheri-S-Tepper/dp/0553285653
>
> My mom suggested this book to me, but I just couldn't get into it. It  
> was too frickin' boring.

Heh I've just read the first paragraph and felt ill.

> Also, the Pern (one letter off from porn) series by Anne McCaffrey. I  
> read one book of it, and had a hard time finishing it. Fantasy sci-fi  
> just isn't that interesting, IMO.

I tried one ages ago and couldn't get into it either, might try again some  
time though.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message