Great Sci-Fi Authors List

[UFO]

Originally posted by merlin
I got a copy of I ROBOT today but i dont know wether to read it untill ive seen the movie.

Go for it. The movie was inspired by Asimov, it's not based on the work. The movie looks to be far removed from the book.

"Arthur C. Clarke's Rama series is among the greatest sci-fi series I have ever read"


Really? I've only read the first books (which is great), and I heard the other ones SUCKED because they're written by Gentry Lee under A.C. Clarke's "watchful eye". YEah, right. I won't waste my time. I heard there's too much charetcer development and not enough Rama... not enough science, or fiction, or whatever. Like the intellectual stuff, you know? Please, tell me you understand!!!!

[mack]

Originally posted by Unregistered
"Arthur C. Clarke's Rama series is among the greatest sci-fi series I have ever read"


Really? I've only read the first books (which is great), and I heard the other ones SUCKED because they're written by Gentry Lee under A.C. Clarke's "watchful eye". YEah, right. I won't waste my time. I heard there's too much charetcer development and not enough Rama... not enough science, or fiction, or whatever. Like the intellectual stuff, you know? Please, tell me you understand!!!!

Personally--Ive have tried and tried to get into the Rama series, but have never been successful. Something about it just doesnt spark my interest. In fact, Id go so far to say that I am the EXACT opposite of you, and that I prefer not get overly technical. My version of overly technical is when you have 2 chapters of pure scientific description. (CAN WE GET BACK TO THE PLOT, PLEASE?) I prefer more character development, and not overmuch science---this is a generalism that used to be true for me, unless it was a military science, which I am such a sucker for. However, as of late, I am being swayed to more technical aspects of science fiction. My large problem is that I cant abide books that are unbalanced, by being either more technical/less character development, or less technical/more character development.

So Rama and I dont get along.

[UFO]

Originally posted by mack
However, as of late, I am being swayed to more technical aspects of science fiction. My large problem is that I cant abide books that are unbalanced, by being either more technical/less character development, or less technical/more character development.

Lately (last several years) I've found myself drawn back to early SF. The books of today are so damn bloated I can barely stand it. It's almost impossible to pick up a new SF book without it being "Part one of a thrilling new trilogy/pentology/decology/series."

The ultimate abuser of this trend is Robert Jordan (fantasy). Maybe I should just stick to reading the works of dead authors to avoid this neverending release cycle.

So I find myself perusing the internet and used book stores for pure, uncontrived classics that manage to tell a story in one single 200-300 page telling.

[mack]

I have to agree with you. I had to boycott the genre for almost 6 months while I waited for my tried and true authors to put out something good. The problem is, too many upstarts think that they can toss anything out there b/c the SF/Fantasy genre is considered a "break into writing" genre. Honestly, I was researching publishing houses, and most of them consider SF to be the bastard child of literature---so you can see that if SF cant get any respect, how can I expect them to respect Fantasy??

Whenever I get pissed off, at least I can go reread a classic!

I cant stand Robert Jordan, btw. I hate that whole "slap a great name on the cover" tactic that he and others engage in. It just doesnt make it better. But I will say that I am not against a sequel, provided that the plot line was of sufficient depth to allow for a second, complete, rich storyline.

As for classic fantasy--has anyone read any Roger Zelazny?

[BalrogTim]

Arthur C. Clarke
Phillip K. ****
Isaac Asimov
Ray Bradbury
Michael Chrighton
etc.
etc.

I mean, the list can go on and on. It is obvious that the most prevelant are Clarke, ****, Asimov, Bradbury. Sci-Fi is amazing, and as we progress further into our own future, we adapt and come up with greater stories that shall become as immortal as those written by the greats.

[Jove]

Originally posted by UFO
Lately (last several years) I've found myself drawn back to early SF.

Try A.E. van Vogt - his "science" comes across as very Star Trek (original series) and films like "This Island Earth". His plots are fun and the style is humourously pulpy - great stuff to read from a true Golden Era writer.

And Mack, I agree with you on the Rama stuff. I think Clarke wrote the second, and perhaps the 3rd as well, with Lee penning the latter ones. But it's all "And they look to the left and see this and that and this and that. Then they look to the right and there's this, that, this, more of this that works like this blah blah blah blah blah."
The plot is fairly simple.... Object in sky. Visit object. Have a look round object. Leave object.
Whoopdi-f**king-doo!

And I, Robot is a good book but, from the trailers I've seen, the film looks considerably altered.

[BalrogTim]

Originally posted by Jove
The plot is fairly simple.... Object in sky. Visit object. Have a look round object. Leave object.

Whoa, did I not read the same books? In Rama, they don't go there, have a look around and then leave (I'm talking Rama II-Rama Revealed)! They stayed in Rama, had children, their children had children, and it went on and on until the ending of Rama Revealed which was powerful and moving. At least, I thought so...

[Jove]

Meh - leave, not leave - by that time I was thoroughly bored with the whole thing not to have cared.
But from memory - the contact team in the first book return, whereas in Rama II the contact team stay.
Or I might be getting them confused.
I have no desire to read them again in a hurry to find out

And I stand corrected on the Gentry Lee issue - he did pen the second, third, nth book - but apparently Clarke held sway certainly over the second.

[SF_not_Sci-Fi]

I've read the first book. Classic Clake, which is to say a total snorefest.

[narobi foss]

clarke does have some insightful projections and interesting ideas....but yeah...his books are kinda ball-less for want of a better discriptor. astronauts and scientists are boring characters.

[UFO]

Has anyone listed Orson Scott Card?

Probably gonna get flamed, but "Ender's Game" seems to be everyone's darling SF book. I thought it was pretty mediocre and simplistic…and it won both a Hugo and Nebula. Go figure. It's interesting how peoples taste vary, and what people think "good" SF is. Guess I should read "Speaker for the Dead" and see if it gets any better.

If anyone is interested you can see what I'm currently reading (and recents) click here: http://www.sport-touring.net/writing/ Including the status of my trek through the Hugos and Nebulas. Some of them were pretty hard to dig up (OOP).

[SF_not_Sci-Fi]

*Throws a pie at the Ender basher.*

[UFO]

Originally posted by SF_not_Sci-Fi
*Throws a pie at the Ender basher.*

Trust me, I haven't yet (and won't) bash Card and Ender. I will say that Card suffers from "milk it" syndrome. He seems intent on milking the Ender popularity until blood issues forth from the udders of creativity.

[mack]

UFO, you've struck gold with me again on Orson Scott Card. . Cant help it, he doesnt "do it" for me. . .

From what you guys say about Rama, I recently read Jack McDevitt's Chindi, and I similar feelings. While it was a good read--NOTHING HAPPENED!! Ok---so most of them died, but trust me, they were killed by the environment, or from mistakes/human error. The book hints at a great alien civilization, but Im like---CAN WE SEE THEM ALREADY? Good god---move along! What can I say? *shrugs* This is probably why I wasnt really up on the Mars movie where they were killed by a plant. I know that it could happen, but Im catching Z's over here.

Now I will say that Chindi had good character development, so it was made the book bearable.