Good action-adventure SF...

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Maybe it's a string of bad luck on my part, but any SF novel I try to read in the last few months or so has struck me at quite dull in the sense that it has an extremely slow moving plot, if there's a proper plot at all. So here is me asking for recommendations about well plotted, fast moving SF novels.

Stuff that I thought was well done and fast, or faster paced than normal for SF, have been Leviathan Wakes and Altered Carbon. Military SF is all right, but I prefer more than shoot 'em ups in space.

So Chrons, what have you got?

 

[Gramm838]

Give some Warhammer 40k books a try...although they are based around shoot 'em up in space, they are also a good read.

Alternatively, try Chris Wooding's Ketty Jay books - "Retribution Falls" is the first in the series (think Firefly/Serenity but steam-punk in airships)

 

[J-Sun]

I don't think it's bad luck but just the way most books are written these days.

It kind of is a shoot 'em up in space but I highly, strongly recommend Neal Asher's Prador Moon if you're looking for something tight and energetic (or just recommend it in general). Joe Haldeman's Camouflage is not at all a shoot 'em up in space but is also reasonably tight and he keeps it moving. Bruce Sterling's The Zenith Angle isn't really action-adventure but has a somewhat convoluted, yet concisely handled, plot with zippy prose.

I dunno, otherwise I'd recommend reading short fiction. Sometimes short-shorts can be fairly plotless and some novellas meander but most novelettes/novellas are almost always better plotted and drag less than most novels these days. Or I'd recommend pre-90s novels or, to have an even higher batting average for the purpose, pre-60s novels.

 

[Sourdust]

I dunno, otherwise I'd recommend reading short fiction.

Definitely. I was recently reading some of the stories in the old Penguin Science Fiction Omnibus, edited by Brian Aldiss. Plenty of concise adventures in there, including Clifford Simak's 'Skirmish', James H. Schmitz's 'Grandpa', and Frederik Pohl's 'The Tunnel under the World'.

Aldiss's Non-Stop is another good choice, if you haven't read that. The characters progress through a series of levels (I won't go into detail), almost like a video game.

This stuff all dates from the 1950s, though, but then diving into the past is a good bet for those bored of contemporary product, particularly if you suspect, as I do, that science fiction as a genre is, unfortunately, probably past its historical peak. (Barry Malzberg has written about this: the collapse of the space race, increasing disillusionment, mannerist play with ever staler tropes.)* Of the 2000s I plead relative ignorance, although have heard good things about Hannu Rajaniemi's Quantum Thief.

*See also Paul Kincaid's recent lament about a sense of exhaustion in the field.

 

[J Riff]

Well said SourD - definitely past the Golden, Silver and Bronze age, it is now a mainstream (read: dumbed down) genre. Thank TV and movies for a lot of that.

 

[J-Sun]

...although have heard good things about Hannu Rajaniemi's Quantum Thief.

Yeah, I heard good things about it, too, but found it to be a really shapeless mess of fuzzy un-SF, really. Kind of a literary metaphorical exercise only interested in subjectivity and virtuality, no matter what nods to some kind of reality there might have been. It was relatively short in current terms but read long. There are plenty of books I don't much care for but few that sort of specifically antagonize me and that was one so I just felt like I had to say something, even if it's no fun.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Well, Kincaid's misplaced cynicism is understandable considering his position, but I wouldn't declare the entire genre dead just yet. And frankly that's not the topic.

Thanks for the recs though.

 

[dask]

It's all hit and miss but here are a few authors who may help rekindle the ol' sense of actionized wonder: Edmond Hamiliton, Harry Harrison, Keith Laumer, and of course, Jack Vance.

 

[Rodders]

Yeah, I'd second the Warhammer 40k, especially Dan Abnett's Gaunt's Ghost series.

 

[J Riff]

Adventure, it was all adventure, it was replacing Westerns. Doc Savage, Perry Rhodan, everyone wrote a series of short books. That's the difference. A 250 pg. book makes a great length for an ongoing adventure series. The giant trilogies have done their part in wrecking it, I say. Take Dask's list for ex:
Hamilton - Starwolf 'trilogy' three short books, terrfic.
Harrison - Stainless Steel Rat series, shortish, good adventure.
Laumer - Retief stuff, good short ones mostly.
Vance - Demon Princes series. Great stuff, all 300 pgs. or less I think.

 

[Sourdust]

Yeah, I heard good things about it, too, but found it to be a really shapeless mess of fuzzy un-SF, really.

Oh dear. I suppose I should actually read these things rather than repeating second-hand buzz.

Well, Kincaid's misplaced cynicism is understandable considering his position, but I wouldn't declare the entire genre dead just yet.

I don't think he declares it dead, just stagnant, or treading (fantasy-flavoured) water. That doesn't mean there aren't many good writers currently active, or that some sort of renaissance might not be around the corner. (Of course, the likes of David G. Hartwell would argue that that already happened in the 90s with the New Space Opera.)

I think maybe one of the problems (re adventure) is that the standard adventure formulas are now so familiar that genre writers feel they ought to try writing 'deeper', more character-focussed stories (because that's what gets their literary brethren kudos), something they're not always terribly good at.

 

[biodroid]

Do you have to read Warhammer novels in order?

 

[mp1]

I recently read through the Kollin brothers series,( The Unincorporated Man) and found it to have a compelling plot line. Its worth looking into.

 

[Gramm838]

Do you have to read Warhammer novels in order?

Not really - most of them can be read as stand-alone books, although there are some that are best read in sequence - The Eldar Path sequence for one.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I'm thinking action-adventure was the wrong way to describe what I'm looking for. I'm not interested in Die Hard in Space (that would be cool though), what I'm looking for in well-plotted SF. something with an engaging story that doesn't focus on characters sitting and talking exclusively. An SF novel where something actually happens.

An example of what I'm hoping to avoid: Red Mars. The first 50 or so pages is an engaging political story of the first colony on Mars. Which is then replaced with a travelogue of how they got there that is, quite frankly, some of the dullest fiction I've ever read. Aside from a few minor incidents nothing much at all happens for the next few hundred pages.

But the original examples for what I am looking for hold. Good sf with an engaging plot. And honestly I have zero interest in Warhammer of any stripe after the hubbub over their claim of copyright on the term space marine.

 

[AE35Unit]

You gotta try Neal Asher. Action right from the get go!

 

[Connavar]

I dont read Warhammer type books, there is ton of great,good action adventure SF by quality SF writers.

Look up Science Fantasy action in space type authors series like Jack Vance: The Planet of Adventure, Leigh Brackett: John Erik Stark.

There are too many SF authors, books to let few dull,bad books get in the way of a whole genre full of 1000s of authors and centuries of books.

 

[Grunkins]

I prescribe Iain M Banks' Culture books for any SF wants. If you haven't read them, give them a shot. Consider Phlebas, Use of Weapons, Excession, Surface Detail all jump out as good candidates for what you are looking for.

 

[J-Sun]

I prescribe Iain M Banks' Culture books for any SF wants. If you haven't read them, give them a shot. Consider Phlebas, Use of Weapons, Excession, Surface Detail all jump out as good candidates for what you are looking for.

Mm, I dunno - I haven't read Excession (it's next after I finish the one I'm on) or Surface Detail but Use of Weapons has two plotlines where one runs backwards and most of both are supposed to be a big surprise - IOW, it's convoluted... and long. Consider Phlebas would be much closer but has the ridiculous Eater excursion which does nothing for the plot and, again, is long, with extended action sequences which might be what the OP wants but are over-extended. Though the iceberg/watership scene is pretty freakin' exciting. I dunno - I just find that, however good Banks may or may not be, he suffers from a similar "big loose wandering book syndrome" that most people these days do.

Oh dear. I suppose I should actually read these things rather than repeating second-hand buzz.

Well, nah, that's kind of the nature of buzz (even if this book seems to have more industry-generated than genuine buzz than some) and that was just my opinion of the book - some people disagree.

 

[AndrewT]

Consider Phlebas would be much closer but has the ridiculous Eater excursion which does nothing for the plot and, again, is long, with extended action sequences which might be what the OP wants but are over-extended. Though the iceberg/watership scene is pretty freakin' exciting. I dunno - I just find that, however good Banks may or may not be, he suffers from a similar "big loose wandering book syndrome" that most people these days do.