Sci Sci Fi
December 30, 2015 12:26 PM Subscribe
I read Out of the Silent Planet recently. Not half bad. Are the sequels worth reading?
posted by duffell at 12:56 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by duffell at 12:56 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Certainly if you like that one, at least the second one is worth reading. The last one is a bit different in tone and setting.
posted by Wolfdog at 12:58 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Wolfdog at 12:58 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
related? Great Science Fiction by Scientists is a superb collection from the golden age.
posted by j_curiouser at 1:03 PM on December 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by j_curiouser at 1:03 PM on December 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
I wish they'd consulted a broader range of scientists (and gotten more responses), but I'm surprised that several people recommended sf books that touched on subjects within their field. Chemistry is usually taken for granted by sf writers (for some reason, libertarians in SPACE! still prefer a gold standard over one involving a more useful metal such as palladium or rhodium), but I've definitely bounced off of more than one story just because I couldn't suspend my professional sense of disbelief. I would have suspected the same from people in other fields.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 1:12 PM on December 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by steady-state strawberry at 1:12 PM on December 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
geraint is still in astronomy :o) that's nice to know. if he happens to hear he's been linked on mefi and comes here... hi!
posted by andrewcooke at 1:19 PM on December 30, 2015
posted by andrewcooke at 1:19 PM on December 30, 2015
^f GENE WOLFE
0 results
/thread
posted by I-Write-Essays at 1:27 PM on December 30, 2015 [4 favorites]
0 results
/thread
posted by I-Write-Essays at 1:27 PM on December 30, 2015 [4 favorites]
The Truman Show nature/nurture thing was new to me. Never considered that, that it's Truman's nature that breaks free of Christof's nurture.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:00 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:00 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
I read Out of the Silent Planet recently. Not half bad. Are the sequels worth reading?
I barely made it through the second.
Found the series old, stale and far more preachy than the first, but it's certainly worth giving it a try, since you ask.
posted by Mezentian at 2:05 PM on December 30, 2015
I barely made it through the second.
Found the series old, stale and far more preachy than the first, but it's certainly worth giving it a try, since you ask.
posted by Mezentian at 2:05 PM on December 30, 2015
Heh. Scientists just as prone to the "it's hard science! With telepathy and space gods!" Thing as everybody else it seems.
Also - Space Archeologist?
posted by Artw at 2:17 PM on December 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
Also - Space Archeologist?
posted by Artw at 2:17 PM on December 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
Space Archeologist?
What? A small part of you doesn't want to be Max Eilerson?
posted by Mezentian at 2:23 PM on December 30, 2015
What? A small part of you doesn't want to be Max Eilerson?
posted by Mezentian at 2:23 PM on December 30, 2015
Matthew Browne is the best scientist.
do Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars books hold up, science-wise?
Oh HELL no.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:24 PM on December 30, 2015 [4 favorites]
do Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars books hold up, science-wise?
Oh HELL no.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:24 PM on December 30, 2015 [4 favorites]
To be fair, the Mars books were more accurate before we landed robots on Mars.
posted by Mezentian at 2:27 PM on December 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Mezentian at 2:27 PM on December 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
The Mars books have the colonists attempting to terraform mars by using windmill-powered heating units. That's all I have to say about that.
posted by Justinian at 2:55 PM on December 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:55 PM on December 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm a scientist. May I weigh in? I haven't read "Rendezvous with Rama" in a long time, but as an undergraduate I sure loved it. Later I loved Stanislaw Lem's "Pirx the Pilot" stories.
posted by acrasis at 2:59 PM on December 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by acrasis at 2:59 PM on December 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
I don't know about KSR's Mars trilogy, but a while ago, I ran the acknowledgments from 2312 past my aunt (an actual planetary geologist) and she knew a number of them personally, so he's at least speaking to people who know what they're talking about.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 3:05 PM on December 30, 2015
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 3:05 PM on December 30, 2015
> I read Out of the Silent Planet recently. Not half bad. Are the sequels worth reading?
Depends on how you feel about Lewis dropping anvils about his Christian theology. Because I encountered it first, as a radio reading on the Beeb, I "read" the first sequel Perelandra before reading, on paper, Out of the Silent Planet. It's set on a fanciful Venus. After reading those two, admittedly out of order, I was not enthused enough to complete the trilogy.
Could be me; though: I thought the science fictional elements of the space travel were interesting enough, but the fantasy lost me (as nearly all fantasy does); I couldn't engage with Ray Bradbury's Martian Chronicles for the same reason.
posted by Sunburnt at 3:17 PM on December 30, 2015
Depends on how you feel about Lewis dropping anvils about his Christian theology. Because I encountered it first, as a radio reading on the Beeb, I "read" the first sequel Perelandra before reading, on paper, Out of the Silent Planet. It's set on a fanciful Venus. After reading those two, admittedly out of order, I was not enthused enough to complete the trilogy.
Could be me; though: I thought the science fictional elements of the space travel were interesting enough, but the fantasy lost me (as nearly all fantasy does); I couldn't engage with Ray Bradbury's Martian Chronicles for the same reason.
posted by Sunburnt at 3:17 PM on December 30, 2015
I get very nervous when I hear scientists talk favorably about science fiction. There is so, so very little about science fiction that is scientific. It's basically fantasy and magic without the elves and orcs. I'm not sure they appreciate that fact. I'd be more comfortable if scientists read literary fiction, or, if necessary, mysteries. Any fiction by Nabokov, Melville, or even Arthur Conan Doyle is 1,000 times more "scientific" than any Heinlein, Asimov, et al, inasmuch as it includes accurate observations of reality. Robin Hanson wrote an interesting blog post on this subject: "Science Fiction is Fantasy".
posted by Modest House at 3:20 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Modest House at 3:20 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Mars books have the colonists attempting to terraform mars by using windmill-powered heating units. That's all I have to say about that.
Well, we know about the strong winds from The Martian.
posted by Artw at 3:33 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, we know about the strong winds from The Martian.
posted by Artw at 3:33 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
> "The Mars books have the colonists attempting to terraform mars by using windmill-powered heating units. That's all I have to say about that."
To be fair, every single time that comes up in the books after it happens, it is in the context of people saying, "Boy, that was a stupid idea."
Honestly, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it turned out to be a reference to an earlier piece of Mars-related fiction; the Mars series was full of little in-jokes or callbacks to books by Golden-Age authors like Burroughs, Moore, Dick, Heinlein, Clarke, etc., often recontextualizing them to a more updated view of Mars (although one that is now again somewhat outdated as we learn yet more.)
> "There is so, so very little about science fiction that is scientific. It's basically fantasy and magic without the elves and orcs."
So what?
I don't go to fiction for science lessons. I go to science books for science lessons. And a good thing too, because fiction tends to be, you know, fictional.
Science fiction AND fantasy can be, at their best, ways to look at what society might be like if things were different. If certain trends continue, if certain things were reversed, if power was in other hands, if everything simply worked differently. They can be ways to teach us about our own society by examining it from a context outside of what we know. From the point of view of the other, the alien, the projected future, the past that wasn't, the universe that isn't quite our own. They can be ways to tell stories about our fears -- of what technology is doing to us, of what we are doing to others, or to the place where we live, of what we regret about our legacy; and also our hopes -- for what we might achieve, for how we might improve, for what are the best ways to live.
I can't think of anything better for a scientist to read. Except maybe for the rest of the great works of literature, too, which are also awesome and look at some of the same ideas and some that are different.
If I want the facts, there are plenty of textbooks.
posted by kyrademon at 3:44 PM on December 30, 2015 [21 favorites]
To be fair, every single time that comes up in the books after it happens, it is in the context of people saying, "Boy, that was a stupid idea."
Honestly, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it turned out to be a reference to an earlier piece of Mars-related fiction; the Mars series was full of little in-jokes or callbacks to books by Golden-Age authors like Burroughs, Moore, Dick, Heinlein, Clarke, etc., often recontextualizing them to a more updated view of Mars (although one that is now again somewhat outdated as we learn yet more.)
> "There is so, so very little about science fiction that is scientific. It's basically fantasy and magic without the elves and orcs."
So what?
I don't go to fiction for science lessons. I go to science books for science lessons. And a good thing too, because fiction tends to be, you know, fictional.
Science fiction AND fantasy can be, at their best, ways to look at what society might be like if things were different. If certain trends continue, if certain things were reversed, if power was in other hands, if everything simply worked differently. They can be ways to teach us about our own society by examining it from a context outside of what we know. From the point of view of the other, the alien, the projected future, the past that wasn't, the universe that isn't quite our own. They can be ways to tell stories about our fears -- of what technology is doing to us, of what we are doing to others, or to the place where we live, of what we regret about our legacy; and also our hopes -- for what we might achieve, for how we might improve, for what are the best ways to live.
I can't think of anything better for a scientist to read. Except maybe for the rest of the great works of literature, too, which are also awesome and look at some of the same ideas and some that are different.
If I want the facts, there are plenty of textbooks.
posted by kyrademon at 3:44 PM on December 30, 2015 [21 favorites]
> If I want the facts, there are plenty of textbooks.
If I want the facts, there's Greg Egan; no matter the facts are for the wrong universe.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 3:47 PM on December 30, 2015 [13 favorites]
If I want the facts, there's Greg Egan; no matter the facts are for the wrong universe.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 3:47 PM on December 30, 2015 [13 favorites]
No Ted Chiang?
posted by benzenedream at 3:57 PM on December 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 3:57 PM on December 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well, we know about the strong winds from The Martian
He promises to get it right in the sequel, the forthcoming The Neptunian.
posted by Wolfdog at 4:00 PM on December 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
He promises to get it right in the sequel, the forthcoming The Neptunian.
posted by Wolfdog at 4:00 PM on December 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
I hear there are powerful winds around Uranus.
posted by Artw at 4:04 PM on December 30, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Artw at 4:04 PM on December 30, 2015 [7 favorites]
Yes, that's true, and they've been more perceptibly active since the equinox, but still, the greatest measures wind speeds there are only about one half of Neptune's. Something to do with the much lower heat flux, probably, which remains an interesting mystery of the solar system. It's good that you mention it.
posted by Wolfdog at 4:09 PM on December 30, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Wolfdog at 4:09 PM on December 30, 2015 [4 favorites]
The Mars books have the colonists attempting to terraform mars by using windmill-powered heating units. That's all I have to say about that.
Don't forget the time Arkady and someone are flying in a dirigible caught in a storm, so they have the brilliant idea to stick windmills into the windstream to power their props. And it produces forward motion.
To be fair, every single time that comes up in the books after it happens, it is in the context of people saying, "Boy, that was a stupid idea."
Only in the "it didn't have much effect" sense, when in reality it would be totally fundamentally impossible for it to have any effect whatsoever. You use energy in the air to heat a heating coil which heats the air, putting the energy back into the air again.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:13 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Don't forget the time Arkady and someone are flying in a dirigible caught in a storm, so they have the brilliant idea to stick windmills into the windstream to power their props. And it produces forward motion.
To be fair, every single time that comes up in the books after it happens, it is in the context of people saying, "Boy, that was a stupid idea."
Only in the "it didn't have much effect" sense, when in reality it would be totally fundamentally impossible for it to have any effect whatsoever. You use energy in the air to heat a heating coil which heats the air, putting the energy back into the air again.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:13 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
(just to be clear, I love the RGB Mars books to bits. They're still silly though.)
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:32 PM on December 30, 2015
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:32 PM on December 30, 2015
Any fiction by Nabokov, Melville, or even Arthur Conan Doyle is 1,000 times more "scientific" than any Heinlein, Asimov, et al, inasmuch as it includes accurate observations of reality.
I'm okay with inspiring young minds to go to the moon rather than inspiring them to hunt whales, but your parsecage may vary.
posted by Etrigan at 4:47 PM on December 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm okay with inspiring young minds to go to the moon rather than inspiring them to hunt whales, but your parsecage may vary.
posted by Etrigan at 4:47 PM on December 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think if I were asked to choose one sf book that deflected the development of my young brain into entirely new paths, that had the most powerful influence on me as a youngster, I'd have a lot of trouble doing it. My shortlist would probably include two of the ones mentioned -- Ringworld and The Hitchhiker's Guide -- and maybe Wolfe's Shadow of The Torturer.
I'm actually a few books in to rereading the Culture series in order of publication at the moment, and I'm sure that they collectively would figure large if I'd been born 20 years later and been reading them as an early teen, too.
I'm just not very good at answering 'what is your favorite X' questions for any value of X, I think.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:31 PM on December 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm actually a few books in to rereading the Culture series in order of publication at the moment, and I'm sure that they collectively would figure large if I'd been born 20 years later and been reading them as an early teen, too.
I'm just not very good at answering 'what is your favorite X' questions for any value of X, I think.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:31 PM on December 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
I really loved some of Heinlein's juveniles, too, thinking back. They were some of the sf, appropriately enough, that got me into the genre in the first place at 9 or 10 years old, I think.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:33 PM on December 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:33 PM on December 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
I am always a bit bummed that these lists are always about the "hard" sciences - science fiction is also hugely influential in the social sciences. As a economic sociologist, I find that a lot of my colleagues are science fiction readers, and that it inspires our work as well.
My picks for hard social science fiction off the top of my head (more suggestions wanted):
Max Barry's Lexicon, which does a chilling job taking behavioral psych to the next level
Early Neal Stephenson (especially Diamond Age, where the Young Ladies Illustrated Primer has served as a model for adaptive learning among a lot of us looking at radical approaches to education)
Ian Banks, for interesting approaches to thinking about how societies organize
Charlie Stross, who has done a better job thinking through the economics of space opera than anyone else
Asimov, whose psycho-history inspired me as a kid, even though it turns out to be super impossible.
I like some of the socialist science fiction as well (Melville, etc) but it never strikes me as being drawn from underlying social science, though I am sure political scientists would have a different list.
Any other suggestions?
posted by blahblahblah at 7:04 PM on December 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
My picks for hard social science fiction off the top of my head (more suggestions wanted):
Max Barry's Lexicon, which does a chilling job taking behavioral psych to the next level
Early Neal Stephenson (especially Diamond Age, where the Young Ladies Illustrated Primer has served as a model for adaptive learning among a lot of us looking at radical approaches to education)
Ian Banks, for interesting approaches to thinking about how societies organize
Charlie Stross, who has done a better job thinking through the economics of space opera than anyone else
Asimov, whose psycho-history inspired me as a kid, even though it turns out to be super impossible.
I like some of the socialist science fiction as well (Melville, etc) but it never strikes me as being drawn from underlying social science, though I am sure political scientists would have a different list.
Any other suggestions?
posted by blahblahblah at 7:04 PM on December 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
Depends on how you feel about Lewis dropping anvils about his Christian theology.
I'm a huge religion nerd and generally a fan of scifi and fantasy, so I usually find Lewis fascinating, even when I don't agree with him (which is often). Religious overtones (and even religious obvious-tones) are not a problem for me. Preachiness is, however. The Chronicles of Narnia got preachier as the series progressed, IIRC. I wouldn't be surprised to find the same is true of his space trilogy. (For what it's worth, Philip Pullman sure as fuck got preachier as His Dark Materials progressed, too, though I am a fan.)
posted by duffell at 7:11 PM on December 30, 2015
I'm a huge religion nerd and generally a fan of scifi and fantasy, so I usually find Lewis fascinating, even when I don't agree with him (which is often). Religious overtones (and even religious obvious-tones) are not a problem for me. Preachiness is, however. The Chronicles of Narnia got preachier as the series progressed, IIRC. I wouldn't be surprised to find the same is true of his space trilogy. (For what it's worth, Philip Pullman sure as fuck got preachier as His Dark Materials progressed, too, though I am a fan.)
posted by duffell at 7:11 PM on December 30, 2015
FWIW, when I read That Hideous Strength (the third book in the Space Trilogy) some years ago it struck me as very different from the first two, and very weird. (The only thing like it I've read is---surprise, surprise---a book by Charles Williams, The Place of the Lion.) I don't think it's good, necessarily, but I'd say it's worth reading as an object of study.
posted by golwengaud at 7:29 PM on December 30, 2015
posted by golwengaud at 7:29 PM on December 30, 2015
Only in the "it didn't have much effect" sense, when in reality it would be totally fundamentally impossible for it to have any effect whatsoever. You use energy in the air to heat a heating coil which heats the air, putting the energy back into the air again.
Yes, you have to suspend your disbelief real hard, but the real purpose of the windmills was to provide a little bit of warmth to incubate the terraforming bacteria.
posted by fzx101 at 7:42 PM on December 30, 2015
Yes, you have to suspend your disbelief real hard, but the real purpose of the windmills was to provide a little bit of warmth to incubate the terraforming bacteria.
posted by fzx101 at 7:42 PM on December 30, 2015
Any other suggestions?
Le Guin's SF books were the first thing that came to mind, especially The Dispossessed.
Or, for a spectacular failure, God Emperor of Dune.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 7:55 PM on December 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
Le Guin's SF books were the first thing that came to mind, especially The Dispossessed.
Or, for a spectacular failure, God Emperor of Dune.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 7:55 PM on December 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
I am always a bit bummed that these lists are always about the "hard" sciences - science fiction is also hugely influential in the social sciences.
Krugman has a paper on interstellar trade.
I like some of the socialist science fiction as well (Melville, etc) but it never strikes me as being drawn from underlying social science
So it's still not really drawn from underlying social science, but Ken MacLeod is another one.
though I am sure political scientists would have a different list
The only work I can think of that even remotely references any kind of political science-y stuff is KSR's RGB Mars, which at one point briefly mentions Dahl's polyarchy from the 1950s.
Though now I'm going to have to think for a while if there's any SF I can read as neo-institutionalist...
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:39 PM on December 30, 2015
Krugman has a paper on interstellar trade.
I like some of the socialist science fiction as well (Melville, etc) but it never strikes me as being drawn from underlying social science
So it's still not really drawn from underlying social science, but Ken MacLeod is another one.
though I am sure political scientists would have a different list
The only work I can think of that even remotely references any kind of political science-y stuff is KSR's RGB Mars, which at one point briefly mentions Dahl's polyarchy from the 1950s.
Though now I'm going to have to think for a while if there's any SF I can read as neo-institutionalist...
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:39 PM on December 30, 2015
Chronicles of Narnia got preachier as the series progressed, IIRC. I wouldn't be surprised to find the same is true of his space trilogy.
It does. In the third one we learn that social science and social welfare policies are literally Satanic.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:42 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
It does. In the third one we learn that social science and social welfare policies are literally Satanic.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:42 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Chronicles of Narnia got preachier as the series progressed, IIRC.
And racist-er.
posted by Etrigan at 8:56 PM on December 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
And racist-er.
posted by Etrigan at 8:56 PM on December 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
As a biologist, sci fi almost never hooked me like fantasy did as a kid. Not enough complex systems + fantastical creatures - nothing to fire my little imagination like Wart getting transformed into an ant at the start of The Once & Future King. I did read all those C.S. Lewis space books, though, even though they got progressively more boring and preachy. And I guess you could call the Pern books sci fi...ish? Eventually they got around to grounded spaceships and explaining the weird flesh-eating space debris, at least, but only after like, twelve thousand pages of telepathically enhanced dragon sex.
Anyway, I would have liked hard sci fi better if it involved David Attenborough stranded on an alien planet, is what I'm saying.
posted by deludingmyself at 9:11 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Anyway, I would have liked hard sci fi better if it involved David Attenborough stranded on an alien planet, is what I'm saying.
posted by deludingmyself at 9:11 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oh, and I almost forgot L'Engle! You can't be a female life scientist of a certain age and not be able to talk about those crazy made up mitochondrial components. Deepen, little farandolae! Deepen!
posted by deludingmyself at 9:14 PM on December 30, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by deludingmyself at 9:14 PM on December 30, 2015 [6 favorites]
I get very nervous when I hear scientists talk favorably about science fiction. There is so, so very little about science fiction that is scientific. It's basically fantasy and magic without the elves and orcs. I'm not sure they appreciate that fact. I'd be more comfortable if scientists read literary fiction, or, if necessary, mysteries.
What an incredibly strange objection, and what an incredibly strange bundle of assumptions behind it!
What do you think will happen if we read The Left Hand of Darkness? Will our fragile science circuits short out, leaving us incapable of using the scientific method?
Or is it the other way around: Does picking up The Left Hand of Darkness in the first place mean that we're insufficiently monastic--that our minds are already contaminated with fantasy? Is our ability to think scientifically already suspect at that point, because enjoying an imaginative story is incompatible with being a scientist?
Seriously, can you be more specific about what would make you "very nervous" if I spoke favorably about some piece of science fiction? What kind of conclusions could you draw about me as a scientist from that, and why do those conclusions bother you?
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 9:42 PM on December 30, 2015 [18 favorites]
What an incredibly strange objection, and what an incredibly strange bundle of assumptions behind it!
What do you think will happen if we read The Left Hand of Darkness? Will our fragile science circuits short out, leaving us incapable of using the scientific method?
Or is it the other way around: Does picking up The Left Hand of Darkness in the first place mean that we're insufficiently monastic--that our minds are already contaminated with fantasy? Is our ability to think scientifically already suspect at that point, because enjoying an imaginative story is incompatible with being a scientist?
Seriously, can you be more specific about what would make you "very nervous" if I spoke favorably about some piece of science fiction? What kind of conclusions could you draw about me as a scientist from that, and why do those conclusions bother you?
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 9:42 PM on December 30, 2015 [18 favorites]
deludingmyself: check out Sentenced to Prism by Alan Dean Foster. Fantastic silicon based lifeforms, Interesting future possibilities. I love what he did with technology and culture and how the main character learned and changed.
posted by Deoridhe at 10:11 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Deoridhe at 10:11 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Lewis' SF stories are Christian from the get go.
From memory, angels fly him to Mars in the first book, and he's essentially Adam in the second with some hot Venusian babe who has been created to serve him. The devil shows up too.
My memory of the second book are the gender politics are "interesting" to 21st Century eyes.
posted by Mezentian at 10:31 PM on December 30, 2015
From memory, angels fly him to Mars in the first book, and he's essentially Adam in the second with some hot Venusian babe who has been created to serve him. The devil shows up too.
My memory of the second book are the gender politics are "interesting" to 21st Century eyes.
posted by Mezentian at 10:31 PM on December 30, 2015
Magician's Nephew is still kind of awesome though, even if the last third is all Jesus-Lion.
posted by Artw at 10:48 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 10:48 PM on December 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
If I want the facts, there's Greg Egan; no matter the facts are for the wrong universe.
For some reason a bunch of Greg Egan was $2 a pop on Kindle, so I binged a couple months back.
Every single one of them was "physics got broken and brokenness eating our universe but maybe beautiful on the other side?"
Every. Single. One.
posted by PMdixon at 12:24 AM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
For some reason a bunch of Greg Egan was $2 a pop on Kindle, so I binged a couple months back.
Every single one of them was "physics got broken and brokenness eating our universe but maybe beautiful on the other side?"
Every. Single. One.
posted by PMdixon at 12:24 AM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, but he was great in BJ and the Bear.
posted by Mezentian at 1:22 AM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Mezentian at 1:22 AM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Disappointed (as I so often am) that the late and truly great Octavia E Butler is not mentioned. Also, CS Lewis? Really?
posted by Myeral at 3:05 AM on December 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Myeral at 3:05 AM on December 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Every single one of them was "physics got broken..."
rubbish! i bet some were "maths got broken". sheesh.
posted by andrewcooke at 5:33 AM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
rubbish! i bet some were "maths got broken". sheesh.
posted by andrewcooke at 5:33 AM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
I did read all those C.S. Lewis space books, though, even though they got progressively more boring and preachy.
Out of the Silly Planet
Paraglossia
That Hideous Stench
posted by Herodios at 8:40 AM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Out of the Silly Planet
Paraglossia
That Hideous Stench
posted by Herodios at 8:40 AM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Agreed, I find the lack of Octavia disturbing--though not especially surprising. For my part, I'll keep pushing OEB on the younger generation, in the hopes that when a similar list is made 30 years from now, there will be some Earthseed sprinkled in.
posted by duffell at 10:30 AM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by duffell at 10:30 AM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Disappointed (as I so often am) that the late and truly great Octavia E Butler is not mentioned.
How to Suppress Women's Writing.
This is a well-known phenomenon.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 10:50 AM on December 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
How to Suppress Women's Writing.
This is a well-known phenomenon.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 10:50 AM on December 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
I get very nervous when I hear scientists talk favorably about science fiction.
I totally get this: it can go with denigrating other fiction because it does not have the forms of SCIENCE.
posted by alasdair at 2:28 PM on December 31, 2015
I totally get this: it can go with denigrating other fiction because it does not have the forms of SCIENCE.
posted by alasdair at 2:28 PM on December 31, 2015
"I get very nervous when I hear scientists talk favorably about science fiction."
Well, wow. Scifi is bad for scientists? WTF?
For one, damn near all current science exists because of science fiction. Look at Vannavar Bush's precient piece on his electronic desk. Jules Verne. Even (and especially, maybe) Gibson and the pulp that is Shadowrun.
These germs are read by people, by kids. It inspires them. They think: 'hey, can we do this?' ... and then they grow up, all inspired and intruiged, having read this idea in science fiction which promotes science, picking up a lot of true (and a lot of bunk) science, probably picking up the basics of the scientific method. These people then start to do science, be it chemistry, mechanical engineering, physics ... and, yeah, they discover it is very hard to do. They discover that a lot they read might be absolute bullshit. Hell, I studied mechanical engineering and applied physics: pick the right authors [Asimov, Bear, to name just two] and surprisingly little is complete bullshit, albeit incorrectly extrapolated from then-current knowledge, or even a purely magical McGuffin here or there.
But they continue on, often due to an idea they are persuing which was either in a novel/story they read or was inspired by it. And then they actually fucking make what they had in mind!!!!
As much as I like Doyle or Borges, there is no way they would have led me or ANYONE down the path of science. So thank $diety there is a form of literature which has inspired people down that path, which has inspired ideas which change the world. And I'll bet anything that a concept like Basic Income came from scifi (StarTrek, or even the Culture novels) rather than a detective or any other fiction than science fiction.
Science fiction lays the egg, which germinates into people who then learn the real world way of then making it possible. Not many other forms of fiction does that.
posted by MacD at 3:53 PM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, wow. Scifi is bad for scientists? WTF?
For one, damn near all current science exists because of science fiction. Look at Vannavar Bush's precient piece on his electronic desk. Jules Verne. Even (and especially, maybe) Gibson and the pulp that is Shadowrun.
These germs are read by people, by kids. It inspires them. They think: 'hey, can we do this?' ... and then they grow up, all inspired and intruiged, having read this idea in science fiction which promotes science, picking up a lot of true (and a lot of bunk) science, probably picking up the basics of the scientific method. These people then start to do science, be it chemistry, mechanical engineering, physics ... and, yeah, they discover it is very hard to do. They discover that a lot they read might be absolute bullshit. Hell, I studied mechanical engineering and applied physics: pick the right authors [Asimov, Bear, to name just two] and surprisingly little is complete bullshit, albeit incorrectly extrapolated from then-current knowledge, or even a purely magical McGuffin here or there.
But they continue on, often due to an idea they are persuing which was either in a novel/story they read or was inspired by it. And then they actually fucking make what they had in mind!!!!
As much as I like Doyle or Borges, there is no way they would have led me or ANYONE down the path of science. So thank $diety there is a form of literature which has inspired people down that path, which has inspired ideas which change the world. And I'll bet anything that a concept like Basic Income came from scifi (StarTrek, or even the Culture novels) rather than a detective or any other fiction than science fiction.
Science fiction lays the egg, which germinates into people who then learn the real world way of then making it possible. Not many other forms of fiction does that.
posted by MacD at 3:53 PM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
As a biologist, sci fi almost never hooked me like fantasy did as a kid. Not enough complex systems + fantastical creatures ------deludingmyself
You might like biological sci fi? From "harder" to "softer": Try Peter watts, julie czerneda, and octavia butler
posted by yeolcoatl at 5:11 PM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
You might like biological sci fi? From "harder" to "softer": Try Peter watts, julie czerneda, and octavia butler
posted by yeolcoatl at 5:11 PM on December 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
rubbish! i bet some were "maths got broken". sheesh
Pretty sure Egan would mostly disclaim that distinction.
posted by PMdixon at 6:15 PM on December 31, 2015
Pretty sure Egan would mostly disclaim that distinction.
posted by PMdixon at 6:15 PM on December 31, 2015
Try Peter watts
A bit surprised Blindsight didn't show up in the article. It's one of the best works of hard sci-fi I've read in years.
posted by Mike Smith at 10:25 AM on January 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
A bit surprised Blindsight didn't show up in the article. It's one of the best works of hard sci-fi I've read in years.
posted by Mike Smith at 10:25 AM on January 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is an incredibly idiosyncratic list, not least because they just asked a bunch of Aussie scientists. It isn't meant to cover all your favorites - and if you talk to a wider range of astronomers (or other scientists - 4 people on the list are my colleagues), you'll get a much wider selection.
Also, if you asked me for my favorite piece of science fiction, I'm not sure I could come up with just one item. The Diamond Age? Something by Ted Chiang? (Exhalation?) Something by Banks, for sentimental reasons? Mona Lisa Overdrive? Or Ancillary Justice for a more recent favorite?
The only point of this list is the discussion following each item, not the items themselves.
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:50 AM on January 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, if you asked me for my favorite piece of science fiction, I'm not sure I could come up with just one item. The Diamond Age? Something by Ted Chiang? (Exhalation?) Something by Banks, for sentimental reasons? Mona Lisa Overdrive? Or Ancillary Justice for a more recent favorite?
The only point of this list is the discussion following each item, not the items themselves.
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:50 AM on January 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
You show a me fire something that looks like a list, this is the discussion you'll get, even if there's like 6 items on it...
posted by Artw at 12:04 PM on January 1, 2016
posted by Artw at 12:04 PM on January 1, 2016
> You show a me fire something ...
Oh no, has Artw turned into a niffin?
posted by RedOrGreen at 1:09 PM on January 1, 2016
Oh no, has Artw turned into a niffin?
posted by RedOrGreen at 1:09 PM on January 1, 2016
« Older Just in time for Dryanuary | . Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I was actually about to write an AskMe post, but perhaps here will do - do Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars books hold up, science-wise? I know there have been a handful of significant advances in planetary science, rocketry etc since then, and since they've been lauded as realistic that way, I thought it might be good to ask. I'll probably read them anyway, though.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 12:41 PM on December 30, 2015