Your thoughts on new science fiction?

[Seedorn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[AltThinking]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.