Top three SF authors

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a 4 cylinder engine possible.

Only that's what he was saying... although I don't really care about this much.


My point was that the science in science fiction is sparse at best and is always made up without any [i]scientific explanation.

His contention was that the three laws were engrained so deeply in the design history of robotic brains that to simply remove or alter certain pieces of the laws would cause unforeseen consequences without spending another 100 years starting from the simplest robotic brains and building forward.

Is a good example. It's a reasonable explanation to justify his claim that it's impossible to build a robot without the laws. Only it doesn't actually explain why. There is just as good of explanations (sometimes even better) behind why magic exists certain fantasy settings, but they also don't contain any actual reasons. This is why it is fiction, because it is based on fluff with no basis in reality.


Sci-fi and fantasy are the same genre, the only distinction between the two is setting. They are both predominately fiction - Star Trek is no more scientific than Lord of the Rings is historical.

[KrazyHorse]

a) You're claiming that his stories said things they never did, AFAIK.

b) Science fiction is fiction.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference between a linear system (gas in a box) and a nonlinear system (the Earth's weather patterns)

Weather != psychohistory. Both are chaotic systems, but even we've had success understanding the laws of history.

[Thorgal]

Forward, Clement, Lem.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
a) You're claiming that his stories said things they never did, AFAIK.

Alright, I might be wrong about him saying that it was impossible to build a robot without the laws. I remember that being said pretty explicitly, though, but I don't really care enough to go through the book looking for examples.

You can just put it down to bad fiction that none where built without it rather than bad science for it not being possible, if that's the case.

b) Science fiction is fiction.

That's what I've been saying.

This was all a little tangent about Ajbera saying that he didn't consider authors like Ray Bradbury science fiction because they contained little science.

[KrazyHorse]

Kuciwalker

Do you really want to argue about the suitability of statistical methods as a predictive tool in complex systems with somebody getting a doctorate in condensed-matter physics?

We've also had success understanding the laws of weather (rather more success, actually). There is every indication that society is a more chaotic system than is weather, as society is immeasurably more complex.

Until you can demonstrate the fundamental stability of society as a complex system when we have numerous examples to the contrary your little truisms about how statistical mechanics doesn't predict the motion of every gas molecule but can predict thermodynamic quantities is worth exactly zero.

[KrazyHorse]

Osweld:

Ray Bradbury is often closer to fantasy, but more suitably falls under the general heading of speculative fiction (which both Sci Fi and Fantasy do as well).

There is no hard line between the two genres, but to say that they are the same genre goes a bit far in my opinion.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sikander


I don't know, The Secret Wives of Poughkeepsie was pretty good, though it did have the advantage of being set in New York rather than Pennsylvania.

In that respect, I've also enjoyed John Updike's 'Couples' since I first read it in school many years ago now.

However, Agathon's sweeping dismissal of all other writers than the frankly frequently rather clunky Wells is absurd and hyperbolic, and seems based on nothing more than whimsy, rather than a close appreciation of the works of Thomas Disch, J.G. Ballard or Samuel R. Dealny, for instance, to say nothing of the majority of New Wave s.f. writers who were published in New Worlds, or writers such as Neal Stephenson.

It's the snobbish attitude of genre= entertainemt= not real literature that bugs me- after all, Dickens and Shakespeare were firstly entertainers, not art for art's sake literary scribes.

[GePap]

The general point of science fiction is not to describe "science", or to give the reader a good understanding of physics-there are basicaly two types:

One which sets a common story in a future setting- for example, a Romeo and Juliet on Mars. The point of that type of sci-fi is to give a new "twist" to a fundamental human story.

The other type of sci fi creates a future or alien scenerio in order to explore a theme- for example, 1984 and totalitarianism, or Solaris and the inability to understand the alien/different, or childhood's end, or Enders game.

In Both , science is not the central theme of the story but a vehicle for somethign else-which is why it is so easy to write bad sci fi, a writer will get so engrossed in the specifics of their made up world and all sorts of unimportant tangents and such they lose the central point of the story, which is the core of sci fi.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by General Ludd
The only books where scientific aspects aren't mere trappings are text books.

the science part of science fiction is either made up pseudo-science, or not fictional and merely a documentation of what is already done.

Greg Egan's works of art would be the obvious rebuttals to this.

[LDiCesare]

Jrabbit,

Unmentioned here but a huge fave because of his imagination and his dedication to
Making The Science Work -- Robert L. Forward.

He's not unmentioned. I mentioned it!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by molly bloom


In that respect, I've also enjoyed John Updike's 'Couples' since I first read it in school many years ago now.

However, Agathon's sweeping dismissal of all other writers than the frankly frequently rather clunky Wells is absurd and hyperbolic, and seems based on nothing more than whimsy, rather than a close appreciation of the works of Thomas Disch, J.G. Ballard or Samuel R. Dealny, for instance, to say nothing of the majority of New Wave s.f. writers who were published in New Worlds, or writers such as Neal Stephenson.

It's the snobbish attitude of genre= entertainemt= not real literature that bugs me- after all, Dickens and Shakespeare were firstly entertainers, not art for art's sake literary scribes.

I agree completely, and frankly don't understand how one could actually construct a well-defined barrier between "literature" and entertainment. Btw, I just made up the "Secret Wives of Poughkeepsie" because it sounded funny and that sort of fiction has little general appeal to me also. But your larger point still stands, in that I'm sure that there are individual works in almost any genre that I would find interesting.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You're a bad Marxist

Actually, I'm a very good Marxist. You just don't understand Marxism. That's not surprising, because most people don't, including most people who call themselves Marxists.

[Mercator]

My top 3 is easy, because I've only ever read 2 sci-fi authors...

1. H.G. Wells (The War of the Worlds, The Time Machine)
2. Arthur C. Clarke (the 2001 series: 2001, 2010, 2061, 3001)

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Jrabbit,

He's not unmentioned. I mentioned it!

I stand corrected re Bob forward, LD.

Another fave I don't recall seeing in this thread is William Gibson of the so-called cyber-punk genre.


While the genre was inevitable, his stuff is both stylistically aggressive and well imagined.