# What do you dislike most about sf/f?



## Brian G Turner (Aug 6, 2003)

A general question - 

"What do you dislike most about sf/f?"

Personally, I'm not keen on the general stigma that's attached to the entire genre. Sometimes I feel embarrassed to tell other that I'm writing sci-fi, as I often imagine that sci-fi and fantasy are regarded as mindless teen pulp.

I also sometimes get irritated by the possibility of Tolkien regarded as the sole founder of the genre - not simply by readers, but by writers as well, who look to Tolkien for inspiration. 

But while I skate on the verge of a mindless rant, anyone else irritated by any aspects of the genre/s?


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 6, 2003)

Quite simply: blatantly formulaic writing - which is a problem with much of the fantasy published. Let's face it, how many times does a person want to read about the stereotypical characters which band together and go off on some sort of quest? 

On a lighter note - I spend most lunch times at work gnawing on a sandwich of questionable origin and my nose buried in a book. Quite often, if it happens to be SciFi or fantasy, one smartalec always has a peep at what I'm reading, sneers and says 'I bet that's got a map in it, you anorak'.
In recent months, however, (since the cinematic release of LOTR) I have walked into our messroom to find many of my workmates reading books with 'maps'. In a situation like this, only one word springs to mind: Touche!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 6, 2003)

LOL! Now that must make for sweet revenge! (in the nicest possible way  ). 

As for formulaic writing - alas, it seems to be a bit of  plague in general at the moment - I suspect mostly driven by the markets.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Aug 8, 2003)

I very much dislike the fact that science fiction and fantasy are so often treated as somehow a lesser form of literature than other genres.

I dislike how sometimes books or films are sold as something other than fantasy or science fiction when that is really what they are.  For example, _Field of Dreams_ was sold as a baseball film, when it is really a straight-out fantasy.

I dislike the notion that science fiction and fantasy are only for kids, and the reverse notion that adults who read science fiction and fantasy are somehow not quite as mature as they should be.


----------



## dwndrgn (Aug 8, 2003)

I agree with all of the above.

I'd like to add my two cents though on the fantasy genre being so formulaic.  The fact is that most readers of fantasy are looking for an enjoyable read.  Adventuring along with a hero has been found to be enjoyable by a large audience.  The bad guy eats it and the good guy wins.  This formula works for all kinds of literature, not only fantasy.  Who doesn't want to see a hero kick butt?  Westerns?  Same thing.  Sci fi?  Same thing.  Mystery/thriller?  You guessed it, crime solved - bad guy dead/imprisoned/vanquished, whatever.  I would say that at least 80% of all fiction uses this formula.  Even those tearjerkers Oprah loves to promote have a similar formula - little guy triumphs over lifes little evils...see it?  So, the next time someone belittles 'formulaic' fiction ask them what they are reading and challenge them to NOT find some sort of triumph in it.

Ok, so I gave you a little over two cents...sorry!

Also, I've decided to never allow myself to feel ashamed to read fantasy or whatever in public.  If I do then I somewhere, deep down, actually believe it is inferior.  There will be none of that!  I read what I want to read because I want to read it.  Not because someone will think better of me for it.  Oh goodness, now I've gotten preachy.  Someone stop me!


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 8, 2003)

I agree that, to a certain extent, everything is written to  some sort of formula (which is why I inserted the word 'blatantly' into my sentence).

A writer can go through the motions, write to the formula and chuck it out to the public...or...he/she can give it a bit of thought, add their own passion, slant it with their own ideas and opinions. 
I know which one I'd rather read.


----------



## dwndrgn (Aug 8, 2003)

Exactly  ;D


----------



## littlemissattitude (Aug 9, 2003)

> Also, I've decided to never allow myself to feel ashamed to read fantasy or whatever in public.



Amen to that.  I read all kinds of things in public, including science fiction and fantasy.  I don't do it to get a reaction from people, but because I am a compulsive reader.  But I _do_ get reactions, and I've met some very interesting people and gotten into some fabulous conversations while minding my own business and reading in, say, a restaurant.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 9, 2003)

I certainly agree with the protests against forumulated writing. I guess that's why I specifically avoided the Romance genre. Personally, I love being surprised by what I read - I crave the unexpected, the unpredicatable. Same in film, really. I really hate watching/reading something where the plot is so transparent that the author's thinking and how the story will develop - in detail - are plainly obvious. the formulations of film are easy to pinpoint - macho white male, female totty, best friend who is killed and avenged at the end by a fist fight where the hero can demonstrate his alpha masculinity.

As for people reading in public - if I see someone doing so, I inevitably have to try and see what the title and author is. If familiar, I inevitiably have to open a conversation about it.  

Sometimes I guess we isolate ourselves through social graces, so finding points of commonality with people is a perfect way to make simple but enjoyable social contacts.


----------



## dwndrgn (Aug 9, 2003)

Oh yes!  I've met some nice people through conversations started over a book.  I've also been given very strange looks after laughing out loud on a bus or a train.  Of course trying to explain what was so funny is like trying to explain Blackadder to my teenaged niece!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 10, 2003)

Laughing out loud in public is the worst one. 

Hey - and I'm impressed you got Blackadder over there in the USA! Did you get beamed all 4 series?


----------



## dwndrgn (Aug 10, 2003)

I don't know if they are still running it but they have showed it on several PBS stations as well as the BBCA.  I do know that you can buy in on VHS through several catalogs including PBS Video (I used to work for PBS - I miss it!)


----------



## Ivo (Jul 7, 2004)

I can't stand the fact that so many SF and F books are made into lousy movies whether they be for TV or the big screen.  For every great movie made twenty are lame, and I'm being kind...


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jul 7, 2004)

Ivo said:
			
		

> I can't stand the fact that so many SF and F books are made into lousy movies whether they be for TV or the big screen. For every great movie made twenty are lame, and I'm being kind...


Yeah, but isn't that true of other genres, as well?  And who was it said that 97 per cent of everything is crap? 

I agree that it's frustrating that so many science fiction and fantasy movies are so disappointing, being as it is a favorite genre.  Then again, I was taught young to appreciate the, oh, amusing aspects of these bad films.  Sort of like Mystery Science Theatre long before it was ever on TV - my dad and I would sit and laugh at the bad movies on tv and make comments.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jul 7, 2004)

littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> ...97 per cent of everything is crap


Also known as 'Sturgeon's Law'.


----------



## Esioul (Jul 7, 2004)

It's true... so many things are crap, including about 99.9% of television. 

Heh, I sometimes feel tempted to comment on things strangers on the train are reading or saying, but I never quite dare. Once there was a bloke playing loud opera on his CD player, so I played some on mine for a bit, which was a laugh, but I got off at Cambridge and I didn't see him on the train again. 

Things that annoy me about SF/F.... I suppose I dislike 'fat fantasy' and other cliched stuff. The reason I read the genre is to be surprised and fascinated, not to be bored.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Jul 7, 2004)

"We got ourselves a reader!" 

People do tend to judge you when they see what you are reading, but generally as a rule - the last books they read were for their GCSE's.  When people feel the need to speak ill of my taste in books, I just draw back my cloak and draw my double headed axe, they generally understand the gravity of their situation....

I think that this snobbery pushes a lot of talented writers away from the genres, so we just get left with the D&D playing loners rehashing bad ideas in more contemporary tones.  I can not speak for SF as I have not read enough from that genre, but the fantasy genre has just been given a huge lift by the works of George RR Martin.  Also, I think that fantasy will be blessed with many brilliant new writers to come thanks to the Harry Potter series.


----------



## Ivo (Jul 8, 2004)

littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> Yeah, but isn't that true of other genres, as well? And who was it said that 97 per cent of everything is crap?
> 
> I suppose so to a certain extent.  However, there is something deeper going on I think.  With Dramas, comedies, etc. there is no built in aspect to it that dictates special effects be used, etc.  If a Drama or Comedy turns out bad its usually due to the performances of the actors or the execution of the script.
> 
> ...


I do too, believe me, I'm a big fan of bad B movies but some are just lame regardless...


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jul 8, 2004)

knivesout said:
			
		

> Also known as 'Sturgeon's Law'.


Thank you, knivesout.  I knew someone would know.  And I knew that it was someone from the sf/f world - I first read it in a book about writing sf.  My brain just would not access the data. 



> Heh, I sometimes feel tempted to comment on things strangers on the train are reading or saying, but I never quite dare.


Unfortunately, or fourtunately, Esioul, I do occasionally comment on those sorts of things I overhear in places like restaurants.  I try really hard not to, but sometimes, when I _know_ they are full of it (we've got a few characters here in town who can be relied on to spout misinformation on a regular basis), and I can remember where the information can be accessed easily, I say something like: "Oh, that's interesting, but that's not the way I understand it."  Then I correct them and give references, and invite them to go look it up for themselves.  I know.  Quite rude.  But sometimes I _just can't help myself_.


----------



## Black_Wolf (Jul 13, 2004)

I feel like fantasy has gotten to a point to where it has a standard. Meaning, if you're going to write fantasy, you've gotta have elves, dwarves, sacred swords, dragons and mighty bands of a Human Warrior (male), Human Healer (female), Elf Archer (male), Axe-Wielding Dwarf (male). How many times have we seen this? Too many.

When it comes down to it, fantasy is prepackaged now. If you don't have elves/humans/dwarves/orcs, it's not going to be very well percieved. Not usually anyway. Now I'm not saying I don't want to see those races in fantasy, b/c I've tried to think up my own and it's really really really hard. Especially if you can't draw them yourself. It's just that I want to see new stuff down with the races and elements of fantasys.

No more mighty magic relic able to destroy worlds that is being searched for by and ancient evil dark wizard. No vast army of beasts threatening to destroy the entire elf/human/dwarf race. (I'm pointin' at YOU Salvatore!). I think I just want some originallity...


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Jul 13, 2004)

Black Wolf, you haven't read George RR Martin then.  His fantasy is the way to go.


----------



## erickad71 (Jul 13, 2004)

I'll second that!


----------



## Black_Wolf (Jul 15, 2004)

Lacedaemonian said:
			
		

> Black Wolf, you haven't read George RR Martin then. His fantasy is the way to go.


No, sure haven't. But I'm intruiged. What are some of his works?


----------



## BlueSkelton (Jul 15, 2004)

Science Fiction is mindless teen pulp. Just kidding I mean come on 
its a genre where anything is possible. The thing I hate are these
sci fi writers who write these totally hokey novels when they could 
be writing about Bloodshed, Inter Galactic, War, Debaucher, Elves 
in space, You know the finger things in life.  George Lucas had the 
idea for awhile but then he got old and couldn't hack it anymore 
thou i am excited for the third and final Star Wars


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jul 16, 2004)

It isn't enough to simply look to authors like Martin or Erikson who are breathing life into mainline epic fantasy - you need to look beyond that, to the fringes of the genre, where authors like Jeff VanderMeer, Jeffrey Ford, China Mieville and others are pushing the boundaries, charting out entirely new fantastic relams. You need to get over Tolkien for a while, look at other fantasy pioneers like ER Edisson or Mervyn Peake, or to go further and consider the place of Franz Kafka, Italo Calvino, Borges and so on as important fantasists. What I dislike most about fantasy is that hardly anyone, reader or writer, bothers to do this.  
SF took remarkable strides forward in the 70s, New Wave, Dangerous Visions and all that. I don't see enough of that spirit anymore in the SF genre - but I'm hopeful. And I do believe that fantasy is poised to go through the sort of transformation SF experienced in the days of the New Wave.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jul 16, 2004)

Hmmm...I didn't mean for my previous post to sound so dismissive - I just wanted to emphasise that the frame of reference for fantasy could be a lot broader than is often imagined.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Jul 17, 2004)

Fantasy is the oldest genre, and so naturally it has transformed and spread in many different directions.

I have to say that Kafka is utter crap.  Just my opinion. 

I think that the fallout from Harry Potter and The Dark Materials could be interesting to the genre.  Millions of young minds inspired.  Also publishers must be more inclined to publish fantasy due to the millions that JK Rowling has amassed.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jul 17, 2004)

Leaving aside your brilliantly unsubstantiated dismissal of Kafka, I can see I'm barking up the wrong tree with these notions. Swordplay and princelings, that's the ticket.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Jul 30, 2004)

I agree with knivesout, there are now a lot of authors who are re-invigoration fantasy, Martin, Erikson, Bakker, Mieville etc are all brilliant authors who deserve nothing but praise (except Martin's cheesy sex scenes - OH THE HORROR!!!) The quest/teenage hero/old wise person is generaly percieved as the epitome of fantasy by many people who don't actually read any (anyone who watched the BBC Big Read last year and saw Germaine Greer spouting of crap about Orcs and Trolls will see how this stereotype has just gone too far) and yes, the fringe authors are stretching the boundaries, and getting better and better at it all the time. The fring parts of the genre are far more interesting to read anyway, as bad authors (Eddings, Goodkind, name some more...) aren't good enough to write well in those areas, you _have_ to be good to write it, and if you aren't, you don't succeed, or write any more of that type of fantasy, whereas hack'n'slash questy type stuff is piss easy to write, you could reel off three and a half series in an afternoon if you've got enough coffee and about three secretaries...


As far as sci-fi goes, what BlueSkelton said is true in some respects, but again, authors like Alastair Reynolds are now ignoring that you can do anything at all, and sticking to currently known scientific principles, resulting in generally far superior books.


Sci-fi and Fantasy are on the up, if they could just throw off the stereotypes that have got stuck to them on the way by the generally worse authors then everything would be great 


hi by the way


----------



## Hypes (Jul 31, 2004)

Eddings is a bad author? I'm sorry, but that's a load of tripe. He writes classic fantasy, and he does it very well - creating a world which is along the lines of Jordan's, and characters whom are easy to like.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Jul 31, 2004)

OK, maybe he's not the worst author around, but he lacks in imagination, IMHO, and like I said, the area that he does write in is easy to write without really exerting himself, and the Belgariad and the Mallorean particularly are chock full of the very cliches which I was talking about...


----------



## Hypes (Jul 31, 2004)

Chock full of clichès is the trademark of classic fantasy, though.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Jul 31, 2004)

Sorry about the blast at Kafka but I had to read Metamorphosis at college and found it quite bland, and his ideas well short of interesting.  Maybe it was marred by my lecturer who rated the work far too highly and down marked my essays because they were so scathing.  

I remember loving the Eddings series, but the comments made in the Rivan Codex melded with his talking cat have somewhat damaged my opinion of the man.  Maybe it is time that I forgave him.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Jul 31, 2004)

but thats what i'm saying, those exact trademarks are harming the reputaion of the genre as a whole.


----------



## dwndrgn (Jul 31, 2004)

caladanbrood said:
			
		

> but thats what i'm saying, those exact trademarks are harming the reputaion of the genre as a whole.


I'll have to disagree with you here, in my opinion, it is the _misuse _of those cliches that are harming the genre as a whole.  The problem is that there are authors that trot out tons of cliches, throw them together in any order, add some new names in the same scenarios and expect to be honored for it.  I'm not saying that there aren't really great fantasies that include a few cliches but when they are sparingly used in consort with new ideas they are acceptable.  What really ticks me off is when people read the back of a book, see that there is some sort of quest and that there are dragons or elves or <your favorite cliche here> and say that the book is crap without reading it.  I can't stand when people spout their lofty opinions on things they really don't know anything about.  BTW, I'm mainly ranting about so-called 'reviewers' who feel that unless the book is War And Peace, then it has no validity - not anyone here on this forum.

On the other hand, what do we care what the pundits think about our favorite genres?  I don't give a hoot.  I'll read what I like with no apologies.  Let them denigrate what they don't get and we'll just sit back and enjoy our books.

Sorry, generalizations on my favorite themes kind of get me a little hot under the collar.

Back to the subject at hand - the main thing _I_ dislike about sf/f is that there isn't enough of it!


----------



## Rane Longfox (Jul 31, 2004)

Very well, what I should say is that I have yet to read a book that doesn't _in my opinion_ misuse the cliches...


----------



## AmonRa (Aug 11, 2004)

what i dislike the most about the genre, is the attitude towards ppl in the genre from those that arent into it, there seems to be this stereotype that if you read or play scifi/fantasy then u r this pasty white dweeb with large glasses who plays D+D in his mum's basement all the time... no offense to those ppl who enjoy playing D+D, have pasty white skin and large glasses  .

for example the other day, a canadian friend was over here on holiday, she saw me playing on WarCraft3, and imedietly said 'oh god, not that awful dungeons and dragons stuff'


----------



## seerdon (Aug 31, 2004)

I'm afraid I'll have to echo the sentiments of most of you others about a lot of fantasy being cliched and formulaic. I haven't read any of the other "pioneering" authors that someone talked about, other than Tolkien - perhaps someone could recommend something to me - but Tolkien has been copied way too much. Even in frickin' computer games, when was the last time you played an RPG that didn't contain Orcs. D&D is largely responsible for the geeky image of fantasy, in my opinion - when my dad "caught" me looking at the Wizards of the Coast website, he had a good laugh remembering the nerds who spent all their time playing it at college.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Aug 31, 2004)

Couple of things realy anoy about the gendre - one of them is fans who are so full of self pity. Yes, I have occasionaly met some freek who cannot keep their opinion to themselves and has a 'go' about SFF, however, for the most part the people that I know are interested in the same things. Probably not to read, HEH HEH, that seems to be a fading art, but certainly to watch on movies and television. I mean, the sheer number of SFF programs and movies comming from hollywood and other television mecca should be enought to convince anyone that the gendre is fast becoming mainstream. Especially when talent such as Patric Stewart, Ian McClellan and Lawrence Fishburn giving credibility to the production. The old immage of some nerd in a basement surrounded by Trek gear is now so antiquated, as more and more 'normal' (humph) people stand proudly and say that they love SFF.
Another thing that I really really hate, as do others, is to see my favorites (of any gendre) turned into film. I've yet to see one that does justice to the book. Even comic book movies, which have a visual reference frame (don't get me wrong, Hugh Jackman in leather. yummy) become contaminated by the 'vision' of some dumb *** director who has probably not even read the original.
But my biggest wiff, is that when a production is off the ground, and the roles cast, the actors come out with, well I've never read this work (and can therefore have no appreciation for the role) but it was great fun to work with this wonderful cast and director and crew...
Why not cast a fan! Someone who knows the character and appreciates the nuances of the piece?


----------



## Lucifer (Oct 28, 2004)

Well, eveyone else wrote about big things, and my gripe is so small by comparison . . . but I wonder about the little things.  When do the horses get to stop running and eat?  If they rode all day, didn't they have to go to the bathroom really badly?  If they're in the middle of the desert with no supplies, why aren't they dropping like flies?  Why don't they get sunburned?  Is there a spell for sunscreen?  I know these things are piddling, but they make me absolutely insane.  Maybe it's hard to think of the manly hero needing to pee, but I worry about his bladder control.  Or in a battle that goes on for days . . . I mean, are they just soiling their chainmail?  What's going on here?  

Maybe I'm too practical to read fantasy . . .


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 28, 2004)

No, it's a good point - some of us here are real sticklers for realism.


----------



## dwndrgn (Oct 28, 2004)

Lucifer said:
			
		

> Well, eveyone else wrote about big things, and my gripe is so small by comparison . . . but I wonder about the little things. When do the horses get to stop running and eat? If they rode all day, didn't they have to go to the bathroom really badly? If they're in the middle of the desert with no supplies, why aren't they dropping like flies? Why don't they get sunburned? Is there a spell for sunscreen? I know these things are piddling, but they make me absolutely insane. Maybe it's hard to think of the manly hero needing to pee, but I worry about his bladder control. Or in a battle that goes on for days . . . I mean, are they just soiling their chainmail? What's going on here?
> 
> Maybe I'm too practical to read fantasy . . .


You don't see this in most fiction - mainly I think the authorstend to want to assume that the reader can infer that Joe Hero takes a wizz on the side of the road...I mean, how exciting and story forwarding is it to describe a trip to the loo?  Sometimes it becomes a plot point (first image that comes to mind is a western where someone is shot in the communal outhouse) so you see it there, otherwise it is boring and left out.  I used to complain about this type of thing, mainly for female roles.  There are very few menstruating females in fiction (pardon guys).  Now, I'm all for realism and whatnot but I really have no need to read about someone else's tribulations in the washroom...


----------



## Princess Ivy (Oct 28, 2004)

dwndrgn said:
			
		

> You don't see this in most fiction - mainly I think the authorstend to want to assume that the reader can infer that Joe Hero takes a wizz on the side of the road...I mean, how exciting and story forwarding is it to describe a trip to the loo? Sometimes it becomes a plot point (first image that comes to mind is a western where someone is shot in the communal outhouse) so you see it there, otherwise it is boring and left out. I used to complain about this type of thing, mainly for female roles. There are very few menstruating females in fiction (pardon guys). Now, I'm all for realism and whatnot but I really have no need to read about someone else's tribulations in the washroom...


Hehehehehe


----------



## BlueSkelton (Oct 29, 2004)

I agree wholeheartedly with Brian I am taking a Fiction class this semester and it seems like alot of the Quality Science fiction is overlooked for their anthologies Its all most as if it is some form of subfiction or inferior form of fiction. I mean sure there is alot of crap published We ve all read those books that were so bad we had to laugh but thats true with any genre. I love this forum its good to see all of you again thank you for letting me participate I just wish that i had more time to come here more often


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 29, 2004)

We'll keep the homefires burning for you are here, Blue Skeleton.


----------



## polymorphikos (Oct 29, 2004)

My teacher made the point that 

a) it wasn't on the syllabus

and 

b) they thought a lot of people had trouble understanding it.

And yet Gabriel Garcia Marques is just _so _accessible. Chronicle of a Death Foretold had the idiots in class making the teacher stop and answer questions every five lines.

My last Lit teacher was quite accepting of sf/f, however.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 29, 2004)

Definitely depends upon thet teacher. 

 One of my English teachers was a big HP Lovecraft fan.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Oct 30, 2004)

I said:
			
		

> Definitely depends upon thet teacher.
> 
> One of my English teachers was a big HP Lovecraft fan.


Agreed, Brian.  I know, when I was at university, I took a class in popular fiction, and most of what we read was either detective fiction or science fiction/fantasy.  The two exceptions were "Othello" and "Catcher in the Rye" (which kind of disappointed me - "Othello" is my least favorite Shakespeare, and "Catcher" is probably my least favorite novel).  We read "The Fellowship of the Ring", we read a Heinlein novel ("Farnham's Freehold"), we read a Vonnegut novel (something about Mars, as I recall)...all good stuff.  On the other hand, in a world literature class once, the professor got all huffy when we read Kafka's "Metamorphosis" and a couple of us commented that it was about time we read some sf/fantasy.

As far as science fiction or fantasy being hard to understand...huh?  Why would it be any more difficult to understand than any other fiction?  That just isn't a valid objection, as far as I can see.  I've read some literary short stories that were much more difficult to follow than any science fiction or fantasy I've ever read.


----------



## Maledoro (Oct 31, 2004)

What I hate is when there are so many "Sci-Fi Elements" put together that the story is in danger of being a "Fantasy". Mind you, I have nothing against fantasy, but, when they start laying on all this time travel and alternate universes, etc., and they get used as a crutch for the story, then there's too much _deus ex machina_ (God from a machine) where anything illogical or preposterous can happen, "just because".


----------



## polymorphikos (Oct 31, 2004)

(A note to Maledoro: this is not inspired by your post, nor directed at you)

I'd also like to step-up in defence of pulp from fans of "hard" sf. Whilst many might dismiss it as trivial and mindless, and in many instances it is, pulp is the starting-point of most sciencefiction. The genre was born out of populist serials that caught the imaginations of people of the times, who in turn matured and let their tastes mature with them, resulting in the eventual birth of giants such as Asimov, Clarke and the like. 

And yet many seemingly highly-developed pieces of sf are just pulkpy space-opera with a new coat of paint. See Vinge's "A Fire Upon the Deep", a fine novel with lots of interesting points and well-thought-out worlds, but still just a pulp adventure. 

And besides, countless easily-dismissed novels have layer upon layer of sub-text. Look at Skylark Three, for example, which is a slightly ham-fisted dig at stubborn politics wrapped in a layer of brilliant imagination. 

I guess my whole point in this is not that I don't like hard sf, because I do, and nor is it that pulp is necessarily as literary, but I think that the sheer effort that goes into coming up with these worlds  (not an easy feat unless you've got a knack for deep imagining) is just as worthy of praise as any other aspect of a book.

So, yeah, I'm attacking the snobs within the sf establishment. Pulp is a fine thing, and most sf/f wouldn't exist without Howard, Smith and Burroughs.


----------



## Maledoro (Oct 31, 2004)

Being one who was raised on Hard Sci-Fi, I would have to agree with you. I roll my eyes whenever I tell someone that I read sci-fi and they say, "Here, read this. You'll love it!" and the cover has a guy riding a horselike alien creature with a hot chick wearing a huge medallion that says "I used to be royalty" and the guy has a laser sword at his side.

If it's fantasy, then it should be labeled as such.


----------



## willb (Oct 31, 2004)

On the subject of realism and fantasy / sf, Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson has a small part of its plot revolving around geeky roleplayers wanting to create a coherent fantasy world in which to roleplay; they work hard on working out detailed rules for energy required in gathering food and energy gained from eating it.  And it is really a great book.  So while the mechanics of human bodily needs may not (necessarily) make interesting reading, a book including characters who think about bodily functions can be.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 31, 2004)

Maledoro said:
			
		

> Being one who was raised on Hard Sci-Fi, I would have to agree with you. I roll my eyes whenever I tell someone that I read sci-fi and they say, "Here, read this. You'll love it!" and the cover has a guy riding a horselike alien creature with a hot chick wearing a huge medallion that says "I used to be royalty" and the guy has a laser sword at his side.
> 
> If it's fantasy, then it should be labeled as such.


 I just had to laugh at that. 

 The sff genre is a like a Tardis from Doctor Who - to people on the outside it may look very small and narrow, but from the inside it's far bigger and much richer in construction.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Oct 31, 2004)

It is a real challenge keeping my mouth shut!


----------



## Princess Ivy (Oct 31, 2004)

I said:
			
		

> I just had to laugh at that.
> 
> The sff genre is a like a Tardis from Doctor Who - to people on the outside it may look very small and narrow, but from the inside it's far bigger and much richer in construction.


But that is the way with so many things. even breaking down to sf, time travel, and a whole new world opens, same with all sub genres.


----------



## aurelio (Oct 31, 2004)

> A general question -
> 
> "What do you dislike most about sf/f?"



There are two things I can think of right off the top of my head that really bug me.  One is deliberately "unusual" character names - everyone here knows what I'm talking about.  Long and illegible jumbles of words without vowels.  There are usually too many of them all in the same story too.  I find when I'm reading names I can't sound out easily in my head, it disrupts my flow and pulls me out of the story.

The other is convenient magic.  "All powerful" beings that are suddenly not, simply to suit the plot.  Or there's the "secret power from within" that appears on right on cue.  A corallary is the "predestined" hero/heroine - once you know they are predestined, HELLO!!! - you might as well close the book!  It's a done deal!


----------



## jonak (Nov 27, 2004)

I think it's um... a question of what you like really. Who cares what other writers are writing about. I personally LOVE science-fiction. Another part of me feels that I've been there and done it, possibly eons ago, perhaps in different times than these. That may sound funny, but it's the way I feel. And it's also my explanation of why I'm so fascinated by space and so interested and intriguied by sci-fi movies, people and different cultures. I can't get enough of it. As long as you're aware of who you are, and that you aren't one of those teens who're involved with one of those popular trends, then you're golden. If you respect the genre the way it's supposed to be respected, you're in for free. As long as your writing is good, who gives a crap right?


----------



## scalem X (Nov 28, 2004)

The thing I dislike is:'errm damn I want to live in such a world, why do they have such an interesting life and I have to be damn here.' I am sure I would have been a great knight. Even in this world I have minor experience in battling with a sword and nunchaku's and even a bow and along with my karate and tricking skills I should make no bad warrior I think. Damn why have these values disappeared and are we living in a society where you can survive  if you cannot even lift your own weight? A world were fighting isn't fighting anymore? A little example of the current American war tactics:
 Soldier1:damn a building of 10 stories!
 Soldier2:'call an airstrike, call an airstrike'
 Boom BOOM *BOOM*
 Soldier1:damn the left part hasn't exploded
 Soldier2:'call an airstike, call an airstrike'
 Boom BOOM *BOOM
*Soldier1amn I saw something moving
 Soldier2:now anxious;'call an airstike, call an airstrike'
 Boom BOOM *BOOM
*Soldier1:mmm nothing moves
 Soldier2:Let's engage
 Soldier1ops it was a :....... (choose one; hospital/school/abandoned home/a hideout for enemy snipers/an appartement)
 Let's say it was the most unlikely (hideout for enemy snipers), do you call this a fight?


----------



## zorcarepublic (Dec 16, 2004)

I hate the fact that all science fiction nowadays seems to be less about science fiction and more about interpersonal relationships, like soap operas rather than space operas. I also hate changes made to old programmes to bring them up to date.

For instance, while I have not watched the new series of BSG, from what I hear it is vastly different from the old BSG which I was fortunate enough to see. I don't mean to step on anyones toes here, but I hate what the new BSG seems to be. Human-style Cylons? They're _supposed _to look like clunking hunks of metal-that was the _attraction_ for me!


----------



## Rane Longfox (Dec 17, 2004)

Returning to an earlier point, I do find there is a lot of snobbery towards sci-fi and fantasy amongst all the English teachers at our school. I don't do english at A-level, I got bored of the poetry, but I'm in a book club run by one of the teachers, and when I suggested some nice, short, easy Neal Asher or Iain M. Banks, I was laughed out of the room. I said I was even prepared to stoop as low as David Eddings if they really wanted, but they still sniffed at it as "too unrealistic to be worth bothering with". We read Animal Farm a couple of months before with no problem though. Stupid...


----------



## zorcarepublic (Dec 17, 2004)

Why do people have a problem with sci-fi though? Probably anything with the words 'science' scares the proverbial out of them, because they might be too narrow-minded?

I, unfortunately, had to leave college because I had autism, and I really couldn't cope with all the people that was there. I was hoping to do a course at uni after I finished college, but with my leaving college, Im trying my hand at some science-fiction writing. And, of course, in college I was taking an A-level in Government and Politics, but my teacher was a bit too...biased...


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 29, 2021)

Brian G Turner said:


> A general question -
> 
> "What do you dislike most about sf/f?"
> 
> ...



There is nothing to dislike about the genres  of science fiction or fantasy . They deserves the same level of respect as the the other genres of fiction.


----------



## Rodders (Nov 29, 2021)

Brian, I've always felt that as much as people belittle it (and i don't really think they do that much), it's still a very popular genre. Especially at the movies where many of the top 100 highest grossing movies are SF.

Besides, maybe it's us. (I came to terms with the idea that i'm the weird one in the group a long time ago.) 

My personal dislike is the toxicity of some parts of a certain fan bases. Star Wars comes to mind immediately, but i'm sure that there are other examples. When did we become to vile?


----------



## AE35Unit (Nov 29, 2021)

The only thing I object is the serial nature of such fiction. That is, a book comes out (ooh shiny) but then you discover its book 1 in the Doodah series. Ugh.


----------



## AE35Unit (Nov 29, 2021)

In my experience, those who disparage sf are those who've never read any.


----------



## Toby Frost (Nov 29, 2021)

Two things:

First, people who (either consciously or otherwise) narrow the definition of SF to exclude other fans ("The only real SF is the SF I like...").

Second, and by some strange coincidence this seems to have appeared only in the last few years, the way people continually want to drag politics into SF by complaining "Why does everything have to be political now?" Yeah, because there's nothing political in The War of the Worlds, or 1984, or Dune, or The Handmaid's Tale, or...


----------



## thaddeus6th (Nov 29, 2021)

This ties into comments by both  Phyrebrat and Toby, but I think execution matters a lot.

Women in SF are a great example. Seven of Nine is one of the most interesting Star Trek characters, and Trek's also had a female leader in Janeway (who had a male XO whom she had no trouble commanding without denigrating). Likewise, Ripley's a fantastic character. But if that shifts into women (or a female character) never being shown to be in serious trouble or getting beaten then you end up with a shallow 2D character (like Rey, alas) who's super good at everything, meaning there's neither room for growth nor a credible threat, which also undermines both the villain and the story. 

But pointing that out can lead to accusations of being a misogynist.

And look what happened to Finn. Could've had a great character arc, not only in himself but also with Captain Phasma as a sort of evil mentor/surrogate mother figure, which would've been a really interesting take. Instead she got made into a nothing character and he was reduced to comic relief (sidenote: the tonal shifts in The Last Jedi are bloody awful). You might argue that's unrelated but given that China's a big market and Finn went missing from Star Wars posters over there...

I liked this quite a lot about Krypton, which had tons of varied characters but there wasn't some cartoonish identity politics dividing line between dumb men and smart women, or one race being good and the other being wicked.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 29, 2021)

Phyrebrat said:


> What SF needs is really really big sports cars.



Have you  ever read *Along The Scenic Route *by Harlan Ellison ?


----------



## Toby Frost (Nov 29, 2021)

Execution does matter a lot: nobody wants to be lectured, but then a good book of any sort doesn't lecture the reader (well, excluding that 10-page segment in the middle of 1984...). The criteria for writing a good book don't change because the setting is SF or the subject is "worthy". In fact, it probably gets harder, because not only does the "normal" stuff have to be convincing, but so do the SF bits.

I don't know what happened to Finn, but it wasn't good. The Last Jedi is a mess.


----------



## Phyrebrat (Nov 29, 2021)

I have a lot to say about why men see Rey Skywalker as a Mary Sue. Am about to teach so will try to get my thoughts down on the way home


----------



## Toby Frost (Nov 29, 2021)

Personally, I see her as quite like the Competent Man figure in a lot of older SF, with the magical powers that the setting allows and probably expects. She can do everything pretty well and is slightly bland, but I think that goes with the territory.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Nov 29, 2021)

Ha, sounds like I dislike the character a lot more than either of you. But there's also an in-universe rules reason to dislike the sequel trilogy's use of her and Force powers. Maybe I should blog about that... mind you, there's also the idiocy of the Holdo Manoeuvre which undermines episodes IV, VI, and VII.


----------



## Phyrebrat (Nov 29, 2021)

How are you with engine and laser sounds in space?  the Holdo manoeuvre was handwavium but cool as hell. Again, I bet if a male Captain had done it, there’d be far less scrutiny.


----------



## AE35Unit (Nov 29, 2021)

Toby Frost said:


> Two things:
> 
> First, people who (either consciously or otherwise) narrow the definition of SF to exclude other fans ("The only real SF is the SF I like...").
> 
> Second, and by some strange coincidence this seems to have appeared only in the last few years, the way people continually want to drag politics into SF by complaining "Why does everything have to be political now?" Yeah, because there's nothing political in The War of the Worlds, or 1984, or Dune, or The Handmaid's Tale, or...


Yea there's politics in Foundation, which makes it boring for me. So definitely not a new thing


----------



## thaddeus6th (Nov 30, 2021)

Phyrebrat, I'll let the sounds in space thing go, as it is cool and doesn't detract in any way from characters or the story.

Entirely disagree on Holdo. She's a terrible leader. Not only that, the manoeuvre renders utterly meaningless the Death Star, or Starkiller base. If you can take out a ship with another by shifting to hyperspeed, then capital ships would become almost entirely pointless. You could wipe out a Death Star with a remote control ship. (Not seen TROS, but apparently there's 'light speed skipping' or some such near planets which utterly contradicts the notion of gravity wells being a problem, and therefore also totally undercuts interdictor cruisers).

Oh, and then there's the map in the first sequel film. Why the hell would you need the middle bit? The end alone would tell you sufficient stars to calculate where he is. To put it in context, if you're travelling from Edinburgh to London and the bit with Leeds in is missing you don't need to be a rocket scientist to fill in the blanks.

And I wish someone would explain to JJ Abrams that space is big.


----------



## AE35Unit (Nov 30, 2021)

Phyrebrat said:


> How are you with engine and laser sounds in space?  the Holdo manoeuvre was handwavium but cool as hell. Again, I bet if a male Captain had done it, there’d be far less scrutiny.


Lasers don't make sounds on earth never mind in space (maybe a little crackle).


----------



## Toby Frost (Nov 30, 2021)

This is a different topic, but I think all you can say is that men are largely bigger and stronger than women, which is a big disadvantage, and then so many factors come in that it's impossible to generalise. The agent Nancy Wake was able to kill a Nazi stormtrooper with one blow of the hand, but then she had the combination of training, aggression and circumstances to do that. Humans are quite brittle, especially if you're not just throwing punches. And then you've got armour, changes of weaponry in the pre-gunpowder eras, and all that. And the people in Middle Earth didn't have Macbeth to learn from. The main thing is that Arwen killing the Witch King isn't so bizarre as to ruin the (already pretty wild) story and its immense kill-counts, so it doesn't really matter.

The one that always puzzles me is the idea that punching a man in the groin is hitting a sort of off-switch.


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 30, 2021)

Toby Frost said:


> The one that always puzzles me is the idea that punching a man in the groin is hitting a sort of off-switch.


It definitely turns me off.


----------



## AE35Unit (Nov 30, 2021)

Toby Frost said:


> This is a different topic, but I think all you can .
> 
> The one that always puzzles me is the idea that punching a man in the groin is hitting a sort of off-switch.


Believe me, it is. So is a throat punch (I wish I'd remembered that when I got attacked in 2012)


----------



## Extollager (Nov 30, 2021)

Brian G Turner said:


> A general question -
> 
> "What do you dislike most about sf/f?"


Pointlessly protracted "world-building" in multivolume series burdened with needlessly copious characters and dialog.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Nov 30, 2021)

Prophecies.


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Nov 30, 2021)

If its not endlessly repeated but keeps adding new details, I like extensive descriptions for technologically advance settings. But if its in the forests or mountains, natural type settings, I definitely don't desire the build up in the first place. Paragraphs about the colors of the waves as they row across the oceans leave me dry.

I don't even acknowledge the idea that sci fi is less of a form of literature than other formats. I tell people I write science fiction and read it too. I sell pictures of my book covers. Which strangely sell better than my other subjects.


----------



## The Big Peat (Nov 30, 2021)

edit: delete.


----------



## AE35Unit (Nov 30, 2021)

Unnecessary overambiguated elaborate purple prose
And unprounceable character names.


----------



## Ray Zdybrow (Nov 30, 2021)

Expositional reveries. Such as:
"Ray sliced some b'hread and took a jah'r of pnut butt'har from the sh'helph. Whe'at cultivation and b'hread-making had originated forty generations ago; pnut butt'har was a much later addition to the diet of the B'ritish, and some still feared it may stick to the rooves of their m'ou'ths."


----------



## Mon0Zer0 (Dec 1, 2021)

AE35Unit said:


> Lasers don't make sounds on earth never mind in space (maybe a little crackle).



Nor are sounds only audible when they are in frame.


----------



## Mon0Zer0 (Dec 1, 2021)

AE35Unit said:


> And unprounceable character names.



I feel personally attacked.


----------



## Justin Swanton (Dec 1, 2021)

One thing which irritates me in hard SF is a careful attention to accuracy that is ruined by an elephant. If you're going to do hard SF then do hard SF. One example is the Martian dust storm in _The Martian_. Another is gravity (?) stretching the parachute cords in _Gravity_. Whoppers like that pull you out of the suspension of disbelief a way magic science in space operas like the Alderson Drive doesn't.


----------



## AE35Unit (Dec 1, 2021)

Mon0Zer0 said:


> I feel personally attacked.


Hmm I take it you're an author...


----------



## AE35Unit (Dec 1, 2021)

Justin Swanton said:


> One thing which irritates me in hard SF is a careful attention to accuracy that is ruined by an elephant. If you're going to do hard SF then do hard SF. One example is the Martian dust storm in _The Martian_. Another is gravity (?) stretching the parachute cords in _Gravity_. Whoppers like that pull you out of the suspension of disbelief a way magic science in space operas like the Alderson Drive doesn't.


Mars does have some horrific dust storms!


----------



## Justin Swanton (Dec 1, 2021)

AE35Unit said:


> Mars does have some horrific dust storms!


That can tip a spaceship, trash a parabolic dish and send an astronaut flying?


----------



## AE35Unit (Dec 1, 2021)

Justin Swanton said:


> That can tip a spaceship, trash a parabolic dish and send an astronaut flying?


Err yes! On a planet with a lower gravity and 300 mile per hour storms, I'd say so


----------



## Justin Swanton (Dec 1, 2021)

AE35Unit said:


> Err yes! On a planet with a lower gravity and 300 mile per hour storms, I'd say so


On Mars? The atmospheric pressure is 1% Earth's, so a 300mph storm there would have the effect of a gentle breeze on Earth. The top speed of Martian winds is about 60mph anyway. See *here*.


----------



## W Collier (Dec 1, 2021)

Congratulations to Baylor the Necromancer.


----------



## AE35Unit (Dec 1, 2021)

Justin Swanton said:


> On Mars? The atmospheric pressure is 1% Earth's, so a 300mph storm there would have the effect of a gentle breeze on Earth. The top speed of Martian winds is about 60mph anyway. See *here*.


You still wouldn't want to be caught in one


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 1, 2021)

I've removed the posts about social politics. If people want to promote social ideologies the rest of the internet is your oyster, not chrons.


----------



## AE35Unit (Dec 1, 2021)

Brian G Turner said:


> I've removed the posts about social politics. If people want to promote social ideologies the rest of the internet is your oyster, not chrons.


Yea that's what Facebook is for


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 2, 2021)

W Collier said:


> Congratulations to Baylor the Necromancer.



It's a very good topic , its still relevant and deserved  a revival.


----------



## Toby Frost (Dec 2, 2021)

Extollager said:


> Pointlessly protracted "world-building" in multivolume series burdened with needlessly copious characters and dialog.



I think this is a good point and it often comes from either slavishly copying Tolkien or from a feeling that big equals epic. I was thinking this over earlier and it occurred to me that some books feel about the right length for what they contain - _Consider Phlebas_ seems like a good example, perhaps minus the "eater" section, and _Neuromancer _feels slightly too short for what's in it.


----------



## Guttersnipe (Dec 3, 2021)

I dislike the tendency for the creativity behind works to stagnate around much more interesting stories. I think each work should bring something unprecedented to the genre. I just don't see a lot of that, especially in fantasy. There are just too many taking place in more ancient or medieval worlds or the past, and also too much urban fantasy that only shifts common creatures to the present.


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 4, 2021)

Something that I think has become a bit overused in SF/F is the tendency for some writers to elaborate backstory (usually in a separate series or some kind of prequel). Take, for example, the Butlerian Jihad in Dune. It’s essentially just another iteration of man against machine but it works to fill in the spaces in Dune (reason for mentats etc). 

Where it does not work is when it becomes the story itself. It just becomes a but naff and cheesy. Another war against the machines….yawn. 

I know the author is probably thinking elaborating on backstory is a good way to put bread on the table, but sometimes the magic of a story is maintained by certain elements staying vague.


----------



## Astro Pen (Dec 4, 2021)

1. One dimensional characters, about as deep as their spandex suits. It is a hideous quasi military dehumanisation. We are all complex creatures. It tends to come from seeing a 'function' rather than a person in plot construction.

2. Failing to recognise that there is very little pure evil for it's own sake , that 'baddies' have complex motivations. A little sympathy with the antagonist makes for much more complex interaction and nuanced storytelling.

3. Magical thinking masquerading as advanced technology. FTL being a classic example. You can't just write off physics. What I liked about Arthur C. Clarke was that he generally wrote within possible technology, (monolith aside) it added great credibility.
Maybe there is a categorisation model  that includes separate _science fiction_ and _science fantasy_. I haven't really considered the taxonomy.


----------



## AE35Unit (Dec 4, 2021)

A true antagonist does not demand or deserve sympathy.


----------



## AE35Unit (Dec 4, 2021)

Astro Pen said:


> great credibility.
> Maybe there is a categorisation model  that includes separate _science fiction_ and _science fantasy_. I haven't really considered the taxonomy.


Yea that's what I call sci fi (Star Wars etc) as opposed to SF (2001 a space odyssey etc)


----------



## Extollager (Dec 4, 2021)

AE35Unit said:


> A true antagonist does not demand or deserve sympathy.


AE, may I be the picky former English teacher for a moment?  I wouldn't explain "antagonist" thus.  The antagonist is someone (usually a person) who in some way presents the protagonist with a conflict.  Authors sometimes have made the protagonist a person with serious moral faults and the antagonist a person of admirable qualities.  A novel I often taught that uses this arrangement is C. S. Lewis's *Till We Have Faces*.  In it, the protagonist, who is also the narrator, is a selfish and self-deceiving person who learns the truth about herself only after suffering.  Several other characters are antagonists -- her father and her two sisters.  The relationship with one of the sisters is of particular importance, and this sister is an exemplary person.  

So what I used to say when trying to explain this stuff to students was that, if a story has a hero, that character will generally be the protagonist (as in the Sherlock Holmes stories, for example).  By "hero" I mean someone whose qualities we're meant to admire and whose success we desire.  But, I would add, not all stories have heroes.  Early on I would have them read "The Cask of Amontillado," in which the protagonist is a really wicked old man.

For "antagonist" in your statement I myself might substitute "villain."  But that done, I'd still hesitate a bit about endorsing it.  It seems to me that, in stories like that chestnut "The Most Dangerous Game," or in the usual Sherlock Holmes story (e.g. "The Speckled Band"), the emphasis is on plot, and in that kind of story one typically neither needs to, nor should, be occupied with trying to understand and maybe even to sympathize with the villain.  That's not an appropriate "use" of the story but, probably, a misreading that, at best, will just amuse the reader with the exercise of her or his own cleverness (e.g. the old fanzine article sympathizing with Sauron).

But some stories invite, even require, us to develop an understanding of how someone came to do truly wicked things, e.g. Raskolnikov.

I'll now turn my pedantry switch off.  : )


----------



## Astro Pen (Dec 5, 2021)

I actually forgot to mention my biggest hate. Unpronounceable invented names. The book I just finished, _Midsummer Century_, is a another in a long list. It bimbles along fine until we come to a character named Tlam, yes that is TLAM.  
From then on every other line contains this verbal hurdle, so irritating to jump that suspension of disbelief is impossible to maintain. 
(and yes I am aware of  Rep. Rashida Tlaib before anyone mentions her.)


----------



## AE35Unit (Dec 5, 2021)

Astro Pen said:


> I actually forgot to mention my biggest hate. Unpronounceable invented names. The book I just finished, _Midsummer Century_, is a another in a long list. It bimbles along fine until we come to a character named Tlam, yes that is TLAM.
> From then on every other line contains this verbal hurdle, so irritating to jump that suspension of disbelief is impossible to maintain.
> (and yes I am aware of  Rep. Rashida Tlaib before anyone mentions her.)


Ah a Blish. I'm sure I read it years ago but I can't remember. Apparently its part of a series that includes the tongue twisting title The Quincunx of Time


----------



## Astro Pen (Dec 5, 2021)

Read that long ago.
_The Quincunx of Time,_ featuring Dana Lje.
I rest my case .


----------



## AE35Unit (Dec 5, 2021)

Astro Pen said:


> Read that long ago.
> _The Quincunx of Time,_ featuring Dana Lje.
> I rest my case .


I would pronounce that as Dana Lay


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 6, 2021)

This is why it's fun to get an old thread started again . New perspective .


----------



## The Ace (Dec 6, 2021)

Dystopia.

While it's true that Science Fiction especially can be a warning, far too many authors seem to get their kicks from a post-apocalyptic, post pandemic etc. etc. world on its knees, with a plucky survivor and his merry band tackling the monsters (human and other) in a quest for some perceived paradise.

Obviously, paradise itself would be utterly useless as a story arc, but visions of what the future could be need to be uplifting too, sometimes.  There will still be conflicts, unresolved questions, and dangers, but I feel that there's nothing wrong with a broadly optimistic view of the future, rather than fire, flood, and bloodshed.


----------



## Mon0Zer0 (Dec 6, 2021)

The Ace said:


> Dystopia.
> 
> While it's true that Science Fiction especially can be a warning, far too many authors seem to get their kicks from a post-apocalyptic, post pandemic etc. etc. world on its knees, with a plucky survivor and his merry band tackling the monsters (human and other) in a quest for some perceived paradise.
> 
> Obviously, paradise itself would be utterly useless as a story arc, but visions of what the future could be need to be uplifting too, sometimes.  There will still be conflicts, unresolved questions, and dangers, but I feel that there's nothing wrong with a broadly optimistic view of the future, rather than fire, flood, and bloodshed.


I used to love a good dystopia, but I must admit to suffering from crap-sack world fatigue. Dystopia's are opportunities to discuss the problems of the present, but there is only so much grim misery and authoritarian overlords a person can handle.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 7, 2021)

Mon0Zer0 said:


> I used to love a good dystopia, but I must admit to suffering from crap-sack world fatigue. Dystopia's are opportunities to discuss the problems of the present, but there is only so much grim misery and authoritarian overlords a person can handle.



Which is why I would reccommned to to  The Caiphis Cain series by Sandy Mitchell . Its set in the 40 k universe and its a hysterically funny series.
Basically , It's Flashman in Outer Space .


----------



## Vladd67 (Dec 7, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> Which is why I would reccommned to to  The Caiphis Cain series by Sandy Mitchell . Its set in the 40 k universe and its a hysterically funny series.
> Basically , It's Flashman in Outer Space .


That sounds like Toby's books about Space Captain Smith.


----------



## Justin Swanton (Dec 11, 2021)

Astro Pen said:


> Read that long ago.
> _The Quincunx of Time,_ featuring Dana Lje.
> I rest my case .


Slightly off the point, a quincunx is a hypothetical arrangement of the three-line Republican (and early Imperial) legion into a chequerboard formation, with the 10 maniples of each line split up with maniple-wide gaps between them. The idea is that maniples of the line engaged with the enemy could fall back between the maniples of the lines behind it, enabling the next line to take up the fight.

The term itself was invented by historians, not the Romans. Having studied the primary sources on the legion in the original Latin and Greek (notably Livy) I conclude that the quincunx never existed and that the Romans had another way of swopping lines. I have no idea though how a quincunx would relate to time.


----------



## AE35Unit (Dec 11, 2021)

Justin Swanton said:


> Slightly off the point, a quincunx is a hypothetical arrangement of the three-line Republican (and early Imperial) legion into a chequerboard formation, with the 10 maniples of each line split up with maniple-wide gaps between them. The idea is that maniples of the line engaged with the enemy could fall back between the maniples of the lines behind it, enabling the next line to take up the fight.


Whoosh, right over my head


----------



## psikeyhackr (Dec 11, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> There is nothing to dislike about the genres  of science fiction or fantasy . They deserves the same level of respect as the the other genres of fiction.


I just listened to a recording of Frederick Pohl from 1963. He predicted the Moon landing would occur in 1975.

SF authors can't be trusted.

People don't ask fantasy authors when we will discover dragons and unicorns.


----------



## AE35Unit (Dec 12, 2021)

Science fiction isn't there to predict the future, its there to warn us against what could happen


----------



## psikeyhackr (Dec 12, 2021)

AE35Unit said:


> Science fiction isn't there to predict the future, its there to warn us against what could happen


Nobody warned us we would stop going to the Moon. Clarke had Moon colonies by about 2050 in A Fall of Moondust. 

LOL

Kill the politicians!


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 12, 2021)

We never got  flying Cars like we were promised  by 2015  in Back ti the future . 

Ans=d where are the personal warp drive jet packs we were promised ?


----------



## Parson (Dec 12, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> We never got flying Cars like we were promised by 2015 in Back ti the future .


Actually there are flying cars, but so far they are too expensive to be ubiquitous. Do a Google on Flying Cars and you will find there are several which are available, or soon to be available.


----------



## Fiberglass Cyborg (Dec 12, 2021)

When you have a book that starts with fascinating and original ideas, settings, characters, mysteries, evocative description, strong narrative voice... but the third act of the plot is just a load of tedious and cliched running around, fighting, explosions, Standardised Plot-Twist #3 etc. The language turns grey and clunkily functional, the characters turn into indistinguishable plot-marionettes, and all the magic of the first two-thirds of the book is utterly gone. I also feel that way about a lot of films- the set-up is so often far better than the pay-off.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 12, 2021)

Fiberglass Cyborg said:


> When you have a book that starts with fascinating and original ideas, settings, characters, mysteries, evocative description, strong narrative voice... but the third act of the plot is just a load of tedious and cliched running around, fighting, explosions, Standardised Plot-Twist #3 etc. The language turns grey and clunkily functional, the characters turn into indistinguishable plot-marionettes, and all the magic of the first two-thirds of the book is utterly gone. I also feel that way about a lot of films- the set-up is so often far better than the pay-off.



In other words, it  sinks like a lead balloon.


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Dec 13, 2021)

Or a screen door on a submarine...


----------



## AE35Unit (Dec 13, 2021)

psikeyhackr said:


> Nobody warned us we would stop going to the Moon. Clarke had Moon colonies by about 2050 in A Fall of Moondust.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Kill the politicians!


No but 2001 warned us against what could happen if we put all our trust in machines


----------



## dgackst (Dec 15, 2021)

Of the space operas that I've read or listened to I've grown tired of hearing about a grizzled space captain that hates paperwork but needs to fill it out to take on a recruit because the recruit shows a ton of promise.


----------



## Wayne Mack (Dec 15, 2021)

dgackst said:


> I've grown tired of hearing about a grizzled space captain


I've thought about writing that captain's backstory, but I haven't figured out how to grizzle someone.


----------



## Toby Frost (Dec 16, 2021)

Fiberglass Cyborg said:


> When you have a book that starts with fascinating and original ideas, settings, characters, mysteries, evocative description, strong narrative voice... but the third act of the plot is just a load of tedious and cliched running around, fighting, explosions, Standardised Plot-Twist #3 etc. The language turns grey and clunkily functional, the characters turn into indistinguishable plot-marionettes, and all the magic of the first two-thirds of the book is utterly gone. I also feel that way about a lot of films- the set-up is so often far better than the pay-off.



I agree, but it is surprisingly difficult to avoid. Once the plot twists have been uncovered, it's hard to avoid writing either "the hero shoots his way out" or "the surprise twist kills the hero". The answer might be to make the third act as short as possible.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 16, 2021)

Toby Frost said:


> I agree, but it is surprisingly difficult to avoid. Once the plot twists have been uncovered, it's hard to avoid writing either "the hero shoots his way out" or "the surprise twist kills the hero". The answer might be to make the third act as short as possible.


I think also, and this is not solely something that is strong in SF, it is everywhere; but if an author is closer to the 'pantser' end of the panster/plotter scale, there is, IMHO, a chance that they do run out of steam in the final act. I've been catching up on some recent Arthur C. Clarke shortlist novels and some of them end with a wimper or even feel like they have been arbitrarily cut off.

I generalise, but it feels often that such authors are incredibly enthusiastic for 1/2 to 2/3rds of their novel, attempting something fresh and novel etc... but then, perhaps struggling with deadlines and ideas drying up as the actual story is being put down in concrete, just find a quick and dirty 'way out' with much less love.

I also get the impression that for some novels, especially ones that end abruptly, the author has decided to defer a proper ending with a new book that continues the story. (Whether or not they actually have any ideas to do so!)


----------



## Toby Frost (Dec 16, 2021)

Yes, definitely. I'm certain that the writers of Lost and probably The Prisoner had great setups that they just couldn't end in a sufficiently satisfying way. And then you get stories where the setup and the feeling of surrealism or discomfort is as important as the actual plot, and the revelation that it was aliens/ghosts/a man in disguise always feels flat.


----------



## Astro Pen (Dec 16, 2021)

Yes, the problem is fundamentally that stories and reality are completely different animals. Stories are a nice neat 200 pages of morality tale or whatever, structured and usually resolved. Reality is a big sprawling continuum.
There was a trend a few decades back for "slice of life" stories on TV and a few movies (Altman's _Short Cuts_ for example)  where, as in the real world, they ended with some things resolved and other situations arriving so that you came out with a similar 'balance and overlap' to that with which the movie opened.
Sci fi, for some reason, never does this. (If you _do_ have examples I am, as always, open to new knowledge  )


----------



## Ray Zdybrow (Dec 16, 2021)

Justin Swanton said:


> Slightly off the point, a quincunx is a hypothetical arrangement of the three-line Republican (and early Imperial) legion into a chequerboard formation, with the 10 maniples of each line split up with maniple-wide gaps between them. The idea is that maniples of the line engaged with the enemy could fall back between the maniples of the lines behind it, enabling the next line to take up the fight.
> 
> The term itself was invented by historians, not the Romans. Having studied the primary sources on the legion in the original Latin and Greek (notably Livy) I conclude that the quincunx never existed and that the Romans had another way of swopping lines. I have no idea though how a quincunx would relate to time.


Who knew?


----------



## Fiberglass Cyborg (Dec 17, 2021)

Toby Frost said:


> Yes, definitely. I'm certain that the writers of Lost and probably The Prisoner had great setups that they just couldn't end in a sufficiently satisfying way. And then you get stories where the setup and the feeling of surrealism or discomfort is as important as the actual plot, and the revelation that it was aliens/ghosts/a man in disguise always feels flat.


The worst for that is a 200-year-old Gothic novel called "The Manuscript Found in Saragossa." Full of intertwining stories of events lurid, bizarre, horrifying, fantastical..... all explained by a rather banal "conspiracy" that doesn't even make sense in the closing pages.

I should add that I'm not immune to failing imagination regarding the closing act of a story. It's one reason I never get very far. "So, what happens next?" "Oh, something utterly tedious."


----------



## Wayne Mack (Dec 17, 2021)

Toby Frost said:


> The Prisoner had great setups that they just couldn't end in a sufficiently satisfying way.


I kind of liked the ending of The Prisoner because it didn't really explain anything. He was returned (probably) to where he started. Overall, the series was a wonderful  paranoid fantasy.


----------



## Vladd67 (Dec 17, 2021)

Wayne Mack said:


> I kind of liked the ending of The Prisoner because it didn't really explain anything. He was returned (probably) to where he started. Overall, the series was a wonderful  paranoid fantasy.


Every week he would ask Who is Number 1 and he would be told You are, Number 6
 The guy never listened


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 18, 2021)

AE35Unit said:


> No but 2001 warned us against what could happen if we put all our trust in machines



 Y2K was a huge letdown .  We didn't get that big world ending  machine apocalypse we were promised by the science fiction writers !


----------



## Justin Swanton (Dec 18, 2021)

Maybe SF has gone a bit flat because reality has? The heyday of SF was when scientific theoretical knowledge was advancing in leaps and bounds, leading straight to technological applications that in turn led to mass developments in the techno-industrial complex that dramatically changed human society and how we live. The future promised to be very different from the present in all sorts of exciting ways.

The last big technological revolution was in computers, back in the 80s and 90s, that made the home PC a reality. That in turn pushed the development of communication tech, the Web, smartphones and all the rest. But as regards *hard* tech like power, transport and home conveniences nothing significant has happened since the 60s. Furthermore we are just beginning to comprehend the real cost of a high-tech civilisation. The future is not going to be a galactic empire but it isn't going to be a post-apocalyptic wasteland either. It's just going to be a slowly degrading version of the present. Once fossil fuels and uranium run out (in this century), energy, even green energy - especially green energy - will become expensive and we'll be able to do less and less with technology. Which isn't very motivating for an SF writer.


----------



## Astro Pen (Dec 18, 2021)

The results are in:

George Orwell *1* - *0* Isaac Asimov


----------



## AE35Unit (Dec 18, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> Y2K was a huge letdown .  We didn't get that big world ending  machine apocalypse we were promised by the science fiction writers !


Actually Clarke was one of the great debunkers of the myth, as he pointed out that the millennium actually [begins] in the year 2001, not 2000, because there was no year 0


----------



## Parson (Dec 18, 2021)

Justin Swanton said:


> The last big technological revolution was in computers, back in the 80s and 90s, that made the home PC a reality. That in turn pushed the development of communication tech, the Web, smartphones and all the rest. But as regards *hard* tech like power, transport and home conveniences nothing significant has happened since the 60s. Furthermore we are just beginning to comprehend the real cost of a high-tech civilisation. The future is not going to be a galactic empire but it isn't going to be a post-apocalyptic wasteland either. It's just going to be a slowly degrading version of the present. Once fossil fuels and uranium run out (in this century), energy, even green energy - especially green energy - will become expensive and we'll be able to do less and less with technology. Which isn't very motivating for an SF writer.


I'm not sure I buy the above. I'd be willing to bet that there are great innovations happening, but they are happening much more in the biological fields than in the field of physics. We are only just beginning to touch what CRISPR means to human health and flourishing. The incredible speed of developing the MRNA vaccines hints at what might be coming. 

--- Now that I've re-read your post a few times. I wonder if you were pointing to biological sciences as "soft" tech verse "hard" tech of physics and structural engineering. So maybe I do agree. On that side, I'm waiting for a big step in rocket propulsion.


----------



## Justin Swanton (Dec 18, 2021)

Parson said:


> I'm not sure I buy the above. I'd be willing to bet that there are great innovations happening, but they are happening much more in the biological fields than in the field of physics. We are only just beginning to touch what CRISPR means to human health and flourishing. The incredible speed of developing the MRNA vaccines hints at what might be coming.
> 
> --- Now that I've re-read your post a few times. I wonder if you were pointing to biological sciences as "soft" tech verse "hard" tech of physics and structural engineering. So maybe I do agree. On that side, I'm waiting for a big step in rocket propulsion.


Medical science continues to advance, granted, but I wonder (not having stats) to what extent the current breakthroughs save lives today compared to the lives they saved in the past. I mean, it seems to be a rule in any specific field of research that the initial discoveries have a much greater practical effect than the discoveries that come afterwards. Is there any drug developed today that has a comparable effect penicillin did when it first came out?

Re mRNA technology I have always been very anxious about any form of genetic engineering. Read Dr Robert Malone on the application of mRNA technology (which he developed) to the covid vaccines. In general terms the problem with genetic engineering is that we are tinkering with inconceivably complex biological mechanisms that we didn't design and we don't begin to understand the impact of any changes we implement.

There's a parallel with programming: it takes about twice as long to remove the bugs from a programme as it takes to create that programme in the first place. In programming it doesn't take long to spot that there is a bug: you run the programme and see very quickly where it goes wrong. With genetic engineering you are changing the programming of living organisms and it can takes months or years before harmful side effects appear. This is true of any new medical drug which is why the testing period is normally years long.

The mRNA vaccines are not actually vaccines but a reprogramming of the human cells to produce the virus's spike proteins, the idea being that the body will identify these spikes as foreign objects and manufacture antibodies for them. Problem is that the spikes, which were assumed to be harmless, are not. They are biologically active, not only damaging the cells that produce them, but also attaching themselves to the surface of other cells once they are released, adversely affecting the behaviour of those cells in ways that have been only partially documented, like micro blood clotting. It will be years before we know just what all the long-term side effects are.

So no, I don't think tinkering with DNA, especially human DNA, has a glorious future. It's more like a minefield.

Re rocket propulsion there hasn't been any real breakthrough for decades. The SABRE engine for the proposed Skylon spaceplane is interesting in that it can act as a jet or rocket engine, but nothing suggests it can make getting into orbit any cheaper. The SSTO (single stage to orbit) which is what the Skylon is supposed to be, is a fundamentally flawed concept that cannot be made to work as well as a multiple stage rocket. I'm not aware of anything else in the pipeline.


----------



## Parson (Dec 18, 2021)

I'm sure I don't have as pessimistic view here as you. Certainly, to use your metaphor, there are mines out there. But every technological breakthrough seems to have almost equal possibilities for good or evil. I wouldn't want to live in a world where there was no progress. The brutish hunter/gather life that *would seem *to be most sustainable has no attraction for me. Careful research is mandatory, but when you are dealing with humans you will always find some people who want to push the boundaries, that's just who we are. 

But this discussion is almost beside the point. The original post viewed that progress has slowed, and I remarked that it depended on what you are looking at.


----------



## Justin Swanton (Dec 18, 2021)

Parson said:


> I'm sure I don't have as pessimistic view here as you. Certainly, to use your metaphor, there are mines out there. But every technological breakthrough seems to have almost equal possibilities for good or evil. I wouldn't want to live in a world where there was no progress. The brutish hunter/gather life that *would seem *to be most sustainable has no attraction for me. Careful research is mandatory, but when you are dealing with humans you will always find some people who want to push the boundaries, that's just who we are.
> 
> But this discussion is almost beside the point. The original post viewed that progress has slowed, and I remarked that it depended on what you are looking at.


Interesting post. Human civilisation has existed for thousands of years at the level at least of the city state, in which agriculture and animal husbandry sustained human communities that allowed for specialised skills, like carpentry and clothmaking, and for luxury pursuits like architecture, sculpture, painting, literature, music, philosophy, etc. In its fundamentals it hasn't changed much from the Sumerians until the dawn of the industrial age. There was no preoccupation with Progress as we understand it, priorities were very different then. I wonder if what we achieve now can really be considered superior to what they achieved then. Contemporary society is incapable of creating pyramids, or the Pantheon, or the Sistine Chapel, or any of the artistic achievements of the past. Physically it could, sure, we have the techniques. But its own priorities have killed any motivation to do so. Our strengths are all directed at creating and refining physical comforts and conveniences. That's how we understand Progress. I'm not convinced.


----------



## Parson (Dec 18, 2021)

Justin Swanton said:


> Interesting post. Human civilisation has existed for thousands of years at the level at least of the city state, in which agriculture and animal husbandry sustained human communities that allowed for specialised skills, like carpentry and clothmaking, and for luxury pursuits like architecture, sculpture, painting, literature, music, philosophy, etc. In its fundamentals it hasn't changed much from the Sumerians until the dawn of the industrial age. There was no preoccupation with Progress as we understand it, priorities were very different then. I wonder if what we achieve now can really be considered superior to what they achieved then. Contemporary society is incapable of creating pyramids, or the Pantheon, or the Sistine Chapel, or any of the artistic achievements of the past. Physically it could, sure, we have the techniques. But its own priorities have killed any motivation to do so. Our strengths are all directed at creating and refining physical comforts and conveniences. That's how we understand Progress. I'm not convinced.


So, what changed? I doubt we can ascertain the answer to that question with certainty at this distance. But I have no doubt that some people in every society, as much as they could, given their knowledge and their "extra" time, tried to make life better by finding new and better ways of doing things whether it was making bread, building a house, digging a canal, or the like. We can see this clearly in the archeological record. And then, something would happen (war, plague, famine, etc.) and the progress in that society would be largely wiped out. But some gains were not lost and the next group that fortune favored would appropriate the wisdom of the past and some of its people would try to build on it. As I said earlier, some humans are always pushing the limits and looking for a "better" way. I suspect that the industrial revolution had it's flame lit by education. As more and more people had access to the successes of the past, more and more innovation became possible. More and more people lived, and more of them lived longer, allowing them more time to learn and pass on their learning. As the ability to read became more and more widespread, the speed and breadth of knowledge grew with it. All of this is to say that I don't think that there was ever a time that humans were not innovating and that its march is inexorable. It may go backwards for a time, but as long as we survive it will move forward in the ways that it can.


----------



## Wayne Mack (Dec 18, 2021)

Justin Swanton said:


> The last big technological revolution was in computers, back in the 80s and 90s, that made the home PC a reality. That in turn pushed the development of communication tech, the Web, smartphones and all the rest. But as regards *hard* tech like power, transport and home conveniences nothing significant has happened since the 60s.


I would say that a slightly more recent development has been in communications technology. Although, this relies on stripped down versions of computers, there is a lot of technical prowess that has been implemented on top of the platform. I find it near incredible that people in isolated areas, where they may not even have access to running water, may still have cell phone. That someone can dial my phone number and, without regard to where I am on the planet, the call can be completed. That I can be riding down the highway at speed and have a phone conversation passed seamlessly from cell tower to cell tower. 

There are also polymer technologies that allow large scale wind turbines to be built. Solar cell technology that is driving down the costs of alternative energy. Three-D printing has the potential to be both a boon and an ill. In the realm of computer technology, there is the adoption of machine learning, where no programmer specifies a decision making algorithm. Rather, the computer program is trained on a large number of pass-fail attempts and determines its own algorithm. This has already led to some amazing results as well as some extremely troubling failures. And we don't even know how to evaluate how well the learned algorithm does at its job.

There are a lot of truly amazing things happening in today's world and we often forget (or don't even realize) how incredible they are. And none of them come from a single root cause.


----------

