4 ms·

For which generation?

by anotha1 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nitrogen 5y ago
For a new generation of 10000 every day. https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
fao_ 5y ago
Are there many noteworthy modern science fiction authors that hold up to the Asimov / Clarke / Lem generation? I would think someone reasonably versed in science fiction would have at least heard of it -- I'm a "zoomer" and I have.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  We have a number of very good modern science fiction authors that easily rival them. While none of them may be as iconic, I think that has more to do with competition in the genre and breadth of the market.
  - omgwtfbbq 5y ago
    Name some? My experience with authors like Cixin Liu and some contemporaries is that they are unreadable, this could just be bad translations in Liu's case but I'm not at all convinced modern writers rival the classical greats in SciFi.
    - Sophistifunk 5y ago
      FWIW either the writing or translation seems to get better as 3BP progresses.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      I found myself similarly underwhelmed by Cixin Liu given all the good things I'd heard. I'm horrible at remembering names, but three of my favorites off the top of my head are Peter Watts, Neil Stephenson and Kim Stanley Robison. I've generally had decent luck finding new authors by just by seeing who gets Hugo and Nebula nominations.
- FpUser 5y ago
  I read a lot including Sci-Fi and did not find any who are close. Does not mean they do not exist. Most likely not as famous and not exposed to wide public.
- intergalplan 5y ago
  The actual writing from a lot of the golden age and New Wave sci-fi authors is... OK at best, with a few exceptions (Bradbury's distinctively poetic and dreamlike prose, for example). Tons of modern sci-fi authors write stories with more literary merit, better clarity, better-conveyed action, more believable characters and dialog, and so on. The improvements there are really obvious when reading, say, an early 70s The Hugo Winners or collections of 1950s stories, and then a 90s The New Hugo Winners. Whether their ideas and worlds stand up to Asimov and company, or happen to be appealing to a particular reader, is another matter, but the command of writing itself is overall better, I'd say. I don't think a modern author would have much luck getting novels or stories in major magazines published with Asimov-tier dialog & characterization, for example. Plus those eras were full of tons of garbage, in addition to what we remember. New Wave (60s and 70s) in particular tended to some very special interests that I don't think have held up too well, with some exceptions. A lot of that era's stories are very in love with sex & drugs and not in a way that really translates into a good tale. Most of those aren't exactly well-beloved these days. On the flip side, there are definitely some modern sci-fi authors that are among the most famous but have some serious problems putting together an entirely good novel. I'll refrain from naming names but among them is maybe the only author whose book has ever made me mad at them for wasting such a good idea, setting, and opening, by just having no damn follow-through and getting super lazy in the last 1/3 or so. They're probably a top-5 sci fi name, among active authors today. But I stand by the overall quality level being notably higher on at least some dimensions, and it's even true for that guy.
  - fao_ 5y ago
    > Whether their ideas and worlds stand up to Asimov and company, or happen to be appealing to a particular reader, is another matter, but the command of writing itself is overall better, I'd say. But that's just the thing -- science fiction is about the ideas, and about the sociological and psychological impact of those ideas. Whether a work has literary merit is neither here nor there for most people, and "science fiction" as a genre has been looked down upon by literary folks since it's inception. I don't know why anyone would be interested in praise from a community that is so invested in snobbery. Regardless, science fiction authors of the time did have literary merit, if that's what you care about. LeGuin and Butler, are both regarded well in modern literary circles as far as I know. Vonnegut himself is regarded well also. At the time however, their books were condemned as being inadequate by the prevailing literary reviewers for various reasons unrelated to their actual writing. Work from that time is perfectly functional and servicable for the most part, especially if you look at the places where the stories were submitted and published -- a small majority of Clarke's works ended up being published in Playboy, I don't think anyone can blame him for not creating a literary masterpiece when the majority of places that would actually pay him for his work were essentially pulp magazines.
- TomSwirly 5y ago
  > Asimov / Clarke / Lem Asimov's SF is, sadly, hard to read these days. Clarke has held up better but still a bit dated. Lem reads as fresh as ever, but he's not so well known. (What happened to Bradbury and Heinlein?) Gene Wolfe is only one generation younger than these guys, and he just died, but I consider him a better writer than all the others I mentioned except Lem.
- Sophistifunk 5y ago
  Peter F Hamilton. Start with Pandora's Star if you want more Asimovish, or Reality Dysfunction if you want it more Lemmy \m/.

For which generation?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

nitrogen 5y ago

For a new generation of 10000 every day. https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/

fao_ 5y ago

Are there many noteworthy modern science fiction authors that hold up to the Asimov / Clarke / Lem generation? I would think someone reasonably versed in science fiction would have at least heard of it -- I'm a "zoomer" and I have.

shkkmo 5y ago
We have a number of very good modern science fiction authors that easily rival them. While none of them may be as iconic, I think that has more to do with competition in the genre and breadth of the market.
- omgwtfbbq 5y ago
  Name some? My experience with authors like Cixin Liu and some contemporaries is that they are unreadable, this could just be bad translations in Liu's case but I'm not at all convinced modern writers rival the classical greats in SciFi.
  - Sophistifunk 5y ago
    FWIW either the writing or translation seems to get better as 3BP progresses.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    I found myself similarly underwhelmed by Cixin Liu given all the good things I'd heard. I'm horrible at remembering names, but three of my favorites off the top of my head are Peter Watts, Neil Stephenson and Kim Stanley Robison. I've generally had decent luck finding new authors by just by seeing who gets Hugo and Nebula nominations.
FpUser 5y ago
I read a lot including Sci-Fi and did not find any who are close. Does not mean they do not exist. Most likely not as famous and not exposed to wide public.
intergalplan 5y ago
The actual writing from a lot of the golden age and New Wave sci-fi authors is... OK at best, with a few exceptions (Bradbury's distinctively poetic and dreamlike prose, for example). Tons of modern sci-fi authors write stories with more literary merit, better clarity, better-conveyed action, more believable characters and dialog, and so on. The improvements there are really obvious when reading, say, an early 70s The Hugo Winners or collections of 1950s stories, and then a 90s The New Hugo Winners. Whether their ideas and worlds stand up to Asimov and company, or happen to be appealing to a particular reader, is another matter, but the command of writing itself is overall better, I'd say. I don't think a modern author would have much luck getting novels or stories in major magazines published with Asimov-tier dialog & characterization, for example. Plus those eras were full of tons of garbage, in addition to what we remember. New Wave (60s and 70s) in particular tended to some very special interests that I don't think have held up too well, with some exceptions. A lot of that era's stories are very in love with sex & drugs and not in a way that really translates into a good tale. Most of those aren't exactly well-beloved these days. On the flip side, there are definitely some modern sci-fi authors that are among the most famous but have some serious problems putting together an entirely good novel. I'll refrain from naming names but among them is maybe the only author whose book has ever made me mad at them for wasting such a good idea, setting, and opening, by just having no damn follow-through and getting super lazy in the last 1/3 or so. They're probably a top-5 sci fi name, among active authors today. But I stand by the overall quality level being notably higher on at least some dimensions, and it's even true for that guy.
- fao_ 5y ago
  > Whether their ideas and worlds stand up to Asimov and company, or happen to be appealing to a particular reader, is another matter, but the command of writing itself is overall better, I'd say. But that's just the thing -- science fiction is about the ideas, and about the sociological and psychological impact of those ideas. Whether a work has literary merit is neither here nor there for most people, and "science fiction" as a genre has been looked down upon by literary folks since it's inception. I don't know why anyone would be interested in praise from a community that is so invested in snobbery. Regardless, science fiction authors of the time did have literary merit, if that's what you care about. LeGuin and Butler, are both regarded well in modern literary circles as far as I know. Vonnegut himself is regarded well also. At the time however, their books were condemned as being inadequate by the prevailing literary reviewers for various reasons unrelated to their actual writing. Work from that time is perfectly functional and servicable for the most part, especially if you look at the places where the stories were submitted and published -- a small majority of Clarke's works ended up being published in Playboy, I don't think anyone can blame him for not creating a literary masterpiece when the majority of places that would actually pay him for his work were essentially pulp magazines.
TomSwirly 5y ago
> Asimov / Clarke / Lem Asimov's SF is, sadly, hard to read these days. Clarke has held up better but still a bit dated. Lem reads as fresh as ever, but he's not so well known. (What happened to Bradbury and Heinlein?) Gene Wolfe is only one generation younger than these guys, and he just died, but I consider him a better writer than all the others I mentioned except Lem.
Sophistifunk 5y ago
Peter F Hamilton. Start with Pandora's Star if you want more Asimovish, or Reality Dysfunction if you want it more Lemmy \m/.