4 ms·
Has anybody read modern[^1] science fiction that uses "scientific and technological breakthroughs"? Or, something close in thoroughness to Jules Verne "Twenty T
by dsign 3y ago
Has anybody read modern[^1] science fiction that uses "scientific and technological breakthroughs"? Or, something close in thoroughness to Jules Verne "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" or "The Mysterious Island"? Is it just me, or modern writers are terrified of getting wet with that sort of scientific level, or the general public that buys and reads fiction is not up for reading that type of work?
[^1] Like, published in the last twenty years or so.
- a_bonobo 3y agoPersonally, I feel like that 'gap' comes from most SF writers having a physics/maths backgrounds while the really 'cool' stuff is happening in biology. Hard SF generally focuses on physics, not biology. Greg Bear had some interesting novels around retroviruses in the 90s, Darwin's Radio, and I've read some solarpunk stories that went into the right direction. Peter Watts has a PhD in Zoology which is maybe why Blindsight is so good.
- dsign 3y agoI tend to agree. But physics, humanities and biology could give a really good background for top hard SF.
- kian 3y agoPaolo Bacigalupi is an excellent example of someone with a focus on biology. Windup Girl in particular is excellent, although I love his short story collections as well.
- jasonjmcghee 3y agoJeff VanderMeer popularly uses sci-fi biology. Margaret Atwood’s Maddaddam does as well (content/themes warning as always with Margaret Atwood) Both are dramatically better writers than the vast majority of sci-fi authors I come across these days.