I read all of Ursula K. Le Guin earlier works and really liked it, not so much the post mid-1970s work. Much of science fiction has a curious political-social

I read all of Ursula K. Le Guin earlier works and really liked it, not so much the post mid-1970s work. Much of science fiction has a curious political-social bent, it must be said - people often imagine the kinds of worlds they'd like to see, socio-politically speaking, and then create them, and their stories take place in those worlds. A notable exception is Frank Herbert, whose works had a more meta-political flavor, i.e. he wrote about theories of politics and how they might play out in the future, without championing any particular outcome. Hence, there's less of the preaching-to-the-choir stuff in his work. It's very interesting to see how people in tech line up with their scifi - for a while, there was a 'Star Wars' vs. 'Star Trek' divide in some tech circles, perhaps mainly promoted by Peter Thiel: https://www.thewrap.com/peter-thiel-star-trek-communist-star-wars-capitalist/ https://www.thewrap.com/peter-thiel-star-trek-communist-star... The fact is, you can find whatever socio-political flavor of science fiction you like, for example Orson Scott Card is probably the ideological opposite of Le Guin in many ways. Iain M. Banks of the Culture Series fame is perhaps a hybrid of Asimov and Le Guin on sociopolitical matters, sped up a bit, with more chaos and violence. Note this all has a kind of 'big space opera' theme, regardless of whether, you have leftist or rightist sci-fi preferences. William Gibson, in contrast, revolutionized sci-fi by writing about the people who fell between the cracks, those who got run over by the system and were left to fend for themselves as best they could (basically, sci-fi noir). Maybe a Captain Picard / Darth Vader crossover series would be funny... comedic sci-fi works sometimes. Galaxy Quest was memorable.