TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Well-written sci-fi?
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Well-written sci-fi?

I like science fiction. I like the way it explores ideas about the future, about technology, and about how people might deal under unusual circumstances. But I have a problem with written science fiction:

The prose pretty much sucks. At best I've found it bland. Can someone suggest to me any interesting sci-fi writers who also have a good sense of literary style?

Philip K. Dick?

As I recall it, Hugo Gernsback is supposed to be a good writer, style wise. That being said, I never read a single book of his, and only heard about him in an lecture.

Or was he just good at marketing his ideas? Heh, can't remember.

Post a few titles and authors that youve read (and been dissapointed in or liked)so that can have a rough idea of what you prefer before giving any advice

I always liked William Gibson's writing.

quote:

Originally posted by bas I always liked William Gibson's writing.

Might check him out, always heard he was good.

Bahahaha:

quote:

The Grimly Grim Hallmark Of Awfully Bad Writing Classic science fiction novels have many annoying writing tics that make it hard to enjoy them, but the word "grimly" has always seemed the worst. People are always speaking grimly, or staring grimly, or even smiling grimly. Of all the adverbs that attach themselves, like alien facehuggers, to science fiction prose, "grimly" is the worst � and the most unnecessary. And it's still cropping up all the time. Here's a perfect example of a needless and annoying "grimly," from Bruce Sterling's story "Maneki Neko" (from The Locus Awards: Thirty Years Of The Best In Science Fiction And Fantasy): Louise frowned grimly. "That's right, wise guy. Make jokes about it. You're involved in a malicious software attack on a legal officer of the United States. You'll see." It's almost too obvious to point out, but "frowned grimly?" You don't think "frowned" might have worked on its own? And even "frowned" seems like surplus here. And here's a more run-of-the-mill use, from David Weber's 2004 novel The Stars At War: "Send it Priority One," Hausman said grimly, and settled back in his chair as the light-speed burst transmission sped across the vacuum. The reason I highlight Weber's use of "grimly" is because it's so typical: it's often used in a military/action context. It shows us that the situation is serious, and it also shows us that Hausman is a serious guy who means business. If this were a TV show, the dramatic music would swell as Hausman settles back in his chair, but there's no music in a book. So "grimly" has to serve as Weber's orchestral sting. At it's worst, a "grimly" overdose looks something like this passage from Wilbur Smith's historical novel The Sound Of Thunder: "You're drunk!" She accused grimly. "Oh foul libel! Oh monstrous untruth." Saul backed hurriedly out of range. "All right, Sergeant." She turned grimly on Sean. "Where is it?" You'll be shocked to learn that Mercedes Lackey is addicted to "grimly." And so are a bunch of other fantasy authors. Isaac Asimov liked him some "grimly" as well, and most collections of "classic" science fiction of the 1930s through 1960s contain a fair number of grimlys. (Grimlies?) But once you start looking for it, you find "grimly" in a lot of recent stuff as well. Douglas Adams satirizes this style of writing in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency: "Get it moved," he repeated grimly, and bustled grimly back through the door grimly hauling up his trousers and coat in preparation for the grim ascent. It gives you a sort of, I don't know... a grim feeling, doesn't it? To be fair, there's an issue of changing tastes here. According to Google books, D.H. Lawrence loved to have people speaking "grimly" and someone takes some news "grimly" in a Joseph Conrad book. And they're generally regarded as pretty good authors. The real problem with words like "grimly," of course, is that they're a substitute for real characterization. Here's Martin Amis, discussing the wealth (ha) of character development in Michael Crichton's The Lost World: The job of characterization has been delegated to two or three thrashed and downtrodden adverbs. �Dodgson shook his head irritably�; � �Handle what?� Dodgson said irritably.� So Dodgson is irritable. But � �I tell you it�s fine,� Levine said irritably.� �Levine got up irritably.� So Levine is irritable too. �Malcome stared forward gloomily.� � �We shouldn�t have the kids here,� said Malcolm gloomily.� Malcolm seems to own �gloomily�; but then you irritably notice that Rossiter is behaving �gloomily� too, and gloomily discover that Malcolm is behaving �irritably.� Forget about �tensely� and �grimly� for now. And don�t get me started on �thoughtfully.� I definitely think "grimly" isn't quite as ubiquitous in science fiction as it used to be, but it still turns up way, way too often. And part of the problem is that today's SF writers grew up seeing it everywhere. So it's part of their familiar vocabulary, cozy and soft like an old sweater. And it is a quick and dirty (so, so dirty) shorthand for character and action, and a certain suspenseful mood. Plus it's sort of a "space adventurer" sort of word � it's emotional but stoic. You can have any emotion grimly, and it becomes more serious and muted, yet also more important, than a regular emotion. It's got the power of grimly! Here's a list of fairly recent SF writers who have used "grimly" pretty recently: * Charles Stross (although mostly in his fantasy writing), * John Scalzi (in Old Man's War and The Last Colony), * Richard K. Morgan (in Altered Carbon), * Greg Bear (in many many works), * David Brin (including the great sentence "'That wasn't me,' Beta assured grimly."), * Cory Doctorow (including a "smiled grimly"), * John Shirley (including "Satan chuckled grimly" in his Constantine novelization), * John Varley (but not since 1983's Millenium), * Connie Willis (a lot), * Orson Scott Card ("laughed grimly," "smiled grimly," and the phrase "grimly determined" appears in two different books.) There's more, but I'll stop. Just promise you'll help me stop the grimness!

http://io9.com/5013950/the-grimly-g...lly-bad-writing

I read Margaret Atwood's "Oryx and Crake" over the summer and the prose was bearable. If you're interested in dystopian, Jose Saramago's "Blindness" was pretty good, as was Cormac McCarthy's "The Road." Not as much science, but still future-as-social-warning-parable with better than average (or at least interesting) prose. Not terribly formulaic, at least.

invention of morel, valis, dune, a separate reality

quote:

Originally posted by bas I always liked William Gibson's writing.

This. Thread closed.

william gibson did the original cyberpunk novels didn't he?

i'm also a big fan of harlan ellison's short stories.

apart from the classics (and there's a good couple hundred of those) i'd recommend Death's Head (David Gunn) from the more recent stuff.

one of my favorite new series (three books so far)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consider_Phlebas

quote:

Originally posted by ZeJayMan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consider_Phlebas

Yes. Ian M Banks.

In his book "Reading By Starlight: Postmodern Science Fiction", Damien Broderick includes mediocre prose in his list of key genre features:

quote:

* The concomitant de-emphasis of 'fine writing', which is the insignia and medium of a socially restricted paradigm set deployed through recognised and canonised syntagmata, tropics of discourse, which SF escapes at the very instant it fails to meet tests of literary credential... * Attention to the object in preference to the subject, where 'object', under the scrutiny to which we have subjected discursive sites, is no unimpeachable essential Real, yet retains a genuine externality, a power to shock equal to Dr Johnson's stone striking the back of his shoe: and where 'subject', if not quite decentered, is labile, socially miscible, cognitively multiplex

What this basically means is that SF is a genre concerned with object rather than subject: it deals with materialism instead of spirituality. SF encodes its meaning and messages into material narrative elements and drama. It de-emphasises artistic writing such as metaphorical language or imagery because its metaphors and images are concrete partipicants in the narrative world, rather than imbued on that world through the authorial voice.

So really, most pure SF is going to have mediocre prose as part of its very generic constitution. The reason Ian M Banks writes SF with good prose is because he's an outsider: he mainly writes "literary" fiction and his SF novels are something of a side project. Which isn't to demean them: read Consider Phlebas, The Player Of Games and Use Of Weapons in that order. Brilliant stuff.

I don't know, I think it's just that most sci-fi authors seem to have technical or scientific backgrounds and interests rather than more "literary" ones. As such they're more focused on developing concepts rather than crafting a distinctive style.

Also, sci-fi prose may be bad but it's pretty nice compared to that of many "postmodern" writers and the bloated heaps of five-syllable adjectives they call "sentences."

Orson Scott Card

not that i have anything to compare his writing to. i just like Ender's Game.

I liked it as well. But on the level of writing style it's just decent, I think.

ohh yeah - Night's Dawn Trilogy is really good too.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles I don't know, I think it's just that most sci-fi authors seem to have technical or scientific backgrounds and interests rather than more "literary" ones. As such they're more focused on developing concepts rather than crafting a distinctive style.

This is a broad and inaccurate statement. Perhaps it's true if we're referring only to "hard" SF, but soft SF grew up in the pulps, where it was cheap and lurid escapism churned out to earn a living. The pulp writers generally had no scientific or technical backgrounds. Most of the authors and books mentioned in this thread are soft SF.

quote:

Also, sci-fi prose may be bad but it's pretty nice compared to that of many "postmodern" writers and the bloated heaps of five-syllable adjectives they call "sentences."

Examples?

Robert A. Heinlein?

Starship Troopers beeyutch!

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J This is a broad and inaccurate statement. Perhaps it's true if we're referring only to "hard" SF, but soft SF grew up in the pulps, where it was cheap and lurid escapism churned out to earn a living. The pulp writers generally had no scientific or technical backgrounds. Most of the authors and books mentioned in this thread are soft SF.

True. I think I may like hard SF more, so I guess my bias is showing.

quote:

Examples?

Just open up a literary theory compilation, close your eyes, and point somewhere in the table of contents.

Or look in the cites of this classic parody:

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/...singlefile.html

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles True. I think I may like hard SF more, so I guess my bias is showing.

Well it's fairly obvious that hard SF isn't going to be well written, given common literary concerns like story, characters, themes and style are far less important than presenting a scientific theory or idea. I was reading Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson recently, and while he bombards you with endless scientific knowledge from all kinds of areas, the actual novel is incredibly dry and uninteresting.

quote:

Just open up a literary theory compilation, close your eyes, and point somewhere in the table of contents.

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

To clarify: I'm talking about what's commonly called "critical theory," Derrida and Foucault and their many acolytes, not the works of fiction that sometimes get called "postmodern."

Oh, I'd agree with that, although it's a strange comparison between theoretical/philosophical writing and prose fiction. To be honest, most philosophical writing is ungainly and needlessly bombastic, whatever era it's from. It has intensified as the years have gone on because that kind of writing is endlessly referential. A paragraph of Derrida will contain about a dozen terms borrowed from semiotics, philosophy or other critical theory, and each one of those terms encapsulates an entire intellectual concept or theory. If you've had an expensive education and access to a good library it becomes much more readable.

Postmodern literature is generally very easy to read, in my experience, and often very funny and playful.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Postmodern literature is generally very easy to read, in my experience, and often very funny and playful.

I agree, which was the reason for my clarification.

See, I've read Nietzsche and Heidegger (who is also a big slog) and still haven't find Foucault or Derrida very worthwhile. Maybe you can direct me to something of theirs that you find insightful?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.