# Your thoughts on new science fiction?



## zorcarepublic (Dec 17, 2004)

Well? What do you make of all the 'new' science fiction we are seeing on our screens/in books/on the silver screen nowadays? Do you think it is better, worse or just different?


----------



## Leto (Dec 17, 2004)

Define "new" science-fiction ? what difference do you make exactly ?


----------



## zorcarepublic (Dec 17, 2004)

Any science fiction from the 90's onwards. Old SF would be classed as belonging to the 'Golden Age' of SF, including the period between 1970 and 1989, to give you an idea...


I remembered as I was posting that I didn't give a clue as to what I meant, sorry!


----------



## Space Monkey (Dec 17, 2004)

I love some of the classics, but to be honest its often just for nostalgia's sake.
Invaders from Mars (Little Cathy wilson's place!) is great, but it can't compare with the Matrix trilogy and the Chronicles of Riddick etc.

Writing evolves like everything; remember the days when Beastmaster and Starman used to be cool?  Have you watched them lately?


----------



## Leto (Dec 17, 2004)

Which leads to another question.
Zorca are you talking about books, movies, comics or all type of media ? 

Bookwise I can't tell you, most US writers of the 90s have yet to be translate here. And for the one I pick in english, either they started their work long before the 90s (as Silverberg for example) or I buy them in second hand bookstores and never look for the date of the writing. But for the French authors, there's a welcomed revival.

On movies, it's on par. I was disappointed (to say the least) by Matrix 2. But I've loved Final fantasy the movie and Event Horizon. Basically, there's the same ratio of great movies and complete waste of film now than before. 

Starman, yes I love it. 

Comicswise, on the whole it's better. 
What impressed me more is the evolution of science fiction in video games.


----------



## zorcarepublic (Dec 17, 2004)

All types of media, because in this day and age, something always seems to influence each other. TV series will have books written for them, some books will have films made (Dune, for example), and so forth.


----------



## Circus Cranium (Dec 17, 2004)

I have to say I like the books better now; I have a book of classic scifi stories from way back, and it's a ton of fun, but the writing just seems clunky in places. As for films, hey, I'm always thrilled to see ANY scifi come to the big screen. There isn't enough of it. Even though some of it stinks. 


And I agree about Matrix 2.


----------



## The Master™ (Dec 17, 2004)

i've read both new and old... and there are good and bad examples... but i don't think that the time when it was written has any bearing on the quality, just the ideas posed by the world we live in...


----------



## David Stewart (Dec 17, 2004)

zorcarepublic said:
			
		

> Old SF would be classed as belonging to the 'Golden Age' of SF, including the period between 1970 and 1989, to give you an idea...



The Golden Age of Science Fiction is generally considered to date from Summer 1939, specifically the publication of the June issue of Astounding, to the end of 1950 and the publication of rival SF mags such as Galaxy and Fantasy & Science Fiction. 

Of course there are others who say that the Golden Age of Science Fiction is 12.

David Stewart


----------



## Leto (Dec 17, 2004)

David Stewart said:
			
		

> The Golden Age of Science Fiction is generally considered to date from Summer 1939, specifically the publication of the June issue of Astounding, to the end of 1950 and the publication of rival SF mags such as Galaxy and Fantasy & Science Fiction.
> 
> Of course there are others who say that the Golden Age of Science Fiction is 12.
> 
> David Stewart



Personnally, I would say fron 10 till death.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 18, 2004)

Lol! Welcome to the chronicles network, David Stewart.


----------



## zorcarepublic (Dec 18, 2004)

Yep, welcome David Stewart


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 19, 2004)

Everything evolves - including our ideas of how the future will look.

I'm a fan of Golden Age SF but that doesn't make it better or worse - just different from the newer stuff. Certainly, I believe that characters nowadays have a greater depth than when the early pioneers of the genre started filling the pulp mags - but that could be an effect of the medium rather than skill (pulp mag against fully fledged novel).

We should just be grateful that there is so much choice out there. Me? I intend to enjoy all the SF (old and new) I can get my grubby little hands on


----------



## Michael (Dec 19, 2004)

I'm throwing in my hat with Foxbat on this one.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Dec 20, 2004)

Ken MacLeod and Adam Roberts, 2 of my favourite sf writers are both brand squeking new. On the other hand, I love sf from the various ages as well. So I'm with Foxbat and Michael too.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Dec 21, 2004)

Both have their strengths. I find more modern sci-fi authors that I like to read, but thats mostly because only the classics from the past are availiable any more, whereas there is a vast range of modern sci-fi availiable.

I don't know that I'd class the likes of E.E. Doc Smith in the same ranks as Al Reynolds, or Pater F. Hamilton, but the Lensman series is just as enjoyable as say, the Night's Dawn Trilogy. Different though. Very different though. I guess the main difference between modern and older sci-fi is that we now know more about a lot of the issues involved, and are more willing to interperet them in what might be a realistic fashion.


----------



## erickad71 (Dec 21, 2004)

It seems to me you can read a good or bad book no matter what year it was written.


----------



## Quest (Dec 30, 2004)

I lean towards the older science fiction.  I do watch a lot of modern SF, but it's the older shows which hold my heart.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Jan 3, 2005)

erickad71 said:
			
		

> It seems to me you can read a good or bad book no matter what year it was written.


I agree completely erica. so long as its well written and gripping, i don't really care who wrote it or when


----------



## guthrie (Jan 4, 2005)

There is obviously good and bad SF in all ages of writing of it.  However, what I think tends to happen is that the worst of the older SF gets forgotten about, thus painting an unduly rosy picture of the past because the best of the past ends up being compared to the average of the present.  
On the other hand, my thoughts on current SF are that it is unduly magic based.  I.E. too much use of nanotech without an decent explanation.  Then theres the thinking machines, FTL travel, wormholes, etc etc, that appear in so much space opera.  In fact I'm having trouble finding much SF these days that isnt akin to space opera.  No doubt that will change, but in the mean time I'll keep reading older stuff.


----------



## Seedorn (Jan 4, 2005)

Where there ever an golden age of SF?If it was, when was the golden Age of Fantasy? 
 I don´t think that such a thing exists.But that´s just my humble opinion.
 I do like both, the "new"(e.g. Gibson,Banks) and the "old"(e.g.Stanislav Lem, Asimov) SF.Does it matter? I hope it doesn´t.If it matters...I have a big problem


----------



## BlueSkelton (Jan 7, 2005)

I prefer the old stuff truthfully, Of course I read trash sci fi from second hand bookstores. Most of the stuff I read is long forgotten but i have found alot of good and decadent sci fi that way. Of course I have found alot of trash as well. I haven't found anyone new that could match Heinlein or Phillip K. Dick thou. Of course I dont judge new sci fi by their movies because I tend to blame the filmmakers. Pitch Black or the Chronicles of Riddick might be good books but they stank as films. Hollywood just doesn't know how to make a good sci fi film. They butchered Starship Troopers and that is something I find hard to forgive because its such a good book. But Hollywook can mess up anything they put out maybe 2 or 3 good movies a year.


----------



## guthrie (Jan 7, 2005)

The golden age of SF was apparently in the 1930's in the USA, when there were plenty of magazines and most of the now dead original SF writers learnt their trade.  Much of what was written was pulp, but then I would say the same thing today.  Plus gibson has been around for 20 years and so has Banks, the first "culture" short story is over 20 years old.  New (As in first widely pubshed as far as I know in 2000 and since then as far as I know) SF writers in the UK just now include:
John Meaney
Robert Reed
John Morgan
Adam Roberts
Alastair Reynolds

I personally only really like Meaney and Roberts, if youve read any of the above I'm sure we can have a good discussion.

As for Ken Mcleod, hes not brand spqueaking new any more, I have 3 of his books 2nd hand in paperback, hes been getting published for over 6 years now, which to my mind makes him old hat.  Certainly I havnt bothered reading his new books, it just looks boring.  

Blueskelton, I think there have been people who have matched Heinlein and Dick in some ways, but then they were also fairly individual authors, so being better than them is hard.  You would have to specify what was so good about them in order to compare and contrast with modern authors.


----------



## zorcarepublic (Jan 8, 2005)

Damn, I pressed the wrong button, so now Im going to have to reply from memory...

I haven't read any of the books by the authors you've named, guthrie, so I might have some light reading to do.

Generally, I like Military SF and/or humorous SF/F. I have four authors whose books I enjoy, but of those, I have only been able to read one book of one author.


----------



## guthrie (Jan 8, 2005)

Then I am not sure how many of those I have listed would be of interest, off teh top of my head, only ALastiaru Reynolds writes stuff with a fair bit of military in i but since I havnt read all the books by these authors I may well be wrong.  PLus Robert Reed is American, not british, I just thought wrongly from the cover quotes.  Another British author whose breaking into the big time is Charles Stross, he writes well, generally intereting far future stuff involving nanotech and AI's.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Feb 8, 2005)

I agree with ericka that a good book is a good book no matter who wrote it.

My feelings on this are split. I agree that the newer science fiction is written with a better understanding of telling a story and developing characters and I really, really enjoy a good number of current sci-fi authors (Walter Jon Williams, Anne McCaffrey, Harry Turtledove & Douglas Adams to name a few!) but one thing I lament about newer sci-fi is that a lot of the time they rehash old ideas or come at them from a new viewpoint. Some of those stories are cracking reads and can be very creative but very rarely am I surprised at the outcome.

Some of the older sci-fi works by people like Asimov, Herbert, Philip K Dick & HG Wells always strike me as very original (they're probably ripped off from earlier authors as well but I don't know that! )

I always liked the originality these authors brought into their work, even if their way of communicating it was not always as polished as it could be. 

I find the same thing happening in modern TV & Film programmes, let's face it, Gladiator is just a re-make of any number of cheesy sand & sandals B movies during the 60's

For the same reason I love the older Twilight Zone & Outer Limits episodes as opposed to the new ones

So, in short (too late) I like the style & scope of modern sci-fi but liked the originality & twists present in early sci-fi!


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 2, 2021)

I can appraise the new  stuff but,  tend to gravitate to the older writers.


----------



## AltThinking (Dec 7, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> I can appraise the new  stuff but,  tend to gravitate to the older writers.



agreed, the older authors are best.  Refuse to even try watching any remakes now as they were always a great disappointment.
Star Trek has exceeded its time - should have killed it off after the Voyager series.  Discovery is pathetic & the cartoon Star Trek is just a joke.

The Orville is good - lots of laughs just like the original Star Trek series - hope they revive it.

For books I hunt high & low for original ideas.  Found a  series by L.E. Modesitt Jr.  detailing the adventures of a forensic accountant in the future.  Yes, he is a part-time government spy with invisibility cloak (but ignoring that) the action reads well & is believable.


----------



## Guttersnipe (Dec 8, 2021)

Really the only recent sci-fi novels I've read are Clockwork Angels by Kevin J. Anderson and The Preserve by Ariel S. Winter. Both were good, but old SF, for me, just has more charm.


----------



## asp3 (Dec 8, 2021)

I was leaning towards the "both" answer but went with the newer is better.  The reason I say this is not so much the quality of the science fiction as it is the newer voices and perspectives that have come out as the genre authors are getting more diverse.

I'm personally finding that some of the new work is exciting because portions of the story are framed in ways I have not experienced before.  I'm also finding that my mindset and world view is being expanded further than it was by older science fiction.


----------



## Rodders (Dec 8, 2021)

I voted that both are equally as good, although the go to authors I tend to read are neither new or old (classic).


----------



## Vince W (Dec 10, 2021)

I'd give old science fiction the edge simply because it was better edited. Page count seems to be king in new science fiction.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 11, 2021)

Vince W said:


> I'd give old science fiction the edge simply because it was better edited. Page count seems to be king in new science fiction.



The modern publishing industry suffers from an acute case of* BGBS * (Big Gigantic Book Syndrome) . Its also goes by the by the name  *TTS *(Titanic Tome Syndrome) .


----------



## Rodders (Dec 11, 2021)

I also think that classic authors tended to wrap up their stories in one volume, where as modern publishers do like to capture readers in a series.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Dec 11, 2021)

We are getting more and more quantity with a decline in average quality. There is still good stuff but computers make writing so much easier and anybody thinks they can write Star Wars and that tends to be true.


----------



## Ray Zdybrow (Jun 21, 2022)

Vince W said:


> I'd give old science fiction the edge simply because it was better edited. Page count seems to be king in new science fiction.


Not sure if I agree, but I do miss fast-paced books you can read in an afternoon or two!


----------



## Ray Zdybrow (Jun 21, 2022)

Vince W said:


> I'd give old science fiction the edge simply because it was better edited. Page count seems to be king in new science fiction.


Not sure if I agree, but I do miss fast-paced books you can read in an afternoon or two


----------



## Swank (Jun 22, 2022)

I like old SF, like Iain M. Banks 1987 Culture novel _Consider Phlebas_, but I also like new SF, like Iain M. Banks 1996 Culture novel _Excession_.


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Jun 22, 2022)

I prefer more of the older science fiction stories, before the 90s, because of the writing style. I agree that the poorer stories get harder to find as time goes on while the better stories are automatically kept in sight.

Tried looking for the golden age of fantasy, looks like it's happening now. In 2019 George RR Martin said the golden age of fantasy started around 20 years ago.


----------



## therapist (Jun 22, 2022)

Robert Zwilling said:


> I prefer more of the older science fiction stories, before the 90s, because of the writing style.


I'm not familiar with older SF how is the writing style different and what do you like about it?

I usually read fantasy because I feel like it attracts better writers and has better characters. But have been branching out to sci fi to challenge my assumptions. If anyone could recommend some must read older sci fi that would be great. Here's some some popular modern titles I read recently.
The Expanse—I loved the TV show but hated the book (stopped part way into book 2). Found it poorly written with shallow characters. 
Murderbot—Hated this too, can't specifically remember why, it just did nothing for me. (read 1.5 novellas) 
Andy Weir (Project Hail Mary)—Loved this. The writting wasn't great, but I didn't care because the story was excellent. I enjoyed the science and the book had a lot of heart.


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Jun 22, 2022)

therapist said:


> I'm not familiar with older SF how is the writing style different and what do you like about it?




That's very easy to answer. Typically the events and ideas of the story are more important than character development. Some people go so far as to say that it's called cardboard characters. Character aspects can be part of the writing but they are less important than the story itself.


----------



## Orcadian (Jul 7, 2022)

I would agree with an arbitrary watershed at pre-1990 and post-1990, though I'm sure it's not actually a sharp boundary.

With 'old' SF what jars is sexism; the portrayal of women as sex-bombs and airheads, and of men as driven by power struggles and genitals. I don't mind quaint technology so much but I do mind that most encounters with aliens almost invariably have the aliens as dangerous, out to kill, subjugate or eat us, or steal or transform our planet. Of course there are many terrific stories and series from this era too. The best possible combo, from my PoV, is an older novel with strong, independent female characters, and this is one of the reasons I like the work of  CJ Cherryh and Octavia Butler so much.

With 'new' SF most of these negatives have disappeared. Stories have become more complex and nuanced, often with philosophical and ethical overtones. It is terrific to see women depicted as captains, scientists, heads of teams - all functioning competently & autonomously without men to do the heavy stuff and rescue the gals when inevitably they fall apart.  Some of the most modern work (and I confess I haven't read a lot of it) does have a kind of 'yoofspeak' that I find distracting.


----------



## paeng (Jul 8, 2022)

I think it's similar to other genres, i.e., the same sets of stories are used throughout.


----------



## MaxRelaxman (Jul 11, 2022)

I like the aesthetic of older scifi. Like ignoring the science errors, Space 1999's Eagles are one of my favorite fictional spaceships. Newer Scifi goes for the realism which is cool, but I wish there was room for some of that weird 70's vibe in there too.


----------

