3 ms·

Maybe world building is the wrong term? I consider civilizations, economics, infrastructure, etc, as another character in the story. They have background and

Maybe world building is the wrong term? I consider civilizations, economics, infrastructure, etc, as another character in the story. They have background and develop over time. They should be as believable as the humans. This is common in the "future history" sub-genre but you find unexpected gems too. Discworld was remarkably good about it, for example. Just found my copy of Ender's, one of the few OSC books I still have. I got the proportions very wrong. The story was "over" on page 295 of 324. So like 9%, the entire last chapter, was about the aftermath. Mostly Ender dealing with what happened. Still way more than the usual "happily ever after" and sequel hook you normally see, to give it credit. The Honorverse is the purest of space opera. I have too many good memories to agree with you, but I won't push my luck with a re-reading. I seem to recall that it actually was pretty good at having their magic super weapons, drives and shields progress reasonably over the series. Weber was very good about having military tactics shift in step with the technology.

ethbro 9y ago
That's a more detailed way of putting what you're looking for. And I enjoy books like that as well (e.g. A Song of Ice of Fire). Incidentally, how'd you feel about KSR's Mars books, if you've read them? But I guess I forced myself to read enough Golden Age sci-fi that I developed a neurotic category for lazy... "deep worlds"? I'm looking at you and Foundation, Asimov. So much of that stuff is a splash of human-esque characters and plot on an otherwise naked thought puzzle that I feel like it deserves its own category. I suppose it irks me less when I feel like the author did that not because they couldn't do otherwise, but because they intentionally didn't care to. Which is to say, the thought puzzle interested them more than the characters. I feel the same about Lost. JJ Abrams doesn't give a damn about solving mysteries. He just likes creating them. Not liking him for not solving them is like not liking a dog because it wags its tail. That's a valid preference against tail wagging... but maybe not dogs for such a person? And I really wouldn't chance a reread. I started reading it because I'd heard good things about the tech. Let good memories lie. The lines that did me in were something to the effect of: "{Someone does a thing that makes Honor happy}. Honor felt happy because someone did a thing." (!!!)
- keenerd 9y ago
  Mars was alright. I had a lot of trouble with one of the books. Took almost a year to read because it felt like there was nothing but political infighting in it. Foundation was actually what got me started on the "future histories" kick. The civilization is a more fleshed-out character than any human in the story. But I was eleven and didn't read any further than the original trilogy. My favorite golden-age sci-fi would probably be Heinlein's "The Past Through Tomorrow" collection. The parallels between Elon Musk and D. D. Harriman are amusing.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    I love Heilein. To me, that's when sci-fi turned the corner and stopped being pulp and started being decent literature. I haven't read any Burroughs though. Always meaning to.

ethbro 9y ago

That's a more detailed way of putting what you're looking for. And I enjoy books like that as well (e.g. A Song of Ice of Fire). Incidentally, how'd you feel about KSR's Mars books, if you've read them? But I guess I forced myself to read enough Golden Age sci-fi that I developed a neurotic category for lazy... "deep worlds"? I'm looking at you and Foundation, Asimov. So much of that stuff is a splash of human-esque characters and plot on an otherwise naked thought puzzle that I feel like it deserves its own category. I suppose it irks me less when I feel like the author did that not because they couldn't do otherwise, but because they intentionally didn't care to. Which is to say, the thought puzzle interested them more than the characters. I feel the same about Lost. JJ Abrams doesn't give a damn about solving mysteries. He just likes creating them. Not liking him for not solving them is like not liking a dog because it wags its tail. That's a valid preference against tail wagging... but maybe not dogs for such a person? And I really wouldn't chance a reread. I started reading it because I'd heard good things about the tech. Let good memories lie. The lines that did me in were something to the effect of: "{Someone does a thing that makes Honor happy}. Honor felt happy because someone did a thing." (!!!)

keenerd 9y ago
Mars was alright. I had a lot of trouble with one of the books. Took almost a year to read because it felt like there was nothing but political infighting in it. Foundation was actually what got me started on the "future histories" kick. The civilization is a more fleshed-out character than any human in the story. But I was eleven and didn't read any further than the original trilogy. My favorite golden-age sci-fi would probably be Heinlein's "The Past Through Tomorrow" collection. The parallels between Elon Musk and D. D. Harriman are amusing.
- ethbro 9y ago
  I love Heilein. To me, that's when sci-fi turned the corner and stopped being pulp and started being decent literature. I haven't read any Burroughs though. Always meaning to.