Sci-fi/fantasy Reading Recommendations

[khaight]

Has anyone read anything SINCE the silver age of sci-fi?

John Scalzi isn't bad.

David Drake, John Ringo, Eric Flint, and David Weber are worth reading.

Elizabeth Moon isn't bad.

C.J. Cherryh is great if you like REALLY complex characterizations and intrigue, although her books can be a bit impenetrable at times. She does good aliens.

Definitely recommend Neal Stephenson (Snow Crash) if you like cyberpunk.

All the above authors you list are worth reading, if you're into mil-sf.

Some other more recent authors whose work I enjoy: Lois McMaster Bujold, John C. Wright, Alastair Reynolds, Julian May, David Feintuch, John Varley, Wil McCarthy, Roger MacBride Allen, Walter H. Hunt, Michael Z. Williamson, Vernor Vinge and Dan Simmons.

On the fantasy side of the divide: Lois McMaster Bujold (again), Steven Erikson, George R. R. Martin, Glen Cook, Elizabeth Moon. Stephenson's "Baroque Cycle" trilogy is good, if long, although I'm not sure whether it's science fiction or historical fiction. It's just... Stephenson.

In other words... yes. I have read stuff written since the silver age.

[FreeLogic]

I'm not really sure what kind of science fiction you might be into (hard sci-fi, or star wars type), but here are a few suggestions for branching out:

Camelot 30K by Robert L. Foward: A story about a mission to a planet in the Oort Cloud home to a mideival-style society of shrimp-like aliens called Keraks. This one was really neat and has a very surprising ending.

Cold as Ice by Charles Sheffield: A story about a submarine operator chosen to explore the hydrothermal vents on Europa in search of life who finds out that he's being set up for something much bigger.

EON by Greg Bear: A story about an asteroid that appears in Earth orbit in the 21st century that was home to an ancient race of Russians, Chinese, and Americans. It's one of those American/Soviet Union Cold War science fiction stories. Very interesting, but be warned it's a little slow getting started.

Hope this offers a few good suggestions.

-Wes

[tobyk100]

Isaac Asimov.

He books on robots present great use of the power of logic.

[Jennieann]

I love Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy and Empire Series!

[$$$]

Brian Aldiss: The Helliconia Trilogy (Helliconia Spring, summer and winter)

Jack Vance: The Dying Earth, The Eyes of the Overworld (warning, the "hero" is completely immoral, but funny)

Frank Herbert: Dune series and anything else I have read of his

Ursula K Le Guin: The Left Hand of Darkness

I just read the Lathe of Heaven by Ursula k le guin, and it wasn't very good. she has the world suffering starvations because of mass over population (of 7 billion! oh no!!!!!!)

I would AVOID the Red Mars series by some guy who I couldn't stand

DO NOT attempt to read Margaret Atwood sci-fi, totally annoying

[Scott_Connery]

My three favorites are Heinlein, Niven, and Pournelle.

I also like David Weber and David Drake, but they I don't think they qualify as great like my three favorites.

I second the advice to avoid the Red Mars series. I would avoid Poul Anderson too.

[khaight]

Recently I've been enjoying the hell out of Charles Stross. His stuff is difficult to describe, but a lot of fun. Try his novel Accelerando; it's a bit like having the inside of your head scrubbed out by the future.

[aequalsa]

it's a bit like having the inside of your head scrubbed out by the future.

Hopefully that is more pleasant then it sounds...

[Gabo]

I love Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy and Empire Series!

I'm currently reading the Foundation novels and they are indeed stunning. I'm halfway through "Foundation and Empire", and so far I would recommend the books to any Objectivist. The first one, "Foundation", is a must. It has several themes consistant with Objectivism, such the fact that every time the Foundation seems to stagnate, it is forced to improve and innovate, or else cease to exist. And characters like Salvor Hardin and Mallow are practically Objectivist heroes.

Another author I recommend is Arthur C. Clarke, specially the Space Odyssey series. The first two books (2001: A Space Odyssey and 2010: Odyssey Two) have been made into stunning movies. The last two (2061: Odyssey Three and 3001: Final Odyssey) are equally stunning. Clarke's disdain for religion and optimism towards man's scientific and technological progress will no doubt be engaging for Objectivists.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I'm currently reading the Foundation novels and they are indeed stunning. I'm halfway through "Foundation and Empire", and so far I would recommend the books to any Objectivist. The first one, "Foundation", is a must. It has several themes consistant with Objectivism, such the fact that every time the Foundation seems to stagnate, it is forced to improve and innovate, or else cease to exist. And characters like Salvor Hardin and Mallow are practically Objectivist heroes.

...but keep in mind that the entire premise of psychohistory in these books is that the individual does not matter. History would have worked out the same way no matter who was in charge. I don't recall the name, but remember the incident with the imperial admiral who attempted to englobe the foundation. He failed, and would have failed no matter what.

Very unObjectivist. Still a good read.

[Gabo]

...but keep in mind that the entire premise of psychohistory in these books is that the individual does not matter. History would have worked out the same way no matter who was in charge. I don't recall the name, but remember the incident with the imperial admiral who attempted to englobe the foundation. He failed, and would have failed no matter what.

Very unObjectivist. Still a good read.

Since I haven't finished the Trilogy yet, I cannot speak for the whole body of work. But as far as the first book goes, the premise seems to be that one, but it's contradicted by the facts. Individuals supposedly don't matter so much in the course of psychohistory, but nevertheless it's thanks to single individuals such as Hardin and Mallow, who break with tradition and endorse the most rational solution against every form of resistance, that the Foundation survives.

[D'kian]

...but keep in mind that the entire premise of psychohistory in these books is that the individual does not matter. History would have worked out the same way no matter who was in charge. I don't recall the name, but remember the incident with the imperial admiral who attempted to englobe the foundation. He failed, and would have failed no matter what.

Very unObjectivist. Still a good read.

One can argue that despite the Psychohistory premise, Salvor Hardin and Hobber Mallow choose to act. They don't sit down to await Seldon's dead hand to save them (the way, for instance, the Siwennan character does when confronting Bel Riose, the Imperial general).

Spoilers follow:

You've been warned.

Later there's the one man who can upset the Plan. I never did buy into his "mental powers," but he was well-portrayed as a villain: a pathetic second-hander dependent on other people to do things for him.

Anyway, what I find objectionable, really objectionable, regarding the saga is the Galaxia notion introduced in the 4th novel. And that's too bad because Foundation's Edge is otherwise a great novel. I fully expected Trevize to reverse himself in the final novel, but he only went to show that a little altruism goes an awful long way.

Asimov did much better on The End Of Eternity. Essentially it's a rejection of the nanny state, even if only onpractical grounds. I highly recommend it.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

One can argue that despite the Psychohistory premise, Salvor Hardin and Hobber Mallow choose to act. They don't sit down to await Seldon's dead hand to save them (the way, for instance, the Siwennan character does when confronting Bel Riose, the Imperial general).

[spoilers cut]

Asimov did much better on The End Of Eternity. Essentially it's a rejection of the nanny state, even if only onpractical grounds. I highly recommend it.

But the POINT behind the trilogy is, given a population of humans, no individual's actions actually matter, no individual can change history. If these heroes had acted differently or not acted at all, the end result would have been the same.

He is basically denying the Alexander the Great effect.

Spoiler Alert:

After selling many foundation stories to John Campbell, editor of Astounding, Campbell said it would be cool if psychohistory were to "break". Asimov said, "No, no, no" and Campbell said "Yes, yes, yes" and Asimov knew he wasn't going to actually sell a "No, no, no" so he had to come up with the Mule--an actor who was not a normal human--so he could break things without implying psychohistory was wrong. Actually this demonstrates well the contextual nature of knowlege--psychohistory was portrayed as correct, within its context of large masses of normal humans.

/Spoiler Alert:

I think the foundation trilogy is a wonderful work--just keep in mind that though it recognizes the existence of exceptional people, it does not believe that in the end, they actually matter.

[D'kian]

But the POINT behind the trilogy is, given a population of humans, no individual's actions actually matter, no individual can change history. If these heroes had acted differently or not acted at all, the end result would have been the same.

Oh, yes. That's why the parts involving Bel Riose, Latham Devers and Onum Barr are so unsatisfying. the ruthless general has to be stopped, and the brave trader and dignified, old nobleman do try. Yet whatever they try, and whether or not they succeed, is irrelevant. Hardin and Mallow at least had the satisfaction of making the right decisions at the right time and obtaining great victories in return. Devers and Bar win only because Riose has to loose.

Whatever the flaws concerning the Mule, the Foundation heroes who confront him do matter.

I think the foundation trilogy is a wonderful work--just keep in mind that though it recognizes the existence of exceptional people, it does not believe that in the end, they actually matter.

Yes. And Asimov does reach that conclussion at the end of the saga. In fact.

SPOILER ALERT!!

You've been warned

Asimov concludes that individuals ought not matter or even exist.

Anyway, ahve you read The End Of Eternity? What did you think of it?

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Anyway, ahve you read The End Of Eternity? What did you think of it?

I re-read it recently--it does seem to take exactly the opposite tack. I recommend it.

An amusing (albeit irrelevant) story about that book. Many, many years ago, I was in a used bookstore standing next to some guy in a suit, scanning the SF shelf. In that store the Asimov NON-fiction was lumped in with his SF, and I was looking for that. Anyhow, very prominently displayed was a copy of "End of Eternity" Without any prompting whatsoever this guy starts complaining about the title of the book. "Eternity doesn't End, blah blah blah..." I think he even quoted the Bible to "prove" his "point". Back then I kept his mouth shut. Today, I might very well say, "That's the title of a novel--it's about the end of an organization named "Eternity" and has nothing to say, one way or the other, about your book of fables." Or I might just say "the Bible" and suggest he read the novel.

In point of fact he might very well have enjoyed the book because it COULD be construed as warning against "playing God." So the best way to handle it might have been to point that out.

[D'kian]

I re-read it recently--it does seem to take exactly the opposite tack. I recommend it.

It's my favorite Asimov work. BTW if you haven't already get a hold of "The Parallel Asimovs." It has the original novelette for "The End of Eternity." The novelette is much weaker and the ending is comlpetely different, but it's worth reading if you're an Asimov fan.

Without any prompting whatsoever this guy starts complaining about the title of the book. "Eternity doesn't End, blah blah blah..." I think he even quoted the Bible to "prove" his "point".

He also showed his utter lack of familiarity with SF. Any half-dedicated reader knows paradoxical titles abound, paradoxical references even more so.

In point of fact he might very well have enjoyed the book because it COULD be construed as warning against "playing God." So the best way to handle it might have been to point that out.

I don't know. I mean, you could do worse than steering someone into quality SF. But woulnd't such a comment reinforce his faith? I know few religious people who'd admit even God shouldn't play God.

[Gabo]

Oh, yes. That's why the parts involving Bel Riose, Latham Devers and Onum Barr are so unsatisfying. the ruthless general has to be stopped, and the brave trader and dignified, old nobleman do try. Yet whatever they try, and whether or not they succeed, is irrelevant. Hardin and Mallow at least had the satisfaction of making the right decisions at the right time and obtaining great victories in return. Devers and Bar win only because Riose has to loose.

Yes, but notice that this "victory by doing nothing" in the end leads to the complete fall of the Foundation under the hands of the Mule. This belief that individual actions don't matter because the Foundation is destined to win in the end leads them to stagnation and failure to perceive the threat of the Mule in time.

And again, human or not, the Mule is a single individual who practically conquers the whole galaxy. And at the end of Foundation and Empire, his plan fails because of the effect that a another single individual (Bayta) has on him.

That's why, so far, even though the premise of Psychohistory suggests otherwise, I find that in the plot of the novels the message tends more towards individualism. Even the whole plan of the Foundation was laid out again by a single man, Seldon.

I'll see if this idea continues in Second Foundation. From what I've read, the concept of Gaia in Foundation's Edge is indeed quite ridiculous and anti-Objectivist, but maybe the original trilogy is rid of any such notion.

[D'kian]

Yes, but notice that this "victory by doing nothing" in the end leads to the complete fall of the Foundation under the hands of the Mule. This belief that individual actions don't matter because the Foundation is destined to win in the end leads them to stagnation and failure to perceive the threat of the Mule in time.

I disagree a little. The independent trading worlds do try to gather intelligence on the Mule, in order to use him against Terminus. So it depends whether the independents are consdiered Foundation or not (they were celebrating Seldon's birthday).

In the end, though, even the independents are awaiting for Seldon's dead hand to save them. So they, too, bought into the idea that the Foundation has to win.

BTW I never bought into it entirely. I kept hoping Terminus would fall to a superior foe and the Foundation would mutate into a proto-empire, centered around the foe. After all, the goal od the Plan is a Second Empire, not a supreme Foundation.

And again, human or not, the Mule is a single individual who practically conquers the whole galaxy. And at the end of Foundation and Empire, his plan fails because of the effect that a another single individual (Bayta) has on him.

All true. But did you notice Seldon in the Time Vault does say the Foundation's regime does fall, or something similar? So Asimov wrecks the Plan but keeps it relatively close to plan.

That's why, so far, even though the premise of Psychohistory suggests otherwise, I find that in the plot of the novels the message tends more towards individualism.

There are two possible explanations: 1) fiction is mostly dramatized action, for that you need individual characters; 2) Asimov often tried to be neutral when presenting ideas, or "sides;" therefore his characters get a chance to contrdict his premise.

Even the whole plan of the Foundation was laid out again by a single man, Seldon.

That's a better argument. Seldon had to develop Psychohistory first, then find a way to put it into operation (as seen in Prelude To Foundation and Forward The Foundation, Asimov's last work). He dind't have to win, and he wasn't assured success. Of course, by the time you meet Seldon in the original trilogy, he's pulling every string and manipulating everyone, including his associates, into marching to his tune.

I'll see if this idea continues in Second Foundation. From what I've read, the concept of Gaia in Foundation's Edge is indeed quite ridiculous and anti-Objectivist, but maybe the original trilogy is rid of any such notion.

I look forward to a discussion when you're done.

[Gabo]

In the end, though, even the independents are awaiting for Seldon's dead hand to save them. So they, too, bought into the idea that the Foundation has to win.

But the independents don't fall because of a passive belief in Seldon's plan--- most perish while fighting the Mule with full power, while Haven surrenders because of the Mule's influence on the population's morale.

Things I've read so far in Second Foundation keep me in this line of thought, but I'll wait until I read the whole book in order to discuss it more properly.

[D'kian]

Things I've read so far in Second Foundation keep me in this line of thought, but I'll wait until I read the whole book in order to discuss it more properly.

Arkady in the second part is an interesting character.

[Gabo]

Well, I finished Second Foundation yesterday and I'm very disappointed with the ending.

There are so many twits as to the location of the Second Foundation that the final revelation loses weight. The fact that the Second Foundation is always there watching and "arranging" everything undermines the strength of the Seldon Plan and the exciting ending of Foundation and Empire, among other things. Plus, the Second Foundation is absolutely unlikable, just a bunch of people with absolutely no free will, sacrificial animals who devote their entire lives to the Seldon Plan with religious passion. Arkady was indeed an interesting character, but we practically don't hear any more from her after she lives through all this adventure. And in the end, of course, another pawn of the Foundation. Blah.

As for the first part, it was interesting but seemed mostly as an excuse for Asimov to get rid of the Mule so that he could go on with other things.

In the end, then, the importance of individual actions is recognised, since the Second Foundation was established to deal with them--- but to have this selfless group "fixing" everything that doesn't go according to the plan is not a nice prospect for humanity at all.

Is this ending improved on the novels that followed? I'm still interested in the series, but from what I've read (about Gaea and all), it just seems to get worse.

[D'kian]

Is this ending improved on the novels that followed?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: no, but Golan Trevize is an interesting, colorful character right til the climax.

[Gabo]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: no, but Golan Trevize is an interesting, colorful character right til the climax.

Too bad... I guess that for now I'll read Forward the Foundation, which I already have, and The End of Eternity, which I got based on the recommendations here.

[Gabo]

Look what I found on Wikipedia... it was more or less what I had been trying to say:

"The book also wrestles with the idea of individualism. Hari Seldon's plan is often treated as an inevitable mechanism of society, a vast mindless mob mentality of quadrillions of humans across the galaxy, and many in the series struggle against it only to fail. However, the plan itself is reliant upon cunning individuals like Salvor Hardin and Hober Mallow to make wise decisions, and capitalize on the trends. The Mule, a single individual with remarkable powers, topples the Foundation and nearly destroys the Seldon plan with his special, unforeseen abilities. In order to repair the damage the Mule inflicts, the Second Foundation deploys a plan which also turns upon individual reactions. Hari Seldon himself hopes that his Plan will "reduce 30,000 years of Dark Ages and barbarism to a single millennium." Psychohistory is based on group trends, and cannot predict with sufficient accuracy the effects of these individuals, and the Second Foundation's true purpose was to counter this flaw."

[D'kian]

First off, I recommend you read The End Of Eternity first.

Second, before reading Forward The Foundation read Prelude To Foundation, the first prequel. Lots of what's in Forward assumes knowledge of the previous book.

Look what I found on Wikipedia... it was more or less what I had been trying to say:

"The book also wrestles with the idea of individualism.

That's a fair assesment, except I don't think Asimov took the idea of individualism as part of his theme. He did know to integrate a theme, at least implicitly, in many of his stories (not all of them). In Foundation he uses individuals because it's not possible to write about people in any other way. Try to imagine a novel without any characters but large collections of people. Sure, what groups of people do can be relevant in a story, and more than relevant in history, but you can't focus solely on that or the reader will quickly loose interest.

Some of the Foundation characters take issue with their own, alleged, irrelevance. I don't know how seriously Asimov took such views. But I'll say this, if I were writing about a totalitarian society, the characters on the wrong side would argue they're right.