5 ms·

You may also like Philip K Dick. There seems to be a decent intersection between fans of each, and while they’re radically different authors, they have the same

You may also like Philip K Dick. There seems to be a decent intersection between fans of each, and while they’re radically different authors, they have the same heavy cerebral load - Dick makes you put the book down, stare into the middle distance, and go “whoa”. The kinds of books that leave a lasting imprint on your mind. Oh, and Iain M Banks. More accessible, I’d say, but no shortage of Big Ideas.

__rito__ 2y ago
> "...makes you put the book down, stare into the middle distance, and go “whoa”. The kinds of books that leave a lasting imprint on your mind." 100% solid agree. That's what makes a book worthwhile to read. I saw The Man in the High Castle series when I had time for webseries, and while it was kinda mid, it had some great aspects. Suggest more if you can. Need not be Sci Fi.
- lynx23 2y ago
  Well, obviously "Do Androids dream of electric sheep" simply because the movie left out a little bit too much, which you can catch up on when reading the book. Keyword "Mood Organ". I also liked "Second variety" which has also been rendered as a audio play IIRC. And, for the non-sci-fi part, A Scanner Darkly is pretty weird. Has also been rendered as a movie...
  - madaxe_again 2y ago
    Second Variety has a movie adaptation - Screamers. It’s pretty bad.
- ex-leper 2y ago
  You might like "The shadow of the torturer" by Gene Wolfe. Definitely had a few "whoa" moments in it for me.
The_Colonel 2y ago
Neal's particular strength is in a detailed world-building. Dick created wild worlds, but they are not particularly fleshed out, kinda dream-like in their vagueness, therefore for me not "convincing" in the same way as Neal's worlds are. With Banks, the worlds (Culture being a major one) are more fleshed out, but somehow to me not as interesting. I've read several of his books, but somehow didn't enjoy the Culture ones a lot (read Player of Games, Use of Weapons and Excession). I did like the A Song of Stone a lot, but that's not even sci-fi. I'm aware my opinion is quite unpopular regarding Banks.
- slothtrop 2y ago
  He's detailed (maximalist as he likes to say), but I wouldn't call it worldbuilding (with exceptions). A fantasy author does that. He just gets into the nitty gritty about tech or ideas.
  - The_Colonel 2y ago
    Why can this be called "worldbuilding" in fantasy, but not in sci-fi? His sci-fi books (Anathem, Diamong Age, Snow Crash) are not just detailing technology, but the whole society. All of the detailed descriptions about concents and avouts (in Anathem) is without any technology since they explicitly disawow technology.
    - slothtrop 2y ago
      Like I said, exceptions. I don't think tDA and SC do that much worldbuilding, speaking as someone who doesn't usually care for it. Those who ape the Tolkien high-fantasy school lean on it more, meandering descriptions. Anathem is actually my favorite.
      - The_Colonel 2y ago
        > Those who ape the Tolkien high-fantasy school lean on it more, meandering descriptions You seem to have a very specific idea of what constitutes "worldbuilding". In my mind, every scifi has to do worldbuilding, because they deal with some non-existent worlds - they can't just rely on reader's being familiar with reality. They can't just say "imagine it exactly like today's US, just with faster than light travel". The authors have to describe the setting of the plot to the reader to at least some detail. Stephenson does that in my opinion very well and it's the main draw for me.
teddyh 2y ago
I always found most of PKD’s short stories quite excellent, but all of his full-length books that I have read have been a slog. It’s quite telling that almost all of the movies based on his works have been based on his short stories, not novels. Therefore, I always recommend that people start reading his short stories, and avoid his books. See also: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8805118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8805118>
- slothtrop 2y ago
  Three Stigmata and DADOES are my favorites and they're full-length. The only one I didn't like was Valis. > It’s quite telling that almost all of the movies based on his works have been based on his short stories, not novels. Because that's easier to adapt to 2h films than a long novel? Lots of short stories become film.
  - nativeit 2y ago
    I’m probably one of the rare HN subscribers with a formal education in film production rather than CS or engineering, and you are absolutely right. The first thing they teach about screenwriting is to temper one’s ambitions, because two-hours is nowhere near long enough to adapt a full novel without serious cuts. I imagine that’s obvious to anyone who’s been disappointed by a feature adaptation. I assume that it’s also down to the fact that it’s much more fun to expand on a good short story or novella than it is to have to choose what to cut from a good novel.

__rito__ 2y ago

> "...makes you put the book down, stare into the middle distance, and go “whoa”. The kinds of books that leave a lasting imprint on your mind." 100% solid agree. That's what makes a book worthwhile to read. I saw The Man in the High Castle series when I had time for webseries, and while it was kinda mid, it had some great aspects. Suggest more if you can. Need not be Sci Fi.

lynx23 2y ago
Well, obviously "Do Androids dream of electric sheep" simply because the movie left out a little bit too much, which you can catch up on when reading the book. Keyword "Mood Organ". I also liked "Second variety" which has also been rendered as a audio play IIRC. And, for the non-sci-fi part, A Scanner Darkly is pretty weird. Has also been rendered as a movie...
- madaxe_again 2y ago
  Second Variety has a movie adaptation - Screamers. It’s pretty bad.
ex-leper 2y ago
You might like "The shadow of the torturer" by Gene Wolfe. Definitely had a few "whoa" moments in it for me.

The_Colonel 2y ago

Neal's particular strength is in a detailed world-building. Dick created wild worlds, but they are not particularly fleshed out, kinda dream-like in their vagueness, therefore for me not "convincing" in the same way as Neal's worlds are. With Banks, the worlds (Culture being a major one) are more fleshed out, but somehow to me not as interesting. I've read several of his books, but somehow didn't enjoy the Culture ones a lot (read Player of Games, Use of Weapons and Excession). I did like the A Song of Stone a lot, but that's not even sci-fi. I'm aware my opinion is quite unpopular regarding Banks.

slothtrop 2y ago
He's detailed (maximalist as he likes to say), but I wouldn't call it worldbuilding (with exceptions). A fantasy author does that. He just gets into the nitty gritty about tech or ideas.
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  Why can this be called "worldbuilding" in fantasy, but not in sci-fi? His sci-fi books (Anathem, Diamong Age, Snow Crash) are not just detailing technology, but the whole society. All of the detailed descriptions about concents and avouts (in Anathem) is without any technology since they explicitly disawow technology.
  - slothtrop 2y ago
    Like I said, exceptions. I don't think tDA and SC do that much worldbuilding, speaking as someone who doesn't usually care for it. Those who ape the Tolkien high-fantasy school lean on it more, meandering descriptions. Anathem is actually my favorite.
    - The_Colonel 2y ago
      > Those who ape the Tolkien high-fantasy school lean on it more, meandering descriptions You seem to have a very specific idea of what constitutes "worldbuilding". In my mind, every scifi has to do worldbuilding, because they deal with some non-existent worlds - they can't just rely on reader's being familiar with reality. They can't just say "imagine it exactly like today's US, just with faster than light travel". The authors have to describe the setting of the plot to the reader to at least some detail. Stephenson does that in my opinion very well and it's the main draw for me.

teddyh 2y ago

I always found most of PKD’s short stories quite excellent, but all of his full-length books that I have read have been a slog. It’s quite telling that almost all of the movies based on his works have been based on his short stories, not novels. Therefore, I always recommend that people start reading his short stories, and avoid his books. See also: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8805118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8805118>

slothtrop 2y ago
Three Stigmata and DADOES are my favorites and they're full-length. The only one I didn't like was Valis. > It’s quite telling that almost all of the movies based on his works have been based on his short stories, not novels. Because that's easier to adapt to 2h films than a long novel? Lots of short stories become film.
- nativeit 2y ago
  I’m probably one of the rare HN subscribers with a formal education in film production rather than CS or engineering, and you are absolutely right. The first thing they teach about screenwriting is to temper one’s ambitions, because two-hours is nowhere near long enough to adapt a full novel without serious cuts. I imagine that’s obvious to anyone who’s been disappointed by a feature adaptation. I assume that it’s also down to the fact that it’s much more fun to expand on a good short story or novella than it is to have to choose what to cut from a good novel.