Is Space Adventure on the brink of a renaissance?

[C. John]

A lot depends on what the reader brings to the table (so too speak). In my case I don't have much of a science background. Science and me parted ways after grade 12 chemistry (started a fire in the classroom, among other things). So for me the science is secondary to plot and characters. For other fans I have known the science was everything and plot and character were necessary evils but not that important. So whereas long discussions of some scientific part of the book bore me to tears to them it would have been nirvana. To each their own I guess.

[Jorgon]

I used to be impressed with Cold Equations, when I was in grade school. Nowadays, I am not so sure. For more information, google "debunking Cold Equations": essentially, it is "good physics but lousy engineering" and it has been criticized for setting up a moral hazard rather than following the "unchanging physical laws of the universe". :)

(Oh, and the inherent sexism of the setup still grates; of course, it was thorougly of its time).

[C. John]

Even if the science is flawed it is still a pretty powerful story. There was a story written roughly the same era concerning an Earth spaceship encountering one from an alien race (though one similar to humans) and the problem of what to do to protect their respective home planets as there was mutual distrust of the other race. In the end the two agreed to destroy any data that could lead the other race to their respective planets and then to swap ships. There was a Soviet writer who criticized the story as being typically western and militaristic. He then wrote one where the two races realized they could exist in mutual harmony. Problem was in his story the alien race was so dissimilar to human kind that there was no way they could ever be in conflict.

[R.]

Jorg wrote: "I used to be impressed with Cold Equations, when I was in grade school. Nowadays, I am not so sure. For more information, google "debunking Cold Equations": essentially, it is "good physics but lou..."

There are a whole bunch of things wrong with the story, starting with the fact that jettisoning the internal doors would in fact reduce the mass of the EDS sufficiently to save Marylin. The reason I quote it is that somehow Godwin's writing carries you along with the idea and you get the emotional involvement.

From my point of view the science is good enough not to break the thread, and that's all that I ask.

As a reader I want to enjoy the characters' problems, and all I ask of the science is that it doesn't do anything jarring. I've just read Dennis Ingram's "Foothold" and really enjoyed it. The characters are really likeable, the problems they face are real and the science is unobtrusive and good enough not to contain any major blunders. I regard this book as indicative of a new and very positive trend in SF.

[Niels]

AndrewP wrote: "I hate to tell you this but most of the networking equipment that keeps the internet going uses a command line to configure. Even Microsoft's server products are increasingly requiring more command line interaction due to complexity that's not practical in a GUI. "

My point is that back in the day 100% of computer users had to know command line based computing, nowadays it's only the few people that actually make civilisation work that is able to comprehend what is going on - if they even NOTICE what is going on below the GUI.
So if you are a nerd writing for nerds, you'll lose practically all potential readers. I'm old enough to have experienced the MS-DOS era, but we're going slowly extinct.

Jorg wrote: "BTW: why do you insist on calling it "old"? As I have already said, much of the better modern space opera has a strong hard-sciencey edge"

Because some people (and yes, it's an age thing) tend to wax endlessly about how everything was better in the ABC-era.
I'm not old enough to be nostalgic about that stuff because most of it is just really bad storytelling by today's standards (and/or messes up psychology, motivation, politics etc. making you wonder if any of the authors actually understood how people work).
And I have a strong suspicion that those segments sit heavily on the sci-fi-relevant awards, because whenever I've tried to read a Hugo or Nebula awarded book, I get insanely bored.

Of course that means that I tend to stay away from those books and rarely get my prejudices challenged.

[Jonathan]

It's all about the story I think. The Martian is huge on mathematical equations and the science of actually surviving and crossing hundreds of kilometers (maybe it was tens). But the book has sold like crazy, because the story is great.

If you can't tell a good story, it doesn't matter if you're the most knowledgeable person in the world on certain science, or if you're not entirely sure what science is, you're not gonna sell much and will make very few fans.

[Jorgon]

" There was a Soviet writer who criticized the story as being typically western and militaristic."

Ah yes, the Leinster vs Efremov incident. Both of them had points.

I tend to side more with Efremov, specifically because I think taht any intelligent life we will encounter out there is going to be REALLY different form us.

That is, if we encounter anything at all: fom everything we currently know and suspect, complex life--meaning eukaryotic, and even more so for multicellular--is probably a rarity in the Universe.

[Jorgon]

"And I have a strong suspicion that those segments sit heavily on the sci-fi-relevant awards, because whenever I've tried to read a Hugo or Nebula awarded book, I get insanely bored."

Hm, is that a commentary on the book or on yourself? :)

How about LeGuin's Dispossessed and Left Hand of Darkness; Zelazny's Lord of Light; Leiber's Big Time; Pohl's Gateway--just to mention a few. All won Hugos, some won Nebulas as well. None are "boring" in any sense.

[Jorgon]

"If you can't tell a good story, it doesn't matter if you're the most knowledgeable person in the world "

To some extent. But then there's Baxter, whose style and characterizations are pretty awful IMHO, but who is regularly on top of bestselling lists (at least for SF in general).

And, of course, story is only a part of it: some of the most amazing fiction is completely deconstructed and the story is secondary to metanarrative.

So there are exceptions, as always.

[Jorgon]

"So if you are a nerd writing for nerds, you'll lose practically all potential readers. I'm old enough to have experienced the MS-DOS era, but we're going slowly extinct."

1.Ah, well. Why would I want to dumb things down? For sales? Screw that. :)

2.No, we are not, and MS DOS has nothing to do with it. CLI is alive and well in computer sciences and system administration, of course, but also in many branches of engineering and other science, and even art. The best and most versatile ray-tracing program? Probably POVRay, which is essentially a programming language.

As Stephenson famously said, "In the beginning was the command line..." and it is still far more powerful and versatile than the slickest GUI you can come up with.

[C. John]

The Hugos are voted on by the membership of that years World Science Fiction Convention. If you take out even a non-attending membership (which are often relatively inexpensive) you get a vote. The Nebulas are given out the Science Fiction writers of America, whose membership criteria I have no idea of.

[Anna]

Alas, the Hugos and the Nebulas have become so stratified and inbred that they have very little influence anymore on what books the general public will enjoy. It's become the 'old boys club' patting each other on the back. Still prestigious, but hopelessly archaic and out of date.

I think a good writer can take a bit of science and make it accessible to the average reader. Maybe they won't understand every bit of science the protagonist uses, but they'll get the gist of it and learn something from the story. And then, when they encounter that scientific principle again in real life, they'll take notice, poke at it a bit and dig.

It all hinges on the STORY and the CHARACTERS.

[Brendan]

I thought the last 3 Nebula Award winners were all fantastic. They picked my favourite book that came out in each year.

[Micah]

John wrote: "The Nebulas are given out the Science Fiction writers of America, whose membership criteria I have no idea of.
"

https://www.sfwa.org/about/join-us/sf...

A candidate shall be eligible for Active Membership after acceptance and signed contracts or letters of agreement for:

1. Three or more paid sales of different works of fiction (such as three separate short stories or half-hour scripts) totaling a minimum of 10,000 words to eligible markets, was self-published or sold to a small press for each of which the candidate can prove the sale at the minimum rate of 6c/word or higher (5c/word 1/1/2004 – 6/30/2014) (3c/word before 1/1/2004); or

2. One Paid Sale of a work of fiction (such as a novel) of a minimum of 40,000 words to a qualifying professional market, for which the candidate has been paid at least $3,000 as a non-returnable advance before or at the time of publication ($2000.00 if sale made on or before 12/31/2014); or

3. One professionally produced full length (at least one hour) teleplay (dramatic script) with credits clearly shown on the work and paid at the rate established for works over 40,000 words , credited to no more than two individuals and with a minimum pay rate of 6c/word or higher (5c/word 1/1/2004 – 6/30/2014) (3c/word before 1/1/2004); or

4. A published work of fiction of a minimum of 40,000 words either sold to a small press or self-published for which the author can demonstrate net income of at least $3,000 over the course of a year since January 1, 2013. Income can be in the form of advance, royalties, or some combination thereof.

5. Qualifying works must be in the English language in science fiction, fantasy, horror and related genres. “Paid Sale” and “Qualifying Professional Market” are as defined below.

[Abby]

I've paid all too much attention to the Hugo Award kerfluffles over recent years. Here's my opinion on the merit of Hugo (and Nebula) awards:

- There is a certain style of book that Hugo voters (mostly WorldCon attendees who work in the publishing and writing industry) favor.

- About 50% of SFF readers really, truly, love the style of books that get nominated and win.

- About 50% of SFF readers really, truly dislike the style of books that get nominated and win.

- 90% of readers on either side believe that the other side must be crazy, or lying in order to support a political agenda, and assume that that's why they support or deride the books that get nominated.

I'm not going to say that it's all subjective, because I don't believe that. But I think a certain style of book can mesh well with your world-view, or not.

[Jorgon]

I have not been impressed with Hugos over the last coupe of decades either, with some notable exceptions. But Hugos, ultimately, reflect popular taste. I've always had more respect for the Nebulas, since they are awarded essentially by peers and are far more interesting in that regard.

With all that, the main point of interest about such awards is cultural rather than literary: they reflect the environment and what currently passes for "taste" and "fashion".

[Abby]

Jorg wrote: "But Hugos, ultimately, reflect popular taste. [...] the main point of interest about such awards is cultural rather than literary [...]"

Gotta disagree, here. The Hugos are probably nominated by 90% industry people, not the general reading public. And the voters are probably at least 60% industry people, not the general reading public. I'm guesstimating, but that is definitely how it looks to me, as a person with my ear to the ground in the industry.

[Jorgon]

"Gotta disagree, here. The Hugos are probably nominated by 90% industry people, not the general reading public."

So then, it has changed a lot from the past. All the Con attendees still vote, don't they? And there are plenty of fans there.

[Jorgon]

And I still stand by my respect for the Nebulas over Hugos: I just revisited the Nebula-winning novel list, and it is (with few exceptions) a great one and highly recommended to anyone--and several books on it rise to the status of "Great Literature"... :)

[C. John]

Problem is World Con memberships are nowadays pretty pricey, at least attending ones are. Industry people can probably claim theirs as a business expense. For the fans attending you had best be well-heeled as besides the tickets you have hotel and meal expenses as well (unless you pull a Harlan Ellison) and of course you need money for the sales room.

[Brendan]

Jorg wrote: "And I still stand by my respect for the Nebulas over Hugos: I just revisited the Nebula-wining novel list, and it is (with few exceptions) a great one and highly recommended to anyone--and several ..."

Quite true. Even though picking The Windup Girl over The City & the City in 2010 was unforgivable, the hit rate for Nebula winners being awesome books is incredibly high.

[Micah]

Abby wrote: "Gotta disagree, here. The Hugos are probably nominated by 90% industry people, not the general reading public. And the voters are probably at least 60% industry people, not the general reading public..."

I gotta disagree a little here, too. ;)

I think you're probably right that industry professionals made up a large part of the nominating population, but it's probably nowhere near 90%. For best novel this year there were only 1,827 nominating ballots (587 different titles were nominated, BTW). If only 10% of the nominations came from non-industry members of the World Science Fiction Society (WSFS), then that would be only 183 people (out of over 10,000 eligible nominators).

I can't imaging that less than 200 people outside the industry nominated novels, not when the population of WSFS is made up of an extremely dedicated slice of SF fandom, most of whom have no professional connection to publishing.

As for voting, 5,653 final ballots were cast for best novel this year. That's close to half the eligible voting population of WSFS and very close to the number of actual attendees at this year's Worldcon.

I attended Worldcon this year for the first time and I can tell you, the attending members are not your typical SF fans. For starters, I felt like one of the younger attendees...and I'm 57. It is, indeed, a very old slice of SF. If the voting membership is even close to the demographics I witnessed in the attending members, then you really can't expect the Hugos to represent "popular" SF.

Most readers of SF (myself included up until the point I decided to attend Worldcon), have no idea what the Hugos really are. They are certainly a popularity contest, but popularity within a very specific population of fandom. That can change, but only if people with other viewpoints join WSFS, nominate, and vote.

[Abby]

Micah wrote: "I can't imagine that less than 200 people outside the industry nominated novels [...]"

I can. I might just be cynical, though.

When nomination season starts, lots of SFF industry people start asking for each other's recently published stories, so they can decide what to nominate. When they find one they want to nominate, they sometimes talk it up on social media, and then their fans or followers pick up the story and consider it, as well. So there's probably a ripple effect. I really think they decide what gets nominated.

Micah wrote: "I attended Worldcon this year for the first time and I can tell you, the attending members are not your typical SF fans. For starters, I felt like one of the younger attendees...and I'm 57. It is, indeed, a very old slice of SF."

Yup. I've been to WorldCon in 2012, and in 2007. I guarantee that anyone you see who's under age 50 in that crowd is a SFF publishing industry person, or someone trying very hard to break into the industry. Lots of authors from Tor, DAW, Baen, Del Rey, S&S, etc, plus editors and marketing people.

That is the crowd that votes for the Hugo Awards.

Same goes for the Nebulas. They're voted for during World Fantasy Con, which purposely takes place during Halloween weekend to discourage fans (who love cosplay) from attending. I went to World Fantasy Con in 2005, and it seemed to be *all* industry people. A good place to network.

[Jonathan]

Jorg wrote: ""And I have a strong suspicion that those segments sit heavily on the sci-fi-relevant awards, because whenever I've tried to read a Hugo or Nebula awarded book, I get insanely bored."

Hm, is that ..."

Hyperion won a Hugo or a Nebula, or maybe both. It's a fantastic book.

I do get bored with most Nebula winners though. Not my type of writing.

[C. John]

The World Science Fiction Convention has come a long way from it's origin in 1939 when a group of fans (led by Samuel Moskowitz, James Taurasi and Will Sykora) put on the first one. Attendence was only 200 but then coming all the way to New York from other parts of the US was a daunting trip, though Ackerman did manage to do it. By the way this was the site of what is sometime referred to as "The Great Exclusion Act" so fandom has always had its splits.

[Jorgon]

I loved Hyperion; The Fall of Hyperion less; and Endymion duology even less than that. And I mad my way through Olympos/Ilion, but it was a struggle--despite undeniably cool setting.

[Jonathan]

Anna wrote: "Alas, the Hugos and the Nebulas have become so stratified and inbred that they have very little influence anymore on what books the general public will enjoy. It's become the 'old boys club' pattin..."

I think the Nebula Award still does a good job of picking out books that fall into the "literary" side of SFF. Just about all the ones picked are brilliantly written, but sometimes quite boring.

[Jonathan]

Micah wrote: "Abby wrote: "Gotta disagree, here. The Hugos are probably nominated by 90% industry people, not the general reading public. And the voters are probably at least 60% industry people, not the general..."

It's like $60 to buy membership to Sasquan. Depending on where you live and where WorldCon is held that year, a trip to WorldCon can easily surpass two grand, especially when hotels jack the prices because they know 2000+ people will be arriving that weekend. And there's the fact that WorldCon moves every year.

It all adds up and makes it so pretty much the only people who will be there are industry people (authors, editors, etc) and people with a lot of disposable income and free time, which means what you see there is likely not representative to who the voters are.

Or maybe it is, but either way I would love to win a Hugo or Nebula or both.

[Jorgon]

"Just about all the ones picked are brilliantly written, but sometimes quite boring"

I'll have to disagree here: to me, a book that is "beautifully written" and tickles my brain (which most Nebula winners do) can never be boring.

On the other hand, a "fun swashbuckling read" is often boring--and Hugo awards have tended to go that way more often than Nebulas.

(I am stil not sure why Bujold won ALL these awards--she is not a bad writer, but so many were much more deserving).

[Abby]

Jonathan wrote: "[...] which means what you see there is likely not representative to who the voters are."

All of the "normal" SFF readers & fans I encounter have no clue how to vote for the Hugos or Nebulas, or any interest in doing so if it costs $$ (which it does). The biggest popular reader's choice awards seem to be the Goodreads Awards, and the Watties.

The only people I know who vote for Hugos and Nebulas are SFF authors and industry people. Thousands of them. That's anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but I'm pretty convinced that the Hugos and Nebulas are both industry awards.

Jonathan wrote: "[...] either way I would love to win a Hugo or Nebula or both."

Here's me being really cynical, but ... I think you'll need to network a ton (if you don't already do so). Go to writing conventions. Join SFWA and Codex. Become a regular. Talk to agents and editors. If you work outside the machinery of the industry, the way Hugh Howey, Andy Weir, Scott Sigler, and other indie authors did or do, then I doubt you'll ever get on the radar for Hugo or Nebula nominations. That's a big deal to some authors who built their careers without industry help (Larry Correia made the news about it), and no big deal to others.

[C. John]

For some writers the Grandmaster award is more important as that is given for their body of work, rather than just one item.

[C. John]

I believe those with non-attending memberships can also vote for the Hugos and it used to be that those were not that expensive. Of course that means you need to get the ballot in the mail in time.

[Niels]

Jorg wrote: "Hm, is that a commentary on the book or on yourself? :)
How about LeGuin's Dispossessed and Left Hand of Darkness; Zelazny's Lord of Light; Leiber's Big Time; Pohl's Gateway--just to mention a few. All won Hugos, some won Nebulas as well. None are "boring" in any sense. "

Yes and yes ;) I made that comment because I had a strong feeling that the two of us have very differnt taste in sci-fi, and your subsequent comments about literary versus swashbuckling sci-fi pretty much confirmed that.

But the main reason why I complained about the Hugo and Nebula Awards is that I feel they're not giving a leg up to authors trying to take sci-fi in new directions and catering to a wider audience.
And if people knew about those awards and which books have won them, they would probaby scare potential readers away from sci-fi.
And I'm really not surprised to hear that the convention-goers and voters are more or less the fossilized remains of those authors, publishers and readers from the 50'ties and 60'ties.

That said, I do like LeGuin a lot (in small doses spaced far apart because although she has some very interesting ideas, the pace of the books are SLOW). But generally I've almost only had bad experiences with Hugo and Nebula award winners, to such a degree that I'm actually considering them a warning sign.
Personally I was very surprised to learn that the Windup Girl won, because looking beyond the world-building, the story itself is poorly written and barely hang together. Here is a comment about some other books I had worse experiences with:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

[Niels]

Just for the fun of it, I just browsed through the list of Hugo Award winners and categorised them:

Read it and liked it
The Dispossessed
Ender's Game
Speaker for the dead - the Pecaninos were interesting, but I'm conflicted about this one because my memory is tainted by how fast the sequels turned to into crap
A fire upon the deep - World building was very interesting, author proceeded to throw it away and write about kids and puppies
A deepness in the Sky - Very nice book, goes to prove that adults are more interesting in the long run, although still no proper use of the zones-world building
American gods

Read it and felt a bit meh
The man in the high castle - interesting world-building, but did the story have any red thread or was it just random stuff happening?
Neuromancer
(Harry Potter and the goblet of fire)
(The Graveyard Book)
The Windup Girl

Read it and hated it
Starship Troopers - boring bootcamp, unrealistic combat scenes at the very end
Stranger in a strange land - boring, misogynic and way too much thinly vailed lecturing about the wonders of the sexual revolution versus stale morals
Dune - meh, way too long nothing really happened, the computer game was better
Foundation's Edge - Asimov should have been put over the knee and spanked for that irrelevant and unrealistic crap, not received a reward. Never expect a biochemist to understand free will or even behaviour of higher life-forms
(Dr Strange and Mr Norell - extremely long book of absolutely nothing happening in Regency setting)

On my reading list
Left hand of darkness - YAY! LeGuin!
Ringworld - I'm really unsure about this because it sounds very dated and boring from the reviews I've read
Rendevouz with Rama - Maybe... reviews say that nothing is really happening
Hyperion
Doomsday Book - Sounds interesting, but I'm concerned about bad reviews
Redshirts
Ancilliary Justice

Never heard about it
40 books

[C. John]

The Hugo and Nebula awards have the same problem that all awards have, different people have different tastes. So what you might think is the greatest SF novel of the year, someone else found a total bore while you hated their favourite. I may be wrong but I think the only time one of my favourite TV shows won best series at the Emmies was when Hill Street Blues would win in it's first few years.

[C. John]

Niels wrote: "Just for the fun of it, I just browsed through the list of Hugo Award winners and categorised them:

Read it and liked it
The Dispossessed
Ender's Game
Speaker for the dead - the Pecaninos were int..."

I'm going to have to look at the full list of the Hugo winners to see what is on it. Since I may little or no attention to awards to be honest I don't know if a book has won a Hugo or not, especially in recent years.

[Micah]

John wrote: "I believe those with non-attending memberships can also vote for the Hugos and it used to be that those were not that expensive. Of course that means you need to get the ballot in the mail in time."

It's only $40 to be a non-attending member who can nominate and vote and ballots can be had/submitted online.

[Jonathan]

Niels wrote: "Just for the fun of it, I just browsed through the list of Hugo Award winners and categorised them:

Read it and liked it
The Dispossessed
Ender's Game
Speaker for the dead - the Pecaninos were int..."

Oh God, Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell. My wife poked fun at me for months, said I read as slow as a slug moves, because I was reading that book for months. I couldn't get through more than twenty pages in a week. I kept waiting for the cool magic to show up, or the fairy to do something. The damn thing just danced. I never got to the end, still have about 100 or so pages left. I donated it a while ago, so I'll never finish it.

[Abby]

Jonathan wrote: "Oh God, Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell. [...] I kept waiting for the cool magic to show up, or the fairy to do something. The damn thing just danced."

It's an *awesome* TV miniseries, though.

[R.]

Jorg wrote: ""So if you are a nerd writing for nerds, you'll lose practically all potential readers. I'm old enough to have experienced the MS-DOS era, but we're going slowly extinct."

1.Ah, well. Why would I ..."

Why does everyone equate the command line with MS-DOS? There were far better command line systems such as RSX-11, VMS, Barry Landy's Phoenix that existed long before MS.

Now we have the POSIX standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX which means if you can drive one CLI you can pretty well drive them all.

I remember at a show someone demonstrating a pretty GUI for something that should have been CLI. I said "now show me how to put what you have done in a file and run that sequence of actions again at 4am." Oh dear...

[Niels]

R. wrote: "Why does everyone equate the command line with MS-DOS?"

MS-DOS is just a straw-man for my main points:

The combination of division of labour, increased complexity of technology and tendencies to hide it under layers and layers of user friendlyness means that for all practical purposes, technology is already indistinguishable from magic for most people today. This is the kind of fans sci-fi has compete with fantasy over in the future:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGMsT...

They won't see anything wrong with doing the equivalent of "a wizard did it", because the world they were raised in, fron infancy, all technology is "a scientist did it".

Sci-fi has a big challenge balancing the need to meet the (potential) audience at the level they're at and entertaining them properly, versus saving the future of science and civilisation by inspiring them to dive into the marvels of technology.

[Wesley]

On a related topic, just saw The Martian. Excellent movie that might help bring upon a space adventure renaissance.

The book is excellent too, although pretty technical. Actually, you can start skipping the technical explanations towards the middle and end, and you won't really miss much. Watney tells you what he needs to do (important part) then how he has to do it (technical part).

[C. John]

Thinking we should start a thread to discuss the Hugos. Looking at the list of Hugo winners and nominees does show how SF has changed in one respect. In the early days a major SF novel would have appeared in one of the magazines first. Now it is straight to either hardcover or paperback of some sort. Of course the fact that there are far fewer sci-fi magazines on the racks these days might account for that (probably does). I also looked at the Retro-Hugos and have some thoughts on those but will save them for another time.

[Abby]

John wrote: "Of course the fact that there are far fewer sci-fi magazines on the racks these days might account for that (probably does)."

I'd be interested to know how the online SFF magazines of the 1990s-2010s measure up to the print magazines of the 1950s-1980s.

Nowadays, magazines like Clarkesworld, Lightspeed, and the Intergalactic Medicine Show seem to have a lot of critical acclaim, and possibly a large readership. But I really have no idea.

[Jorgon]

"although she has some very interesting ideas, the pace of the books are SLOW"

Only if you think that action is the only thing that provides any "speed". The flow of ideas is very fast and dense, and ideas, after all, at at the core of science fiction.

For example, I could not put The Dispossessed down, once I finally got to it (an earlier attempt to read it, at the age of 14, failed miserably :) ).

[Jorgon]

"Why does everyone equate the command line with MS-DOS"

I certianly do not. I live in bash, more or less, and R, yorick and glish and several others. :)

[Niels]

Jorg wrote: "Only if you think that action is the only thing that provides any "speed". The flow of ideas is very fast and dense, and ideas, after all, at at the core of science fiction.."

You raise an interesting point about flow of ideas as entertainment: I kinda agree on this when it comes to psychological and philosophical insights, that's why I like Ursula Le Guin and Terry Pratchett, but nonsense science like the stuff Orson Scott Card is rambling on and on about in the later books in the Ender Quintet is just useless and tiresome.
But I don't agree that 'ideas is the core of science fiction'. It's just ONE kind of sci-fi, you are of course fully entitled to enjoy it, but there are OTHER kinds as well and they don't get the Hugo awards they deserve.

Since we're discussing in this in a group for Grand Space Opera, I'd venture to say that one of the things that can REALLY ruin space opera is too many or too contrived ideas - the Foundation series and the Ender Quintet are particularly bad examples (that of course won Hugo awards).
Conversely authours like Jack Campbell and David Weber are able to create some excellent space opera because they give center stage to people, actions, psychology and politics, while keeping over-complicated speculative science at a refreshing minimum (and therefore do NOT win any Hugo awards).

[Micah]

Niels wrote: "...they don't get the Hugo awards they deserve..."

Thus proving that most people don't understand the Hugo award.

The Hugo was created to award the best SF in the opinion of members of World Science Fiction Society. If you're not a member and don't nominate and/or vote, you have no real say in what does or doesn't deserve a Hugo.

Complaining about what does or doesn't get a Hugo if you're not a member is basically complaining that the Hugo isn't the award you want it to be.

It's always been a popularity contest by a very select group of fandom. So who cares if something we like doesn't get awarded?

We could actually create a Goodreads Space Opera Fans Group award and pick our own.

Call it the Anna Award after our founder.

Guaranteed someone will complain about what didn't get awarded. ];P

[Jorgon]

"authours like Jack Campbell and David Weber are able to create some excellent space opera because they give center stage to people, actions, psychology and politics"

Aha! I have not read any Campbell--but found Weber to be a little, er, boring. EDIT: Perhaps boring is not a right word--I found him to be more a waste of my time. He did not provide any spark of surprise, any intellectual tickle, nothing like that--while the action was fun and the details, gripping, I felt like I'd wasted several hours that could have been used for something else... :) /ENDEDIT If I want to read Horatio Hornblower or Cold War intrigues, there are plenty of authors who do that.

The key element of science fiction is that it is *speculative* (ie, contains speculation). And here is a recipe on how to tell whether something is actually science fiction:

take away the spaceships and the gadgets and move it from the future to the present. Does the story still work? If it does, we are not dealing with science fiction, but rather a mainstream novel that just happens to be written in a futuristic mode. There is nothing wrong with that, per se--but just like science fiction is not fantasy (itself a group of many subgenres), or a detective mystery--or, rather, it isn't just those things--it is not defined simply by bug-eyed aliens and space travel.

(All of the above are more usefully described as "fantastika"--a term which also includes the new weird, slipstream, horror, etc--all lliteratures of "cognitive estrangement", to quote Darko Suvin).

And, again, there are plenty of space operas that are full of ideas, scientific and otherwise, and both acttion AND speculation AND science: Banks, Reynolds, Stross, Watts; Asher, Nagata, Carver, Benford, Cherryh--and these are just a few of the later ones.

[Jorgon]

"You raise an interesting point about flow of ideas as entertainment:"

Shrug. Yes, I find learning and thinking to be far more "entertaining" than passively accepting other input. I find action movies to be curiously unstimulating--unless they are also intelligent and challenge my brain. It is a muscle and needs to be exercised. :)