YAHOO users are idiots

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I have to agree with Kuci and Ben here that the silly definition of sci-fi used by Snoopy and Ben makes the Foundation series and the Dune series fantasy instead of sci-fi. You have just relegated two of the widely acknolwedged classics of science fiction out of the genre. Congratulations.

I'm not posting in this thread in a positive sense anymore, as Kuci's made it clear he doesn't care what I say (and thus my posting as to what is SF is pointless and annoying), but this is absolutely false. My definition would not exclude Dune or the Foundation; social science is every bit as important as physical science in SF, and both are prime examples of "Social" Science Fiction. Both speculate about future societies, based on certain circumstances (Foundation more than Dune, but certainly both); and both explore the "how" and "why" of the development of these societies.

Dune is certainly also a fantasy, in some senses, just as many SF books could be classified both ways; but, as opposed to Star Wars, which could not reasonably be classified as SF, it can be seen as both.

Also, I share nothing in common with Ben's definition of SF... please don't lump me in with him

[Ben Kenobi]

My definition would not exclude Dune or the Foundation; social science is every bit as important as physical science in SF, and both are prime examples of "Social" Science Fiction

Then historical fiction is science fiction too?

By your definition social sciences count, then so does history.

[snoopy369]

You're the densest person on the planet, aren't you.

Foundation and Dune both posit a future society, and explore what changes might occur in our society as a result of the future changes in technology (at the highest level).

Historical Fiction is actually not THAT different - it takes a past society, changes something, and explores what might have happened if that had changed (or, simply explores what might have happened, without changing anything). The former is quite like science fiction, but a fundamentally different genre since it is not set in the future (which is one of the fundamental elements of SF). There's a reason historical fiction heavily crosses with SF in terms of readership and writers (Turtledove , Flint, and Stirling being the most obvious examples), but it is certainly a distinct genre. Even by Kuci's definition History is not a science; the definition of 'science' is 'the study of how (something) works'. Social science = the study of how society works. History is not the study of how something works, but what happened in the past (and why). When it starts to veer into how things work at a fundamental level (ie, to predict future things), it becomes... social science.

Of those posting in this thread, who actually is an avid SF reader (more than 50% of their non-school/work reading is SF, and reads at least, say, 4 SF books a month, and at least, say, 200 SF books in their lifetime, and can name at least 20 Hugo or Nebula winners without looking them up)? I'm very curious. Leaving Star Wars aside (which I'll readily admit is considered SF by most people, though I think they're generally wrong), I'd be curious if the real SF folk generally agree with me or Kuci... Most (around 80%) of the real SF readers I know and have known agree with me at least generally, again leaving aside Star Wars (which is more like 50%, nicely split).

[Kuciwalker]

Let me guess, you don't consider Star Wars fans to be in the "real SF" group which makes the whole thing meaningless.

(I am a fan of both, of course.)

[snoopy369]

I'm a huge star wars fan - probably nearly as much as you (though i'm not one to tend towards the extreme fanatic). If that is the ONLY sf-ish thing one follows, or the main one, then that doesn't count, though... an avid SF fan will read many authors. Someone who was an avid Arthur C Clarke fan wouldn't be an avid SF fan, either...

What are the last ten SF books you read (for the sake of argument, exclude Star Wars), and who won the Hugo award last year, without googling; and who is the winningest Hugo/Nebula combined author of all time?

[Ben Kenobi]

Last ten?

If you exclude star trek books, and collections, and just go with full novels:

PD James--Children of Men
Philip K Dick--Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Heinlein--Moon is a harsh Mistress
Heinlein--To Sail beyond the Sunset
Heinlein--Glory Road
Heinlein--Stranger in a Strange Land
Walter M Miller--Canticle for Leibowitz
Red Mars--Kim Stanley Robinson
Orson Scott Card--Ender's Game
Mark Twain--A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.

That's over the last three years. I don't read much science fiction these days. Mostly Bernard Cornwell.

[Ben Kenobi]

No clue for the recent hugo award, but I believe Heinlein is the winningist Hugo/Nebula award winner in history.

[Ben Kenobi]

Connie Willis?

Wow, Science fiction has declined in the last 30 years. Where are the giants?

Willis is acclaimed as a science-fiction writer, most often exploring the "soft" or social sciences

Which makes for crap science fiction.

Why are you coming off as an authority? You've just reinforced in my mind that Kuci has a hell of a lot better idea of what science fiction is then you do.

[Jon Miller]

Connie Willis is great. A better author than Isaac Asimov, for example.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Until this thread I'd remained blissfully ignorant.

[snoopy369]

See, statements like that make you sound like an idiot, Ben.

The giants are different now, but they're still just as big... SF is much more complex and interesting now than it was 30 years ago (in my opinion) (though there was a lot of good stuff then too).

The giants of today (arguably, of course; and off the top of my head, which has not enough RAM these days):
Robert Sawyer
Charles Stross
Greg Bear (though declining)
Gregory Benford (also not publishing as much)
John Wright
Jack McDevitt
Iain Banks
Robert Charles Wilson
Ken MacLeod
Cory Doctorow
L.E. Modesitt
Charles Sheffield
Joe Haldeman

Short form:
Nancy Kress
Ted Chiang
Mike Resnick

Up and Coming:
John Scalzi

That's just 'greats' who still regularly publish great things... I could add a bunch more who don't put out as much anymore, but still write occasionally (vinge, for example).

There is an incredible amount of great SF coming out - to the point that I can't remotely keep up with it, and I buy a TON of SF (probably about $200-300/month at full retail, though of course I get it cheaper). The 'giants' from 30 years ago are ... dead, retired, or writing slowly, because they're in their sixties.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Connie Willis?

Wow, Science fiction has declined in the last 30 years. Where are the giants?



Which makes for crap science fiction.

Why are you coming off as an authority? You've just reinforced in my mind that Kuci has a hell of a lot better idea of what science fiction is then you do.

Where did I defend Connie Willis, for one (though she's not a bad writer). Second, 'soft' SF (anything that is basic SF that is not hard SF, basically) can be quite great stuff - Asimov, for example. I generally think 'soft' SF is better than 'hard' SF, because it lends itself to being written well more so than hard SF; but there are great examples of both.

Finally, Connie Willis did not win last year's Hugo award for best novel (though she did win a hugo award). I should've been more specific

Heinlein is not the most hugo- or hugo/nebula- award winning writer any longer, and has not been for some time. There are multiple correct answers to this question, by the way, depending on how you interpret it.

[Jon Miller]

Gene Wolfe?
Ursula L. Le Guin? (OK, she is a bit older)
C.H. Cherryh?
Neil Gaiman?
Connie Willis? (Already mentioned)
Bujold? (most Hugos ever?)

A lot of the people you listed wouldn't be among my top choices (Iain Banks would be though), despite me having read most of them (I haven't read Stross yet though).

JM

[Jon Miller]

The Yiddish Policemen's Union - won both hugo and nebula this year, and I hadn't heard about it... should go on my list

JM

[snoopy369]

Read Stross He is the most versatile writer I've read in years.

Neil Gaiman does not write SF by any definition of the term (though great stuff).

Bujold is one of the correct answers, depending on how you look at the award

Not all of the folks I listed would be in my top choices, either... I don't read all SF; and some of my favorite authors are a long way from being 'greats'. I'd say those are at least a good sampling of the 'greats' of today, if you use a fairly broad definition that allows for more than 3 or 4 'greats'.

If I had to pick 3 'greats' (ie, the Heinlein/Asimov/Clarke of today), and limited it to relatively newer authors (excluding folks like Vinge, Haldeman, etc. who are at the end of their careers, and excluding those who did the bulk of their great writing in 90s or earlier) it's probably Sawyer, Stross, and ... the third would always be heavily up for debate; i'll throw Iain Banks in the ring, though his better writing was ten years ago; you could argue McDevitt, Kress (for her short writing), Willis, or Doctorow easily. None of them are truly 'greats' by the definition of 'stood the test of time', because we haven't had enough time with them yet to decide that I am to some extent projecting forward, those authors who I think in 20 years we'll consider the greats of this era.