Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I think part of the reason that Sci Fi remains a niche market is mainly
> because many authors get the "Sci" part right, and the "Fi" part wrong.
>   So many of the books are just downright *bad*, and even many of the
> good ones have poor character development (wasn't it said of Asimov that
> he "[wrote] about people as if he'd never met one"?).

Arthur C Clarke couldn't write characters very well either. But his concepts,
like Asimov's, were so big you didn't care... or even notice, often!

Ever read any Iain M Banks? His characters are diverse and fascinating. His SF
often borrows heavily, but usually feels new.

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Ever read any Iain M Banks? His characters are diverse and fascinating. His SF
> often borrows heavily, but usually feels new.

I just checked my local library, and they don't have a single book of his.

That's the other problem with good Sci Fi - my library sucks :(

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

"Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:web.4ad8453548067d0f6dd25f0b0@news.povray.org...

> Ever read any Iain M Banks? His characters are diverse and fascinating. 
> His SF
> often borrows heavily, but usually feels new.
>

Have you read any of Ken Macleod or Charles Stross (whose blog started this 
thread?)

-- 

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoys[at]aolDOTcom> wrote:
> "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:web.4ad8453548067d0f6dd25f0b0@news.povray.org...
>
> > Ever read any Iain M Banks? His characters are diverse and fascinating.
> > His SF
> > often borrows heavily, but usually feels new.
> >
>
> Have you read any of Ken Macleod or Charles Stross (whose blog started this
> thread?)

I have. Of Macleod, I've read the Engines of Light trilogy, and The Star
Fraction. Enjoyed both, but wasn't completely gripped. I need to re-read them
more sedately I think. Of Stross, I've only read Halting State so far, which I
thought was great. I'll definitely be reading more of his in the near future.

I think their SF is better than Banks', but I still prefer his stories and
situations for sheer excitement and page-turning power.

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> "Stephen" <mcavoys[at]aolDOTcom> wrote:

>> Have you read any of Ken Macleod or Charles Stross (whose blog started this
>> thread?)
> 
> I have. Of Macleod, I've read the Engines of Light trilogy, and The Star
> Fraction. Enjoyed both, but wasn't completely gripped. I need to re-read them
> more sedately I think. 


I may have enjoyed him more because of the Earthly settings; Glasgow, 
Scotland and London.

>Of Stross, I've only read Halting State so far, which I
> thought was great. I'll definitely be reading more of his in the near future.
> 



> I think their SF is better than Banks', but I still prefer his stories and
> situations for sheer excitement and page-turning power.
> 

Banks, in both guises, is one of my favourite authors but I feel that in 
the last 10 years his books lack the sparkle of his earlier work.
-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> wrote:
> >Of Stross, I've only read Halting State so far, which I
> > thought was great. I'll definitely be reading more of his in the near future.
>


Duly noted :)

> Banks, in both guises, is one of my favourite authors but I feel that in
> the last 10 years his books lack the sparkle of his earlier work.

Agreed. My favourite of all his work (a close run thing, mind) is Use Of Weapons
- which, aptly enough, Ken Macleod recommended he rewrite from an earlier,
unpublished work.

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolDOTcom> wrote:
>>> Of Stross, I've only read Halting State so far, which I
>>> thought was great. I'll definitely be reading more of his in the near future.

> 
> Duly noted :)
> 
>> Banks, in both guises, is one of my favourite authors but I feel that in
>> the last 10 years his books lack the sparkle of his earlier work.
> 
> Agreed. My favourite of all his work (a close run thing, mind) is Use Of Weapons
> - which, aptly enough, Ken Macleod recommended he rewrite from an earlier,
> unpublished work.
> 
> 

Almost 20 years ago. I must reread it.


John note the spelling ;-)).



-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Btw, can anyone recommend *good* sci-fi movies? Preferrably hard science
fiction. "Hard" in this context means physically plausible technology and
physics, which imples, among other things:

- No faster-than-light travel.
- No time travel.
- No far-fetched supernatural phenomena (unknown to modern science).
- Preferably no aliens, but if there are, as plausible ones as possible.
  (The alien in the movie of the same name *counts* as plausible because
it does nothing supernatural or physically implausible.)

  Besides Alien (and Aliens), this one is a perfect example of what I'm
looking for: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/

  Space Odyssey 2001 is a good example too, although has elements which
are borderline "non-hard" sci-fi.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Btw, can anyone recommend *good* sci-fi movies? Preferrably hard science
[snip]

I think Sunshine is a great movie, but is at odds with your list of criteria. In
Sunshine, it is strongly implied that we can control gravity without using a
centrifuge. I think this is more unlikely than FTL travel and the existence of
extraterrestrial life, at least as far as our current understanding of physics
is concerned! I realise that it's not a major plot point, but still.

Also:
>   (The alien in the movie of the same name *counts* as plausible because
> it does nothing supernatural or physically implausible.)
.... apart from growing to full human-size from cat-size within days without
apparently ingesting any organic matter? (weak point, I know, but it's always
bothered me on some level).

I take it you're also not counting post-apocalyptic action fare such as Mad Max?

Anyway, here's a few off the top of my head:

You didn't mention 2010, the sequel to 2001. It's a lesser film in many ways,
but has some cracking detail in it and moves the story on well.

Contact is excellent, but does have aliens and FTL travel (albeit permitted by
general relativity).

Event Horizon has some great SF in it, as long as you also don't mind the
Hellraiser storyline that evolves alongside it!

Deep Impact is flawed, and widely maligned, but is surprisingly intelligent
given that it was competing with Armageddon the year it was released.

Cube is good.

Cypher is interesting (by the same director as Cube).

I really like Serenity, although it's certainly not SF by Darren's definition!

Strange Days is superb, but does feature one item of technology that may be a
little far-fetched depending on your area of expertise.

I shall ruminate further.

:)

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4ada2f46@news.povray.org...

>   Btw, can anyone recommend *good* sci-fi movies? Preferrably hard science
> fiction. "Hard" in this context means physically plausible technology and
> physics, which imples, among other things:
>
> - No faster-than-light travel.
> - No time travel.
> - No far-fetched supernatural phenomena (unknown to modern science).
> - Preferably no aliens, but if there are, as plausible ones as possible.

>   (The alien in the movie of the same name *counts* as plausible because
> it does nothing supernatural or physically implausible.)

I would consider several things, such as their growth rate without apparent
nutrients, physically and biologically implausible. I think Aliens series is
much closer to "horror when mutant, 20 foot ants attack" genre than hard
sci-fi.

>   Besides Alien (and Aliens), this one is a perfect example of what I'm
> looking for: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/

I just had a quick glance, but sun going out and being kick started by
humans both seem like definition of supernatural.

Post a reply to this message