Is Space Adventure on the brink of a renaissance?

[Jorgon]

"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."

Indeed, and a group of idiots called Rabid Puppies had attempted to hijack Hugos last year, failing miserably.

[Niels]

Jorg wrote: "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. :)"

I'm accepting your taste in science fiction, but am trying to explain to you that the kind you like it is not The Only True Science Fiction, just a particular style of science fiction that a (minority according to Micah above) segment enjoys.

You are not listening, but keep on trying to convince me that it is in fact The Only True by pulling out random definitions that you feel validate your claim. And then proceed to insult my intellect as "passive accepting other inputs" when I've clearly stated that I simply feel stimulated by more by real humanistic perspectives and dilemmas than pseudo-science with no relevance to the real world.
So in a way, yes, the kind of stuff I like is in fact stuff that would still work if you removed the spaceships and gadgets - because it has real life relevance - while I conversely get bored by the pseudo-science stuff when it doesn't.

[Rion]

@ Niels. Why the continued usage of the derogatory language of pseudo-science? What's your point? Science "Fiction". Fiction implies falsehood in the title of the genre. I'm sure many others here also really enjoy the genre for it's ability to flesh out, philosophy, theology, psychology, biology and the rest of the liberal arts. But leave our pseudo-science alone, without the imagination interesting stories are just science books. I hope that's your point to all this arguing.

[Jorgon]

"I've clearly stated that I simply feel stimulated by more by real humanistic perspectives and dilemmas than pseudo-science with no relevance to the real world."

1.Nobody is talking about "pseudo-science". Speculative science is NOT pseudo-in any way, or at least does not have to be. When it IS, I reject it. Oh, and BTW: science, of course, has plenty of relevance to real world: the computer you are using to type this is simple proof.

2.Nobody is claiming that there is "Only True Sciecne Fiction"--I have already included many genres in the category of "fantastika".

3.Speculation is not limited to hard sciences: it can be philosophical, psychological, social--you name it. It's all good. And that speculation is exactly what makes science fiction a different genre, from, say, Harlequin romance or standard bildungsroman.

4.I do not "pull out random definitions"--my definitions are grounded in years and years of reading and thinking about science fiction--and are based on a large amount of criticism., from Lem to Suvin, from Aldiss to Roberts and plenty in between.

5.Finally, an important thing in science fiction is that damn verisimilitude: and that's where the "hard" science part comes in. No, one does not have to include exact orbital mechanics in one's books--but at the same time I expect the background to be plausible, with few violations of the physical laws that we know (for example, I am OK with FTL, even though I tend to believe that it is impossible in this Universe)--but I am NOT OK with explosions in space, with rapidly braking spaceships, or with black holes orbiting a planet and sucking the atmosphere from it.

So, methinks that it is you who are missing all the points here: I have not belittled any particular genre; but I do tend to have a good laugh at STUPID books.

[Jorgon]

"I'm accepting your taste in science fiction"

This is an error: you are accepting what you THINK is my taste in science fiction--once again, my preference is simply for intelligent, well-created and self-consistent worlds that minimize violations of scientific background as we know it today.

If they perform a lot of such violations, they become fantasy--but I have no problem with that genre either.

[Jorgon]

"But leave our pseudo-science alone, without the imagination interesting stories are just science books"

I am one who thinks that science books are pretty damn exciting. But I read cosmological and evo-devo monographs for fun. :)

[Betsy]

It's a hopeful sign when publication of a new space opera novel is considered news:

http://io9.com/read-an-excerpt-from-l...

Of course, iO9 is not quite mainstream news, but still...

[Jonathan]

io9 believes the only sci-fi worth reading is the so-called realistic sci-fi. I'll stay far away from this, as their track record with picking great books is atrocious.

[Anna]

@ Jorg, @Rion, @Neils ... just a gentle reminder that this is the SPACE OPERA FANS community? We are, by nature, the big shaggy, lovable mutt of the science fiction community. No bickering, -K? Peace...

@ Betsy, @ Jonathan - io9 has a massive following, perhaps more so than the Nebulas or Hugo Awards these days. So atrocious their taste may be, but we may find over time they become the new go-to people for what we read. Let's just hope they keep viewing Space Opera favorable so they promote it? [*fingers crossed*]

[C. John]

Anna I think you are asking for a miracle if you are expecting peace to break out in our ranks. Not sure why but conflict seems to be endemic to SF fandom. If you can find a copy somewhere you should read Moskowitz' "The Immortal Storm" on the early days of fandom. More than a few feuds documented in that volume. Mind you I should take umbrage at someone as at sixty years of age I am probably one of the people who was described as fossilized (and there are days that I feel it but then my four kids (ages 5 to 12) get me out of that state) but having been personally insulted by Judith Merrill once means I can take most anything these days and laugh it off. I read what I read because I like it and if others don't then too bad. Still a lit less war and some more constructive conversation would be nice. As for Huguo's and Nebuala's as I have said before I take little heed of any awards. If I like something the lack of an award is not going to affect my enjoyment of it and if something I don't like wins an award I am still not going to like it.
Think I have rambled on long enough and I have some books to review so I will leave the rest of you to settle you accounts by yourself for now. SIG.

[Niels]

Anna wrote: "@ Jorg, @Rion, @Neils ... just a gentle reminder that this is the SPACE OPERA FANS community? We are, by nature, the big shaggy, lovable mutt of the science fiction community. No bickering, -K?"

I'm sorry if I got too personal and offended anyone with my too sharp wording.

My comments were mostly influenced by extreme dissapointment with most of the old sci-fi "classics" I've had the misfortune to try out, an annoyance at how completely useless the awards have turned out to be for identifying quality reading experiences for me, and an exasperation over how many potential (and valuable) fans will reject the genre, if they actually try to use the awards as a guide for checking out the genre.

It's not you, it's just the kind of books you like and defend ;)

[Abby]

@Niels, you're not alone in feeling that way. I think your frustration is perfectly valid. But by the same token, I think it's important to realize that the people who love classic scif-fi and/or the Hugo and Nebula winners feel just as strongly, and they probably think your taste is askew.

Reading a wonderful book is such a personal, intimate experience, I think sometimes it's akin to religion. People get very, very passionate about defending their beliefs or worldview.

[C. John]

Not everyone likes everything. My inlaws love country music which I can listen to if it is from the 20s to 40s. At the same time they hate classical which I enjoy (you can guess what I frequently have on when they come over, unless I have some Jazz or World Music queued up). Same with SF. I am currently re-reading the english Perry Rhodan books, a series I really enjoy. But I know others hate them. Each of us on this site brings our own tastes, preferences and reading habits to our discussions. We just need to remember that my tastes are no less or no more valid then someone elses. SIG

[Niels]

John wrote: "We just need to remember that my tastes are no less or no more valid then someone elses."

That was actually my point earlier, but I ended up sounding too partisan.

And now for something completely different: I just finished Xenogenesis: Dawn, not quite my cup of tea, but a very refreshing angle on sci-fi.

[Aaron]

The problem with reading a lot of classics is they tend to fall into a few camps.

Literary stuff that while it's SF it's more literary and not very pulpy which might be what you want/like.

Original Idea....that has been beaten to death and done better since. A great example is Starship Troopers for it's time great/amazing/innovative but it wouldn't see the light of day today because that has been beaten to death since.

So when I'm reading old classic SF even great ones like the Lensmen series it still suffers from many of these tropes have been reused so it's more a study in where we got to where we are now then a truly 5/5 book.

If you are itching for stuff that reads like it was written in the 60s-70s but is a modern book with modern editing practices I recommend Trial by Fire

Anna wrote: "@ Jorg, @Rion, @Neils ... just a gentle reminder that this is the SPACE OPERA FANS community? We are, by nature, the big shaggy, lovable mutt of the science fiction community. No bickering, -K? Pea..."

Buzzfeed also has a massive following, doesn't make it any less clickbaity. All complaints about politics/in crowds blah blah of the Hugo/Nebula at least they aren't clickbait.

[Jorgon]

"That was actually my point earlier, but I ended up sounding too partisan."

No problem!

Because--seriously--back in the mid-1980's I have penned plenty of screeds against old-school SF and in defense of cyberpunk. Strangely, I've mellowed with age and re-discovered old classics with some pleasure.

On the other hand, after umphty years of college and work in STEM fields, I am quite intolerant of crappy science. One does not HAVE to have hard science in one's books, but if you include science at all, you should get it right.

(Again, bad orbital mechanics and explosions in vacuum tend to piss me off... :) )

The important part to remember is that "science fiction" is not called that just for fun: the "science" part is important as is the "fiction" part (and the same applies to "speculative fictinn": you can't take "speculation" out of it and preserve its core).

[Niels]

Aaron wrote: "Literary stuff that while it's SF it's more literary and not very pulpy which might be what you want/like."

You're talking about the really old stuff here, right?

So when you say literary, do you mean white guys sitting around info-dumping on the author's sci-fi concept? (like the ABC authors)
And when you say pulpy, do you mean trashy entertainment where stuff is actually happening on a regular basis? (like John Carter which is basically fantasy with green orcs in my opinion)

... with both options lacking proper character development and excessive
value dissonance such as sexism?

[C. John]

You can be literary and still have plenty of action. The Three Musketeers is generally considered literary but it certainly has its share of action (pity no movie has ever gotten it right when adapting the book though). Pulpy was usually used to describe those stories which were written for the pulp magazines and were considered disposable and forgettable by the general public.
As far as John Carter and such goes those stories were a type of SF called 'science fantasy'. Although Burroughs is probably the best known practitioner of that style there were several others writing it back in the day. Two that come to mind are Otis Adelbert Kline and Ralph Milne Farley. Even Michael Moorcock has written novels in that style.