Science Fiction: Films vs Books

[Lilmizflashythang]

Good, then we have an agreement. I look for stories that end well for the protagonists, and I don't really care what the genre is. Except for Romance. Not reading that one.

 

[GWakeling]

Yeah, I've never been able to get into romance. I don't mind some subtle romance/relationship as part of a good fantasy or SF read, but not as the core element.

 

[Connavar]

Science fiction being hard for casual readers is an old myth i think that doesnt count as much as before. Thanks to the many famous SF YA book and film series that are from bestseller SF YA books. Hunger Games, I Am Number, Divergent were big bestseller way before they were films.

I have friends, siblings who never read a fantasy or SF books before they started reading all these famous YA SF series. They are mainstream like Harry Potter was to non-fantasy readers. Easy fast paced versions of SF that are easy for people who dont want Hard SF or more serious SF books of other types.

 

[Mirannan]

Connavar - SF can be hard for casual readers; about that, I disagree with you.

The SF works that are easy to digest tend to be ones that are slight extensions of current trends, which usually means near-future - and works that are really of another genre entirely with a thin plating of SF goodies ("Westerns with blasters" for example).

The difficult ones are those that indulge in cutting-edge speculation, or perhaps play around with something really basic in human nature and see what happens. Examples: virtually anything by Greg Egan in the first category, Ursula LeGuin's "Left Hand of Darkness" in the second.

Just my opinion, natch.

Just what constitutes a near-future SF story as opposed to, for example, a technothriller is a matter of definition - and of marketing; for example, Dale Brown's stories centreing on advanced experimental weapons systems are not marketed as SF and the reason is at least partly because if they were, they would sell fewer copies. Quite a lot of people avoid anything marketed as SF.

 

[Connavar]

Connavar - SF can be hard for casual readers; about that, I disagree with you.

The SF works that are easy to digest tend to be ones that are slight extensions of current trends, which usually means near-future - and works that are really of another genre entirely with a thin plating of SF goodies ("Westerns with blasters" for example).

The difficult ones are those that indulge in cutting-edge speculation, or perhaps play around with something really basic in human nature and see what happens. Examples: virtually anything by Greg Egan in the first category, Ursula LeGuin's "Left Hand of Darkness" in the second.

Just my opinion, natch.

Just what constitutes a near-future SF story as opposed to, for example, a technothriller is a matter of definition - and of marketing; for example, Dale Brown's stories centreing on advanced experimental weapons systems are not marketed as SF and the reason is at least partly because if they were, they would sell fewer copies. Quite a lot of people avoid anything marketed as SF.

Of course Hard SF, social SF or any other dense serious SF books are hard for casual readers. I have read 100s of SF books and i still find Hard SF stories to be hard to read if it is not a strong storyteller who writes it.

What i meant is there is many subgenres that are easier to read. YA versions are easier read than Hard SF. Military SF, Space Opera is the blockbuster light reads of SF genre. Techothriller is action, thriller in SF mold

You cant say all of the wide genre is hard for casual readers.