 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks, Stephen, for filling in the info whilst I was away. Those unreasonable
people who provide my paycheck sometimes insist that I devote myself to the
silly tasks they assign to me for two or three hours... in a SINGLE day! ;-)
Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:45:58 -0800, stbenge <stb### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>
> >> ... Pohl, Kornbluth, del Rey, and the rest of that
> >> beloved old rouges gallery.
> >
> >Those last three don't even ring the smallest bell. Could you provide
> >some favorite titles from these authors?
>
> You must try Frederik Pohl one of IMO the greats.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederik_Pohl#Collections
>
> The Heechee, Eschaton, Starchild Trilogy (with Jack Williamson) and of course
> the Space Merchants, series are recommended.
>
>
> Cyril M. Kornbluth collaborated with Pohl a lot.
>
>
> Lester del Rey
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_del_Rey#Novels
> says it all.
>
>
> Regards
> Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
> For graphical depiction of me and hard sci-fi, see http://xkcd.com/356/
terrific webcomic! XD
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
>> I prefer hard science fiction. However, given that, I don't consider it
>> to be science fiction unless it's actually about the technology and how
>> people react to it. If you could take the story about war between worlds
>> with blasters, and set it down as war between countries with revolvers,
>> it isn't science fiction. On the other hand, if it's about how
>> technology affects people, even old technology then I'd call it science
>> fiction.
>
> I agree with this bit too.
I almost do. I'd replace "technology" with "science".
>> 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. :)
SF is not just about the future...
--
Lisa: Oedipus killed his father and married his mother.
Homer: Who payed for THAT wedding?
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge wrote:
> Poll: What do you like more?
> a) hard science fiction
> b) fantastical sci-fi
> c) space operas
Someone just recommended to me "The Man From Earth":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/
Independent movie, I think. Made this year. As you can see, the ratings
are quite high. Anyone seen it?
(No spoilers here, but if you want to avoid them, don't read the plot
summary on the IMDB page).
I liked it, and generally like this "kind" of science fiction. I used
to call it "philosophical" science fiction - a subgenre of hard science
fiction (as Darren defined it). These kinds of stories don't actually
have much of a story - it's mostly exploring certain ideas or concepts.
Oh, and just curious if anyone here would rather this movie not be
labeled as science fiction?
--
Lisa: Oedipus killed his father and married his mother.
Homer: Who payed for THAT wedding?
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:32:30 -0500, Dan Byers wrote:
>> 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
I believe that was required reading for me in Jr. High school....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:47:04 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> In fact, I read "Fahrenheit 451" again about six months ago, and the
>>> parallels between that world and this one are spooky...
>>
>> I need to read that one one of these days - got a copy out in the other
>> room, just never got around to it...
>
> Great book.
>
> I think it's incorrect to refer to him as a sci/fi writer, though.
What do you think would be a better classification?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> In fact, I read "Fahrenheit 451" again about six months ago, and the
>>>> parallels between that world and this one are spooky...
>>> I need to read that one one of these days - got a copy out in the other
>>> room, just never got around to it...
>> Great book.
>>
>> I think it's incorrect to refer to him as a sci/fi writer, though.
>
> What do you think would be a better classification?
A "good" writer?<G>
Don't know. It's just that I think most of his work is entirely
unrelated to sci-fi, and even most of his "sci-fi" stories are somewhat
incidentally sci-fi. As Darren would put it, you could take (most of)
those stories, remove the sci-fi elements, and the story is still more
or less the same. The science aspect was not important in most of his
stories.
--
Lisa: Oedipus killed his father and married his mother.
Homer: Who payed for THAT wedding?
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:20:24 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> In fact, I read "Fahrenheit 451" again about six months ago, and the
>>>>> parallels between that world and this one are spooky...
>>>> I need to read that one one of these days - got a copy out in the
>>>> other room, just never got around to it...
>>> Great book.
>>>
>>> I think it's incorrect to refer to him as a sci/fi writer, though.
>>
>> What do you think would be a better classification?
>
> A "good" writer?<G>
Life in the library would certainly be easier if the dewey decimal system
included numbers for "good" and "bad" writers. That'd make it easier to
know which books to avoid, that's for sure. As mentioned before, L. Ron
Hubbard certainly would belong in the "really crap writer" section from
my experience.
> Don't know. It's just that I think most of his work is entirely
> unrelated to sci-fi, and even most of his "sci-fi" stories are somewhat
> incidentally sci-fi. As Darren would put it, you could take (most of)
> those stories, remove the sci-fi elements, and the story is still more
> or less the same. The science aspect was not important in most of his
> stories.
Maybe, but I like books in the sci-fi genre that don't depend on the
science other than to be a storytelling tool. I think of the authors
I've read, though, Michael Creighton comes the closest to a "pure"
science-fiction definition.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:36:24 EST, "Mike the Elder" <zer### [at] wyanorg>
wrote:
>Thanks, Stephen, for filling in the info whilst I was away. Those unreasonable
>people who provide my paycheck sometimes insist that I devote myself to the
>silly tasks they assign to me for two or three hours... in a SINGLE day! ;-)
I'm glad it meets with your approval Mike. I should have mentioned Hal Clement
and Clifford D Simak as well. Oh! And John Wyndham to represent the Brits.
I don't know if I can wholly agree with you on Space Opera. Most modern Space
Operas are other genre set in the stars and are just long. But have you read:
Tiger! Tiger! Or "The stars are my destination" by Alfred Bester? One novel but
it could be set to music.
Alastair Reynolds's "Revelation Space" series? I've mentioned this before.
Vernor Vinge's "A Fire Upon the Deep"?
There are a few but you have to sift a lot of dross to find a gem.
Are you in a union, is there someone you can complain to about your paymaster's
unreasonable demands? :)
BTW I envy your nome de plume. Stevie the Senile doesn't have the same ring :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/14 20:05:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:20:24 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Life in the library would certainly be easier if the dewey decimal system
> included numbers for "good" and "bad" writers. That'd make it easier to
> know which books to avoid, that's for sure. As mentioned before, L. Ron
> Hubbard certainly would belong in the "really crap writer" section from
> my experience.
>
The main problem here, is that your definition of "good" and "bad" writers is
not the same as that of almost anybody else, and that is independant of WHO the
"you" is...
> Jim
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when you look at a matrix transform and
know instantly what it does.
John VanSickle
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
