How about David Zindell's Neverness books? I haven't read them for a while, but I feel it's fair to say they function as a mediation between the rousing space opera of SW and Dune's hard SF exploration of the nature of reality. I'm not a voracious reader of SF. I only get interested when it tackles the themes it's not typically known for- the metaphysical, if you will. Conversely, I enjoy fantasy that has an emergent SF component. Cross pollination between the two genres is where you get the good stuff, in my humble opinion. That's why I read Gene Wolfe. He attempts this difficult tight rope act and largely succeeds at it.
Gene Wolfe!!! The Death of Dr. Island is utter genius! But you see, Wolfe pays respect to the origin of sci-fi in his work. In The Death of Dr. Island, his handling of mental illness is disturbing and profound. He uses the trope as it is meant to be used, to focus on this one concept.
Can I assume you to be a fan of the golden boy of spec fic hailing from your country, China Mieville?
Mieville... I can't knock him, to be honest. It was mildly revelatory the first time I read him. His prose is extraordinary. But even though he tries to play it down in interviews, I think his politics inform his work a little too strongly, at least in the earlier works. Haven't read him for years now. I will say that there are passages in The Scar that are going to stay with me for some time yet. Wolfe I have been reading (and most importantly, re-reading...) annually since I was 15-16. My copy of The Death of Doctor Island and Other Stories and Other Stories is one of my most cherished posessions, as is my copy of The Fifth Head of Cerberus. Kim Stanley Robinson put it best when he said that Wolfe 'Proust-ified' SF. I suppose I read Proust to enhance my understanding of Wolfe, and vice versa...
I still think that Dune falls along with star wars in a way But I do concede it came first (before star wars) however it is still my opinion that it fell into many standard sci-fi pits. however that is the great thing about humanity, we may disagree, but it is how we deal with it that is important. CS Lewis and Tolkien were friends but had some very big debates over style. Both were entitled. perhaps it was the long winded nature of the trilogy that biased me. but you are right....magic was a naturally existing part of the universe that the story occupied.and seemed natural. "the force" on the other hand felt gimmicky and poorly used and also poorly explained just a "it is what it is" type thing. I wont knock it for that because it obviously worked. but I think it could have been much better. Dune at least explained it..and explained, and explained ....and explained.
I tend to think of Star Wars as more of a cultural phenomenon rather than a serious work of sf. The themes explored in it have more in common with Joseph Campbell's work than they do with the canon of sf.
Star Wars was never conceived as science fiction, but as escapist entertainment. It just happened to take place in a technology and space oriented environment. Star Trek was the same in many ways - 'Wagon Train to the Stars' was used by Roddenberry to pitch it I believe, though of course it had enough time in being a TV series to become more like sci-fi at times. IMHO, true sci-fi is about how one or more science elements impact the human condition. The avid readers of sci-fi tend towards liking it to be a bit hard-nosed about that, not going off at a tangent into less scientific stuff. But many good and popular books (and TV programmes and movies) labelled as 'sci-fi' are more 'space opera' or 'space fantasy' than sci-fi.
Yeah just to be clear, I was not taking up for star wars. However the debate between what is and is not sci-fi is way too large to get into here.
I guess it could seem that way, yeah. Honestly, I'm not as huge into Sci-Fi as everyone else has posted here. I've dabbled here and there in writing Sci-Fi, but nothing ever came of it. And I've seen a few Sci-Fi films, and maybe read a handful of Sci-Fi novels that I could handle. The technical stuff really gets to me... But that's besides the point. The point is: I'm trying to get a foot hold on this novel idea in my head, and I felt it would be nice to find out what other people loved/disliked about Sci-Fi. Of course, if I happen to like something that no one else does I'm not too worried about it. It's helpful what everyone has told me so far to help me get a better idea of where I'm going with this, but if I absolutely "feel" I must do magic in my novel then I won't feel guilty for it either.
What I hate in SF: a future which is just like the present day except the names have changed. If a character is sitting in the pilot's seat of a starship carrying cargo from star to star, playing games on their iPhone (sorry, sub-ether communication tablet) and worrying about the pain in their knee and how they're going to pay for their retirement in twenty years, I'm probably going to shake my head and look for something else to read. One particular area where I disagree with a previous poster is resurrection tech. If your story is set a couple of hundred years or more in the future and you still have humans and they can't be 'resurrected', you're probably doing it wrong. Same with immortality; that starship pilot won't be retiring, because they won't be growing old and dying. But once you have AI, assuming it's possible, humans are irrelevant. We're so poorly adapted for space travel that AIs will take over the universe before we have a chance to do so. This is why I'm not a huge fan of Banks' novels, because he has a hard time justifying humans still existing when his society is run by and for the AIs.
Then, plan on marketing it as a fantasy, because it won't be science fiction. Science Fiction is about what could be, while Fantasy is about what can't be.
But 'magic' could be, so long as it doesn't violate the laws of physics. Imagine going back a few hundred years and showing a peasant your cell phone. They'd think being able to talk to people on the other side of the world was magic, whereas we know it's just a lot of complex technology. Or even going back to the 50s and showing someone your laptop. Edit: this is one reason why I find most 'alien' stories laughable. The pace of technological advancement is so fast that if any two independently evolved technological species ever met, one side would look like magicians to the other, who would look like cavemen to them. In the real world, those space war epics against aliens wouldn't last as long as the English archers at Agincourt would against the US Marines.
If I remember correctly, Lucas lifted much of that part of the story from Kurosawa's 'Hidden Fortress' back when you couldn't buy 1950s Japanese movies on DVD. So, to a large extent, it's really a Japanese Samurai movie where the katanas glow. Reading the early script drafts before he discovered Joseph Campbell is also interesting. They're pretty dire.
^This. If magic 'could be', then it wouldn't be magic, it would still be physics. You're referring to things science has not yet discovered but can be discovered through development, not magic within the bounds of fantasy.
I'd totally retire. Forever doing the same job? Talk about being stuck in a rut! I'd say they'd deserve like a ten-year-retirement for which they've earned "pension" during their time in service. Then s/he could become an artist, regeneration doctor, rocket scientist, maybe start growing meat or come up with a beer brand (I hear hops grow well in space) or just lay back and relax. Yup, you could put both, science/technology and magic in it, as in urban fantasy there're cellphones and magic creatures existing side by side. Genre-bending is fun. But, indeed, it wouldn't be labeled solely as sci-fi then.
This thread is SO much fun! I've thought about these issues for a long time, as I'm a fan of both sci-fi and fantasy, but not of mixing them. I totally agree with what Allan Paas said at the start of this thread : I like what Minstrel said as well, about sci-fi bringing a sense of wonder and optimism. However bleak and horrible things might get/are getting here on Earth, all of 'space' is still out there, still unexplored. I find this idea overwhelmingly cool! Okay, we're probably not going to solve Earth's problems by focusing on what's out there beyond our solar system, but damn, it's cool to know it's there. Even if we never get there, it's still there! And who knows what it contains? Probably more of the same, scientific principles being what they are, but still... I love aliens, when they're done well. We have aliens here on Earth. Dolphins? They are nothing like us, physically, and live in an entirely different medium from us, but they have a prodigious intelligence, both collectively and individually, and perhaps more wisdom than us as well. Constructing an alien mind and body should be easy, if you consider dolphins. Actually, look at the huge variety of life forms, climates and land masses there are here on Earth already. Much to draw upon, and much to learn. I think one of my biggest pet peeves in Sci-Fi, as it's usually written, is the idea that a strange planet will have homogenous life forms and governing systems, religions, whatever. If you create a life-bearing 'planet', PLEASE give it lots of variety! Presumably, if it is heated by a 'sun,' it will have poles, seasons, etc. Different creatures will have adapted to these changes, same as on Earth. Some sci-fi author once said: "The best Science Fiction is always about Earth." I can't remember who the person was, but I totally agree with this view. NOT that sci-fi should be set on Earth, but that it should reflect what Earth people do, think, want, need and expect. I guess that segues into the idea of responsibility and consequence. Ray Bradbury did this beautifully in Martian Chronicles, and so have many others. My personal favourite Sci-Fi TV show—in fact, my favourite TV show EVER—is Farscape. While lots of the plots in the show are OTT Space Opera, the underlying theme is of Earth, of humanity, and where humans are placed in the scheme of things. How insignificant, ignorant, and potentially WRONG we are about how the universe is organised—and yet, if we have the courage to open our minds, we will discover characteristics and strengths in the human race (and other Earthbound races) to be proud of and nourish. The episode in Farscape, Season 4, "A Constellation of Doubt" where John Crichton (the main human character) is watching a recorded broadcast of a TV chat show from Earth, would be required viewing, if I were Master of the Universe. It reveals very subtly how humans are LIKELY to react to the sudden knowledge that 'we are not alone.' By cranky, the creators of Farscape, blessem, have got it spot-on. Scary... Anyway, good thread. And good luck, whichever genre you eventually choose to write.
It's hard to determine what 'could be,' (especially for a layman). There's no absolute in science. Just because every apple on earth has always been observed to fall, doesn't mean that this will absolutely be the case forever. Moreover, I don't see how describing a technology that 'could be,' without offering me an exact and precise route of getting there, is any less magical than describing something that seems less plausible. A cell phone that causes lightning might appear to be more plausible than time travel, but if I am unable to give you the exact mechanism for the former, how can we really be sure?
This maybe just me, but I have a feeling that I'm going to stand on the totally opposite view from many of the folks here This sure is gonna be so much fun !!! The DOs. - Time Travel : Please go along with Time Paradox, however. - Multiverse or Parallel Timeline incidents. - Aliens of totally different species. (No totally random alien races 2 millions light years from Earth happen to look almost like a Human from Earth, except that their lady has 3 tits. You're kidding, right !?) - Something Science can't explain... yet. - Something Science can't even begin to explain... at all ! - Cyborgs, Robots, Androids, Genetic Enhanced Human, Clones, Mutants, etc. - Space combat, with interesting and could-be-real tactics and strategy. - Secret / Hidden organizations that could either be good or bad or grey. - Interesting Technology Advancements that could be possible. - Factions / Clans / Guilds / Houses. Anything that isn't Country. - Different political stuffs. Different empire ruling systems. Different believes. - Hi-Tech Swords !!! The DON'Ts. - Don't ignore the DOs !
Or the freakzoid platypus! It's like an alien from Farscape, sans the ability to communicate with us in English. It's like an Earth equivalent of Rygel. I also love Farscape, despite the humanoid aliens. Goes to show that if the story is entertaining enough, anything goes! I agree with this. It often feels like there's only one country in that planet. Unfortunately this was done in Farscape too, and in some episodes of Stargate. Futurama parodies this quite brilliantly, Earth and its Earthicans being led by Nixon's head...
Hi tech swords - I like your thinking! I like them too Aliens that look human I don't have a problem with, as long as there is some kind of plausible explanation. I've mentioned it before where in both the Star Trek:TNG episode 'The Chase' and the movie 'Prometheus', a 'scientific' underlying basis for humanoid appearance around the galaxy was given. True you said not totally randomly human, but sometimes it takes time to get to the point in a story where we find out the underlying basis for human-like creatures 'evolving' on disconnected worlds, so in the meantime said human-like creatures appear to have evolved randomly.
I can see your point, but surely just because AI's exist and control a planet/galaxy/universe doesn't mean that no other "lifeforms" can exist. We humans don't have "need" for many animals on this planet but we let them live anyway. We try to protect even dangerous ones from extinction (apart from virus' which we attempt to wipe out). Why would AI's commit genocide, and wipe out Humans? As you said, once AI's have fully evolved humans would not be a threat to an AIs existence, so why not leave well alone? Surely they would be interested by them, or amused by them, etc.
I agree completely with your logic here, but the trope of AI/Robot/Cyborg rising up and demolishing their Human creators is a well worn path in Sci-Fi. It's a clear venue to discuss the Jungian Shadow that comes up over and over again. I think maybe its commonality within the genre lends the impression that it is an inevitable end, when clearly, as you make mention, it is not.
In reponse to Edward's point about Iain M. Banks "having a hard time justifying" the existance of humans in an AI dominated world: I was just saying that in a "human dominated world" we let other species exist, no one needs to justify it.
