Books: Science Fiction

by rrusczyk, Sep 13, 2008, 4:03 AM

I'm 8-10 books (at least) behind in my book blogging and fearing I might not ever catch up, but I'll try this weekend. One of the reasons I'm so far behind in my blogging is that vRusczyk and I took a 5-day vacation in Wyoming this week. More on that, with pics, later. But now, back to books. Four 2-hour flights and two 3.5 hour layovers gave me lots of time to read.

Among a few other books, I read the first three Charles Stross Merchant Princes books, which reminded me a lot of what I like and don't like in science fiction writing. Back in middle and high school, I read a lot of science fiction, and I'm guessing more than a few AoPSers do, too. I read it because I liked new ideas an alternate possibilities. I still like science fiction for these reasons, but not that many of the ideas are new for me, anymore. Moreover, the writing quality in science fiction is rarely high, even though the stories themselves are quite compelling. (This goes for some of the scifi TV shows, too, like Battlestar Galactica, though Firefly is a notable exception.) In addition to the writing, well, Gregg Easterbrook noted that in order to watch/read science fiction, you have to be willing to overlook at least a few plot turns in every story that involve a person acting in a way no real person ever would. I think that's a pretty accurate observation, and I've seen few exceptions. But I still like a good sci-fi story every once in a while, maybe because I need a light story to enjoy, but probably mainly because it's fun to be engaged by different possibilities that are very far from our own reality, but still based in a somewhat internally consistent logic.

I had an interesting conversation with Sandor once about science fiction. Specifically, he made a claim along the lines that an adult who reads science fiction exclusively should raise red flags to potential employers. It wasn't something I had ever thought about, but I think he's right. An exclusive reader of science fiction is very likely someone who is so immersed in what might be or what they think should be that he can't ever work with what actually is. (To all you middle and high school students who read only sci-fi, no worries -- I did the same. To those of you who are older and still only reading sci-fi, it's time to expand your horizons into the real world. There's some good stuff out here.)

Oh, and for what it's worth, the Merchant Princes books are a good beach read, even if the writing is sometimes ridiculously over-the-top (almost film noirish at times), and I could imagine its commentary on economics as being extremely illuminating when I was in high school, if only because they never taught anything remotely interesting in high school (and, I confess, college) econ classes.

Comment

2 Comments

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
I heard a good theory on Science Fiction but I cannot remember the source. Basically SF is a study of human nature. By putting "human" characters (even if they are cyborg mutants) into increasingly alien environments, the science fiction author is basically asking "what makes us human?" Are we just products of the environment with which we are familiar, or would we act the same if that environment were radically (or subtly) changed? I think the same can be said for historical fiction which presents us with environments that are just as alien to us in some ways as the present.

Examples of a character doing something "inhuman" in a science fiction story are a failure of the genre rather than typical. A good example might be the contrast between Firefly and Star Trek. I am a big fan of the former because while there is plenty of fantasy, it is not hard to believe real people would act like these characters when faced with the same circumstances. By contrast, the Star Trek universe which supposedly has evolved beyond the need for "money" doesn't feel plausible on any level (except as a study of 1960's utopianism).

Personally, I am a big fan of Neal Stephenson and looking forward to reading Anathem (but I do read a lot more than SF :-)

by djcordeiro, Sep 14, 2008, 4:10 PM

The post below has been deleted. Click to close.
This post has been deleted. Click here to see post.
I think all good fiction explores human nature, and I think your comment highlights the difference between what I would call good science fiction and the rest of science fiction. Good science fiction doesn't leave the human nature behind. But a lot of science fiction gets so wrapped up in its story, that it treats the humans and their motives/feelings/actions as secondary.

As an example, consider the new Battlestar Galactica. There's one character that causes the series nearly fatal problems -- Gaius. It's not that his character doesn't act human, or that his character is annoyingly awful (it is, but that's not the fatal flaw). It's the reaction of all the *other* human characters to Gaius in the first two seasons. He's portrayed as palpably unstable and untrustworthy (and not just to the viewer, but to the other characters). There's no way humans would trust him as much as they do in the show. But the show needed him to be trusted. (I think there was an easy fix -- not make Gaius visibly unstable. Have a lot more double-meaning conversations in which what he is saying fits both the conversation he is having with the humans and the one he is having with his Cylon. This would have enhanced his "genius" image in the eyes of the viewer, and not made it unbelievable that the humans trust him.)

But maybe I've just watched Firefly, and that's ruined me for other sci-fi. Tough to beat that as a study of human nature, government, etc.

by rrusczyk, Sep 18, 2008, 2:00 PM

Come Search With Me

avatar

rrusczyk
Archives
+ December 2011
+ September 2011
+ August 2011
+ March 2011
+ June 2006
AMC
Tags
About Owner
  • Posts: 16194
  • Joined: Mar 28, 2003
Blog Stats
  • Blog created: Jan 28, 2005
  • Total entries: 940
  • Total visits: 3311153
  • Total comments: 3879
Search Blog
a