Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Books => Topic started by: guessingo on April 27, 2010, 01:50:23 AM
-
I am looking for recommendations. I grabbed Peter Hamiltons "Netronium Alchemist" at the library (it was the only one of his they had at that branch). Is that one of his good ones?
I heard Iain Banks is good. What book do you recommend?
Here are some of the ones I have read and what I think
The books could be older, but I prefer if its believable science. Not interested in a book where people live on Venus.
Stephen Baxter: Voyage is GREAT. Timeships (sequel to HG Wells the Time Machine) was good and In the Light of Other Days is one of my favorite books. Did not like Titan.
Robert Heinlein: Like Starship Troopers, did not like Stranger in a Strange Land
Neal Stephenson: Like Snow Crash. Been meaning to read more of him, but never have.
William Gibson: Like Neuromancer, but read it a long time ago so don't really remember it
Kim Stanley Robinson: Mar Series, very good, but took me a while to make my way through them.
Greg Bear: Darwins Radio. I like this. I just grabbed City at the End of Time on audio from the library
Stephen Sawyer: Liked Flash Forward(it is different from the TV Series). I read this 10 years ago.
Kevin J. Anderson: I have the first book from his Space opera on reserve on audio at the library.
Not looking for Alternative History. Some people might list Harry Turtledove as hard. I have read a dozen of his books and not looking for more.
-
My husband read Consider Phlebas by Iain Banks and really, really liked it.
I would also highly recommend Sun of Suns by Karl Schroeder. And anything else by Schroeder, actually.
-
http://www.timewastersguide.com/review/1599/Chasm-City
or
http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1502
-
Dragon's Egg by Robert Forward. Hard hard SF, and a great book. (Not part of a series.) (Also, it has nothing to do with dragons. It's about life on the surface of a neutron star.) (Oh wait, I guess there is a sequel. I should check it out.)
-
Dragon's Egg by Robert Forward. Hard hard SF, and a great book. (Not part of a series.) (Also, it has nothing to do with dragons. It's about life on the surface of a neutron star.) (Oh wait, I guess there is a sequel. I should check it out.)
(Peter.)(You should more parentheses.)(I hear they are awesome.)(Only cool people use them well.)
-
Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
Scalzi, Old Man's War
Ursula K. Le Guin, Left Hand of Darkness
Asimov, Foundation
Gibson, Sequels to Neuromancer (idk the first title but the second is Mona Lisa Overdrive)
Herbert, Dune
Niven, Mote in God's Eye
-
Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
Scalzi, Old Man's War
Ursula K. Le Guin, Left Hand of Darkness
Asimov, Foundation
Gibson, Sequels to Neuromancer (idk the first title but the second is Mona Lisa Overdrive)
Herbert, Dune
Niven, Mote in God's Eye
Scalzi isn't even close to hard SF. It's Hollywood, popcorn, military SF. Dune isn't hard SF either. Most of your list is pretty mellow compared to, say, Peter Hamilton.
-
Have you read Arthur C. Clarke? His is the hardest SF I've read. I mean, the man came up with the idea of geostationary communications satellites, and we're still working on his space elevator concept. The main problem with the science in his books is that they were written in an era when America still cared about space exploration, so he quite overestimated the progress of space technology. (2001: A Space Odyssey is about a manned mission to Saturn...in 2001.)
-
Have you read Arthur C. Clarke?
Rendezvous with Rama is my favorite of his.
-
Just about anything by Ben Bova is great.
-
@oponn: I tried left hand of darkness 10 years ago. I couldn't stand it. The whole 3 gender thing struck me as pointless. I felt like she was trying to make political points and not trying to entertain. If I want to be taught a lesson, I will read non-fiction or historical fiction(I read alot of both).
@bookstore: Which Peter F. Hamilton books do you recommend. I grabbed The Neutronium Alchemist from the library. It was the only book of his they had at that branch.
@ryos: I liked Rendevous with Rama by Clark. He wrote a book with Stephen Baxter called The light of other Days which is one of my all time favorite books. It is not a big seller so most people have not heard of it. I got bored with the movies of 2001 and 2010. I doubt I would like those books. I read reviews of the sequels to Rendevous with Rama and read they were not good.
Heinlein: I liked Starship troops alot. Way better then the movie. I did not like Stranger in a Strange Land, though I do drop "I grok it" on people at work just to get the funny looks.
-
Dune has plenty of fantasy overtones, doesn't make it less of a Sci-Fi staple. And i don't get what you mean by Old Man's war being anything akin to Holywood, it feels real unlike Holywood. Also, Asimov is the King of Hard Sci-Fi.
-
why make this kind of distinction? I dont really get it. Hard or.. soft? or is it "Difficult" or not?
I think what is "hard" or "difficult" varies by person. whatis simplistuc and boring to one, may be challenging and interesting to another. plus, what are you basing the qualities on? Technical confusion? Elizabethan prose?
-
why make this kind of distinction? I dont really get it. Hard or.. soft? or is it "Difficult" or not?
I think what is "hard" or "difficult" varies by person. whatis simplistuc and boring to one, may be challenging and interesting to another. plus, what are you basing the qualities on? Technical confusion? Elizabethan prose?
Hard science fiction is a category of science fiction characterized by an emphasis on scientific or technical detail, or on scientific accuracy, or on both.
-
The "hard" vs "soft" distinction is a traditional one based on how scientific something is and has nothing to do with "difficult." The more fact-based and possible the science is, the harder the science fiction. The more impossible the science is according to current knowledge, the softer the science fiction.
Star Wars is very soft. A book like Stephen Baxter's Titan, where it takes 6 years to fly to Saturn, is hard. (Though there's a big soft element at the end of that book, and a lot of sociopolitical stuff happening back on Earth during the book.)
-
The distinction has been made amongst SF readership for a long time. Hard SF typically involves fairly heavy science. The Harder the SF, the more in depth and difficult the science becomes to grasp by the typical reader. And I don't mean difficult to grasp as in the author making stuff up (like Peter said). When story and plot advancement (as well as for characters) depend on the reader understanding advanced principles in the various specialties of physics, it's Hard SF, and not everyone wants that.
As for why the distinction? A lot of readers simply don't want Hard SF (or the reverse). Some people feel that the Harder the SF, the less focused it is on story and character. That isn't always the case, but sometimes it's true. Sure there is some leeway based on the intelligence of the average person, but THAT is what genres are for anyway: the average reader.
Edit: That was a serious mind-meld we just had, Peter. High-five.
-
Heh. I think we attacked the explanation from different angles.
It is possible for the science in a book to be very hard, yet for it to be a very character-driven novel. In that case the "hard" label is not a very important one in determining what reader will enjoy it.
Ultimately it's all a question of labeling. Sometimes labeling is useful, and sometimes it's not.
-
ok, i think I get it.
From Peter: it has to be within the realm of possible while also being at least within it's own frame, technically sound. Which, in my opinion, removes Old Man's War and Dune from the list, would probably also rule out Pohl and Chalker as well.
From BSG: it has to be heavy on the technical aspect of whatever science it uses, without necessarily being slaved to the realm of possibilities.
-
Heh. I think we attacked the explanation from different angles.
It is possible for the science in a book to be very hard, yet for it to be a very character-driven novel. In that case the "hard" label is not a very important one in determining what reader will enjoy it.
Ultimately it's all a question of labeling. Sometimes labeling is useful, and sometimes it's not.
Totally. We know that. The general public doesn't. A majority of people, in my opinion, assume that Hard SF sacrifices character and story to get into hard-core science.
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Hard SF. I think it CAN be good, but I don't want to feel like I need to take University classes in quantum physics to understand what the heck is going on.
mtlhddoc2--That's exactly why I would remove OMW from the list, and Dune as well. Great novels, but not even close to Hard SF.
-
I would consider Old Man's War military space opera. Harder than Star Trek. It attempts explanations of FTL, but they all rely on "there's stuff we don't understand yet." The genetics is fairly hard, and the consciousness transfer method is as hard as consciousness transfer is going to get (it attempts a hard explanation, but I think a lot of scientists wouldn't buy it).
Dune is also rather soft--the hardest part of its science is the stillsuits, but the way the spice works is all soft.
-
I would consider Old Man's War military space opera. Harder than Star Trek. It attempts explanations of FTL, but they all rely on "there's stuff we don't understand yet." The genetics is fairly hard, and the consciousness transfer method is as hard as consciousness transfer is going to get (it attempts a hard explanation, but I think a lot of scientists wouldn't buy it).
Dune is also rather soft--the hardest part of its science is the stillsuits, but the way the spice works is all soft.
Yup. Though with OMW, the military aspect is Hollywoodized. Nothing wrong with that, but most of the troops I know say they prefer Military SF by people who were in the military. Much more authentic.
Oddly, I have realized I like Fantasy written like it is SF, and SF like it is Fantasy.
-
So again, which Peter F Hamilton books would you recommend.
@Peter: I read a few books by Stephen Baxter. Titan is by far the weakest. It is a cheap nock off of a much better book by hime called Voyage. Voyage is a GREAT BOOK. It is what happens if the mars mission was not killed by Nixon and we decided to go to mars in 1986. He adds some alternative history stuff to it to come up with a way nixon could not kill it. In this one, JFK is not killed, but his wife is, but he is so wounded that he has to resign which of course turns him into an epic character. During the first moon mission Nixon brings him in to talk to the Astronauts on live TV and he challenges the US to go onward to mars. Which of course would make it totally impossible to kill the Mars mission. GREAT BOOK. Now to be fair, Baxter is an engineer by trade so he basically ignroes the insane cost of going to mars, but its a great book about how we might have done it.
My favorite book by Baxter is one he co-wrote with Arthur C Clark called The of Other Days. This is not a big seller. It imagines a device that allows you to see anywhere in the world at any time. So anyone can watch you at any time, so you have no privacy at all. It also makes it impossible to commit crimes. Great book. He has a megalomaniac news guy who uses it to get scoops on news stories. Hardly anyone actually read it.
@Bookstore: I get you on the needing a science degree. There are very good lay non-fiction hard science books. Stephen Hawkings books are very good. So are Brian Greene's. If you are interested.
Has anyone read Scalzi's Novella The God Engines? My library does not have it and it is awful expensive for a novella. Iw onder if it is worth getting.
-
Scalzi is ex-military, and my point still stands on Asimov being the King of Hard Sci-Fi (he was a physics prof published and all the rest)
-
I dont think scalzi was ever int he military.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/about/a-brief-biography-of-john-scalzi/
The famous sci-fi author who writes military sci-fi that is ex-military is Joe Haldeman
He may have written the best military sci-fi book of all time. Here is the wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forever_War
-
As far as Peter Hamilton goes, I'd go with the old stand-bys The Reality Dysfunction (the series that is in). One I haven't read, but sounds awesome is Fallen Dragon. Like I said, I don't read much Hard SF.
The God Engines? It was a limited release from Subterranean Press, so the chances of it being in the library are slim. You can get it on amazon for $14 though. Then you could prolly flip it on ebay and recoup all your money spent.
Scalzi has no military experience, but like most of us, he has family that has served.
Asimov is classic. No arguments here.
You know...now that I'm thinking about it, I think I have an ARC of a Stephen Baxter novel. Yup, ARK. I'll have to read that.
-
Asimov was a popular science writer. He wrote on scientific topics in a way that the masses could understand--most of his books were nonfiction and he has books in every Dewey Decimal system category. But I would not say that he was a particularly awesome scientist or particularly hard SF writer.
If you read Asimov's autobiographies you'll find that when he came back from the Navy after World War II to defend his doctoral dissertation (biochemistry, not physics), the field had progressed so far during the war years that he almost didn't pass his defense. He recognized that biochemistry had basically passed him up and he wasn't all that interested in staying on the cutting edge. From that point forward he was pretty much a science writer rather than a scientist/researcher. I don't think that's a bad thing at all—writing was what he was good at, and he was REALLY good at it. His nonfiction books are great.
In terms of writing books that are not particularly focused on emotional human interaction, Asimov certainly would be classed as harder SF. However, a lot of his science was hokey. There was no particular reason for using positrons in his robots except that it sounded cool. Psychohistory is basically pseudoscientific. He eventually has characters with psychic powers, which were popular in the day but hardly hard SF.
Caves of Steel is a very good SF detective novel. And the middle section of The Gods Themselves (there are 3 sections) is a fantastic alien culture in a universe with slightly different laws of physics. (I could lose the first and third parts of the book easily, but the second part is GREAT.) Also, his humor stories are hilarious.
-
Elizabeth Moon is also ex-military writing military SF. So is David Drake.
-
David Drake was an intense individual, and super interesting when I ran into him at World Fantasy.
-
I have Speed of Dark by Elizabeth moon on audio sitting in my car. I am going to listen to it after I finish Greg Bear's The City at The End of time.
I read some of the Foundation books. I did not like Asimov's writing style. Nothing happens until the last page of a chapter, then nothing happens until the last page of a book. It Annoyed me.
I saw someone liked George Mann under the What are you reading now? Is he Hard SF?
-
George Mann is Steampunk. Specifically, Sherlock Holmes-style Steampunk and Batman-style Steampunk.
-
I heard that Scott Westerfields Leviathan is a good steampunk novel.