Top three SF authors

[Sikander]

Originally posted by molly bloom

I'd rather read an honest science fiction writer's work (or any other 'genre' novelist's for that matter) than yet one more f*cking tedious Anglo-French anti-novel or magic realist bowl of tripe, or 'Great American Novel' focussing on infidelity in commuter societies in Pennsylvania.

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.

[Sikander]

Oh, and I have to agree with those who are underwhelmed by Douglas Adams. He's mildly amusing, but from the hype the man generated I expected a lot more.

I prefer fantasy to SF for the most part, though I've read a bit of both. Assuming that we are talking about speculative fiction in general, then some of my favorites are:

Roger Zelazny - I've read almost everything he's written, which I can't say for any other author in the genre. I like both his ideas and his style. Nonetheless he produced an uneven body of work, with some of his stuff barely able to hold together in novel length, but often worth the effort anyway.

Urslala K. Leguine - I read Left Hand of Darkness and the Earthsea Trilogy and something else that I can't remember the name of at the moment when I was about 17-19. She also has good ideas though they are less vicerally thrilling than Zelazny, and a decent writing style, and unlike Zelazny she is much more organized which gave every novel of hers I read a palpable impact on the largest scale.

Fritz Lieber - I've only read the Fafrhd and the Grey Mouser books, though I've read them all more than once. What can I say, the man is funny and his characters and world are interesting. These books provided me with many more laughs than Douglas Adams ever hoped he could provide, and did so with a vehicle which wasn't primarily comedic.

(edit: to make me look smarter than I am)

[aneeshm]

Isaac Asimov , Arthur C. Clarke , and Douglas Adams .

[aaglo]

I also would like to mention the finnish SF-writer I've read quite a lot: Risto Isomäki.
He's very Green in his books.

[Imran Siddiqui]

WRT: Foundation debate. I suscribe to the theory that if it is in space and there are spaceships involved, it's sci-fi .

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo
You inherently cannot make repeatable tests in psychohistory. That's the nature of the system. It can never be a science.

All these arguements were the basis of Asimov's reluctant hero Seldon and morevoer one of the primary reasons for his reluctance.

He (Asimov through Seldon)likewise argued that the so called science of psychohistory was not necessarily predictive and used previous history to substantiate his theorums.

He also lays considerable groundwork for arguements that societal history is too complex to accurately model without tampering and computational techniques/methods that outstrip modern day mathematics and computers.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by ajbera


You could set Romeo & Juliet in space, but that doesn't make it a science-fiction story. If the scientific aspects are mere trappings, it ain't sf.

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.

Take asimovs books, for instance. The entire premise of his robot stories was that an artificial brain is impossible to build without it being dependant on three magical rules to function. There is no explainable reason why a brain could not be constructed without these three rules, and no reason why the rules have to be what they are - It's just stated and taken for granted for the sake of the story.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by General Ludd
The entire premise of his robot stories was that an artificial brain is impossible to build without it being dependant on three magical rules to function.

The entire premise was that the three rules were needed to keep humans safe from robots. In later stories some or all of the three rules were absent from robots, or else a fourth rule was added as well.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by loinburger

The entire premise was that the three rules were needed to keep humans safe from robots. In later stories some or all of the three rules were absent from robots, or else a fourth rule was added as well.

I was talking specifically about the stories in I, Robot.

Through out I, Robot it is mentioned numerous times that a robot can not phsycially be built without the laws, and that even slight alterations in the rule will cause it to stop functioning properly.


I've only read one book in the detective series, but like in all science fiction much is stated and taken for granted in Caves of Steel aswell, otherwise it would be (among other things) an architectural and city planning textbook on building a megatropolis.

Of course, the most obvious piece of pseudo-science that is featured in all of his books without any scientific explanation is artificial intelligence. (Otherwise it'd be a ground breaking thesis on the development of intelligent robots and artifical life)

[Ming]

Originally posted by loinburger

The entire premise was that the three rules were needed to keep humans safe from robots. In later stories some or all of the three rules were absent from robots, or else a fourth rule was added as well.

You are correct... that humans feared robots is the reason for the rule, not that it was impossible to build a robotic brain without them.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ming


You are correct... that humans feared robots is the reason for the rule,

Is that why they ended up becoming compliant slaves to them at the end of I, Robot?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by General Ludd


I was talking specifically about the stories in I, Robot.

Through out I, Robot it is mentioned numerous times that a robot can not phsycially be built without the laws, and that even slight alterations in the rule will cause it to stop functioning properly

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.

In other words, it'd be like yanking two cylinders out of a 6 cylinder car and expecting it to work. It doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a 4 cylinder engine possible.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


In other words, it'd be like yanking two cylinders out of a 6 cylinder car and expecting it to work. It doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a 4 cylinder engine possible.

That's a really good analogy.

[KrazyHorse]

Thank you.

[-Jrabbit]

Hm, tough call.

Philip K. Dick
Samuel R. Delany
Roger Zelazny

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

Other faves -- Spider Robinson (Callahan stuff), LeGuin, Niven/Pounelle, Harry Harrison (Stainless Steel Rat), M. A. Foster (The Morphodite -- an awesome book).