Let's Talk About Science Fiction

illram

Deity
Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
9,218
Location
San Francisco
I'll start. What is "Hard" Science Fiction? I hear it thrown around a lot. I read a lot of science fiction and I am still not quite sure. To me it is generally:

anything that takes place in a universe that operates under the constraints of light speed or gravity/inertia. In other words the limits of known physics are somewhat constraining the author's universe.

Anything else? I see some author's play around with it a bit, or take it to extreme lengths or hand-wave it away when needed to advance the story, e.g. in The Expanse series (some have termed this "hard" sci-fi space opera) where
Spoiler :
the alien is capable of basically accelerating in any direction at extreme speeds that should be physically impossible, and this is remarked upon by the other characters in the story and is a significant plot point. Later books reveal that the alien is further capable of other feats beyond the realms of known physics.


Do you like "hard" sci-fi as opposed to "not hard" sci-fi? (sometimes called "science fantasy" but I hate that term) If so why?

Feel free to not discuss this question and instead say anything else sci-fi related that you want to discuss! :scan:
 
Hard sci-fi to me is stuff that is exactly the opposite of what Star Wars was, while still remaining sci-fi. By that I mean that Star Wars was more fantasy than science fiction, with mystical powers, wizards, princesses, and all. Hard sci-fi pays more attention to the technical aspects of what is going on and tends to be more realistic in terms of what we think we know about the Universe.

I generally like hard sci-fi, but it has to be written well. There is a fine line between paying attention to technical detail well and being too wordy and distracting. Some hard authors also focus way too much on the technology and the setting and make those things the focal points of their story - everything else revolving around it. I prefer stories where the characters are the focal points, the technology and setting being in the background, not in the foreground. That's not to mean that I don't want to see technology discussed in the novels I read at all - the main character's journey is just the most important part for me. Bring on the warp drives, wormholes, and positron emitter arrays.

For example, I could never get into Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy because the focus was on the technology and the setting, not the characters. I found the characters wanting and wooden, very little setting some of them apart. I did not make bonds with the characters, so I ended up not caring about them, and never got more than 150 pages into the first book whenever I tried to get into the story. The setting was intriguing, but the characters just weren't grabbing me. The focus wasn't on them. Somebody told me to think of Mars as the main character, but that doesn't work because we never hear what Mars is thinking.. it has no sentience. It's out there somewhere, in the background.

One of the best, if not the best hard science fiction novel I've read is The Timeships by Stephen Baxter, his sequel to H.G.Well's The Time Machine. It takes you on a crazy ride through time. I loved that book!

Robert J. Sawyer, a Canadian author, has written some pretty good sci-fi. He writes in a style comparable in ways to Michael Crichton, although I'm basing that entirely on Congo, Jurassic Park, and Sphere. Sawyer's stuff isn't as hard as Baxters by any means, but I always end up enjoying any book of his that I pick up. Calculating God was especially good, from what I remember.

Spoiler :
An alien shuttle craft lands outside the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. Out pops a six-legged, two-armed alien, who says, in perfect English, "Take me to a paleontologist."
It seems that Earth, and the alien's home planet, and the home planet of another alien species traveling on the alien mother ship, all experienced the same five cataclysmic events at about the same time, including events exactly like the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs. Both alien races believe this proves the existence of God: i.e. he's obviously been manipulating the evolution of life on each of these planets.

From this provocative launch point, Sawyer tells a fast-paced, morally and intellectually challenging SF story that just grows larger and larger in scope.
I don't really try to stick to hard sci-fi, or sci-fi, or whatever. I jump from author to author. Right now I'm on Banks. Once I get bored of him, I will jump to somebody else. I actually wouldn't mind getting back into Baxter, it's just that he seems to be in the habit of writing really long books. We'll see what happens once I get bored of Banks.
 
"Hard science fiction" is SF that emphasizes real science, and plausibly-extrapolated real science. Hard science fiction doesn't employ meaningless technobabble, nor does it employ magical FTL technology. If it does have FTL, there is a sensible attempt to explain how it works.

The best example I can think of that's current is the Grand Tour novels by Ben Bova. I will concede that I don't care for the "OMG, we discovered Martians!" angle to some of the novels, but the stuff about nanotech is fascinating, and Bova shows that you can use physics to create the basis for a damn good set of stories.
 
@ Valka, yeah it seems "no FTL" is one of the primary criteria for hard sci-fi, even if it is not 100% ironclad rule. Which makes sense, seeing how that's sort of one of the few hard and fast rules we have in science.

@ Warpus Yeah I do the same thing. I was on an Alastair Reynolds kick for a while. Then I jumped around. Then I got stuck on Robert Reed's "Greatship" series. Now I am reading the Mote in God's Eye series (on The Gripping Hand). Oh and I read The Expanse series somewhere in the middle of that, and Rendezvous with Rama along with a bunch of short story collections. Getting a Kindle really kicked my reading levels into high gear.

I have read only one Stephen Baxter book--Manifold:Origin. It was...weird. Is his stuff good? I will have to give it a second go.

I have a hard time putting a finger on the type of Sci-fi I want to read. I like books that deal with "big" ideas, rather than action, space opera type stuff. Universe-explaining type ideas. Not sure how to put it... but that's what I always want to read and it's often hard to tell what I am getting just by reading book jackets.

Is it crazy to think there should be a Sci-Fi Literature class in English programs in college?
 
There are such different definitions of "science fiction" that it's impossible to come to an agreement. Some would categorise absolutely any speculative fiction as "science fiction"; I've seen The Lord of the Rings classified in this way, even on its own back cover. I don't mind using the term in such a broad way, though there's a danger that it's too broad to be useful - after all, all fiction could in theory be classed as speculative fiction in the sense that it describes a non-actual world, but clearly it's not very helpful to call Pride and Prejudice science fiction, even the non-vampire version.

I'd say that science fiction is speculative fiction that could happen or might have happened in a plausible alternative timeline. That's what distinguishes it from fantasy or magical realism (whatever, precisely, that is; I think that's just a term for fantasy that's considered respectable literary fiction). But there again there are obvious borderline cases, such as Star Wars or most steampunk. There are also things like Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle, which looks like (and mostly is) historical fiction, is actually partly fantasy (a very small part), and gets classified as science fiction for no good reason that I can understand. Or consider Anne McCaffrey's Pern novels, which, as I recall, start off being fantasy but gradually turn into science fiction as the setting is widened. Brian Aldiss's Helliconia novels are a similar case.

But at the same time, if you accept my "narrow" definition above, that would rule out a lot of indisputable science fiction. There was a big (and to my mind tiresome) trend in the mid-1960s and thereafter for sci-fi featuring psychic abilities; you find this in books such as Dune and pretty much everything that Philip K. Dick ever wrote. That's fantasy, not science fiction, and yet these books are science fiction mainstays. So again it really comes down to taste rather than precise definitions.

I think today that genres such as science fiction and fantasy, as well as other genres such as historical fiction, crime, horror, and so on are so incredibly well established that although there's still a market for very traditional fare in all of them (I'm reading Daniel Abraham's excellent The Dagger and the Coin series right now, which is an almost cynically traditional fantasy series), both publishers and readers are looking to push the boundaries more and more and find new ways of writing. There's a lot of interest now in crossovers between science fiction and other genres. Kyriakos is quite right that Lovecraft was doing that a long time ago, and of course Poe was doing it even before him (At the Mountains of Madness is not only a great piece of science fiction in its own right, and I think the most entertaining story by Lovecraft I've read even though not a great deal happens in it, but builds explicitly on Poe).

At the end of the day, literary genres are rather like musical genres. They're an invention of the people who sell the stuff. We only make hard-and-fast distinctions between Rock, Pop, R&B, and all the rest because record labels marketed them as such and record stores needed to categorise the shelves. That's really all it is. It's the same with publishing. When Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein she didn't worry about whether it was sci-fi or fantasy or horror or gothic crime or what, because those genres didn't exist as discrete genres; writing and publishing didn't work like that then. So I don't think it's worth getting too hung up on whether something should be classified one way or the other, despite the strong emotions that often come into play (especially when people start arguing about Star Wars versus Star Trek). There's just fiction, which may incorporate all different kinds of elements and press all kinds of buttons - just like music can.

- Plotinus
 
An excellent post by Plot, as usual.

Sci-Fi can be stretched a bit. I for one don't have much trouble defining it for myself; I tend to think of LOTR as "fantasy" and "Star Trek" as sci fi. To be honest I have never thought of Star Wars as sci fi, even though I guess it could be since it has spaceships and lasers....:lol:. Space Opera? Space Fantasy? Dunno.

The sub genres within sci fi I just find interesting purely from a nerdy academic standpoint.
 
I am not sure if 'hard scifi' is often of lit value? I mean Tesla would be able to write interesting things about electricity and not applied parts of it he studied, while Verne probably knew little more science than the average cultured non-scientist of his era. But Tesla probably would not have written lit works that more would find an interest in.

Then there is Poe, who is branded a lot of things (including a hack or copycat), but he was a very important writer, and did try to have a small bit of 'science' in his work too. Borges, likewise, was always far more interested in the story working lit-wise, than presenting a lot of his throughts as if he was writing a treatise on philosophy or math.

While many people have written things which include math or other science, as a literary work, very very few are praised for it. They most often end up being ridiculed (i suppose for good reason).

That said, it should be noted that a writer of some familiarity with writing is often easily able to just leave things ambiguous anyway, so they don't have to try to explain how exactly that fat and hooded human actually was a robot and shot its own head to the sky or whatever. :)
 
I'll start. What is "Hard" Science Fiction? I hear it thrown around a lot. I read a lot of science fiction and I am still not quite sure. To me it is generally:

anything that takes place in a universe that operates under the constraints of light speed or gravity/inertia. In other words the limits of known physics are somewhat constraining the author's universe.

{snip}

Do you like "hard" sci-fi as opposed to "not hard" sci-fi? (sometimes called "science fantasy" but I hate that term) If so why?

Feel free to not discuss this question and instead say anything else sci-fi related that you want to discuss! :scan:

I prefer 'hard' sci-fi, but since it's fiction I don't mind authors ignoring c as the
speed limit of the universe. Vernor Vinge came up with one of the cleverest explanations
of this in A Fire Upon the Deep in which the speed of light was
inversely proportional to the desity of matter in a given portion of space. But I also like
less hard stuff like Roger Zelazny or Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover novels.
 
I am not sure if 'hard scifi' is often of lit value? I mean Tesla would be able to write interesting things about electricity and not applied parts of it he studied, while Verne probably knew little more science than the average cultured non-scientist of his era. But Tesla probably would not have written lit works that more would find an interest in.

Then there is Poe, who is branded a lot of things (including a hack or copycat), but he was a very important writer, and did try to have a small bit of 'science' in his work too. Borges, likewise, was always far more interested in the story working lit-wise, than presenting a lot of his throughts as if he was writing a treatise on philosophy or math.

While many people have written things which include math or other science, as a literary work, very very few are praised for it. They most often end up being ridiculed (i suppose for good reason).

That said, it should be noted that a writer of some familiarity with writing is often easily able to just leave things ambiguous anyway, so they don't have to try to explain how exactly that fat and hooded human actually was a robot and shot its own head to the sky or whatever. :)

Hard doesn't mean overly reliant on scientific details per se, and I agree with others that this often drags books down when authors concentrate on tech rather than story. Hard just means, to me anyway, that an author takes into account things people would likely have to take into account if they were flying around the galaxy or whatever. For instance, crash couches for passengers when a ship accelerates at high G's, and the necessity to account for speed limits and physical limitations in the story and so on. But the author doesn't need to spend 10 pages discussing how the ship shields against radiation or whatever, it's just a setting that helps put you in the place of the characters. It adds depth if done right.
 
@ Valka, yeah it seems "no FTL" is one of the primary criteria for hard sci-fi, even if it is not 100% ironclad rule. Which makes sense, seeing how that's sort of one of the few hard and fast rules we have in science.
-------
I have a hard time putting a finger on the type of Sci-fi I want to read. I like books that deal with "big" ideas, rather than action, space opera type stuff. Universe-explaining type ideas. Not sure how to put it... but that's what I always want to read and it's often hard to tell what I am getting just by reading book jackets.

Is it crazy to think there should be a Sci-Fi Literature class in English programs in college?
It's not crazy at all, and lots of colleges do have them. I've been told they added one at my local college - many years after I was a student there, naturally... :huh:

The STL/FTL thing is one of the dealbreakers for me in deciding if something is good science fiction or not. Whichever method is used must be consistent in-universe, which means that Star Trek absolutely does not qualify as hard science fiction. The warp drive in that universe functions at "the speed of plot" and has nothing to do with actually making it plausible.

One of the reasons I loathe nuDune so much is that Kevin J. Anderson and Brian Herbert have this interstellar war going on... using STL ships, yet all the action takes place simultaneously, in real-time, throughout the universe. It's impossible for that to happen, and KJA/BH make no effort whatsoever to acknowledge relativity. Since most of their books take place before there were Guild Navigators who could fold space, this is a pretty noticeable problem in creating a believable setting.

Contrast that to the Hulzein Saga novels by F.M. Busby. In those books, relativity plays a crucial part in the plots, and Busby presents a plausible explanation for how an interstellar economy can develop among colony worlds where the crews of the ships spend 6 or 8 months to a year or so in subjective time traveling from one world to another, yet on the planet they're going to, there could be anywhere from 15 to 30 years objective time that elapse. The protagonist of three of these novels, Rissa Kerguelen, leaves Earth at the age of 17, travels to several planets, spends several months on one of them, and perhaps a couple of years on another... and eventually returns to Earth nearly 60 years later (Earth time). Her biological age at that point? Just 23. During that time her investments in certain corporations on Earth have made her an extremely wealthy young woman, what with almost 60 years' worth of interest accumulating.

Illram, for "big ideas" I have to recommend Dune. Yes, there's a lot of it that's more about mysticism than hard SF, but there's a lot of the social sciences and political science in there - as long as you stick to what Frank Herbert wrote and ignore the KJA/BH garbage.

Ben Bova's Grand Tour novels are making me impatient to see humans finally get off this planet and start visiting the rest of the Solar System. Bova has trouble writing believable love interest subplots, but he's got the science-based adventure stuff down cold.

But I also like less hard stuff like Roger Zelazny or Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover novels.
It's not often I run into fellow Darkover fans. :) Have you read the latest anthology yet? (Music of Darkover)
 
It's not often I run into fellow Darkover fans. :) Have you read the latest anthology yet? (Music of Darkover)

'Fraid not. I'm not a hardcore Darkover fan so I haven't read all the books. :)
 
'Fraid not. I'm not a hardcore Darkover fan so I haven't read all the books. :)
Not the last novel? :( It had an interesting take on the Dry Towns, from when MZB was writing. There's not a Free Amazon in sight.

I look forward to, and dread each new one now, since Deborah J. Ross has killed off some of the older characters. Going by chronological age, that would mean Danilo's next, and he's my favorite character.
 
Not the last novel? :( It had an interesting take on the Dry Towns, from when MZB was writing. There's not a Free Amazon in sight.

I look forward to, and dread each new one now, since Deborah J. Ross has killed off some of the older characters. Going by chronological age, that would mean Danilo's next, and he's my favorite character.

My last was was The Shadow Matrix. I just couldn't get in to it for whatever reason. You make it sound like the Ross person pulled a Brian Herbert and hooked
the Darkover concept up to a milking machine.
 
My last was was The Shadow Matrix. I just couldn't get in to it for whatever reason. You make it sound like the Ross person pulled a Brian Herbert and hooked the Darkover concept up to a milking machine.
Unlike KJA/BH, Deborah Ross actually did use Marion Zimmer Bradley's notes to write most of the last 6-8 novels. So did Mercedes Lackey, when Rediscovery was written (the one where the Terrans "rediscover" Darkover). With the latter novel, it is painfully obvious which parts MZB wrote and which parts Ms. Lackey wrote.

I don't really like the character of Marja Alton (or Margaret, as she sometimes calls herself), and there's been some fiddling around with some of the characters' ages to make the plots fit better. I'm surprised they kept Jeff Kerwin alive this long, since he was already at least 25 years older than Regis Hastur (reference: The Bloody Sun, 2nd edition) and should be really getting up in years, but it's nice to see him make an appearance; I liked him in the early Hastur novels.

The thing is, Ross has been jumping a few years here, a decade there, and had to make room for the younger generation. She's already up to Marja and Mikhail's grandchildren now, which is fine because the generation before them were a pretty boring bunch.

The (fairly) recent novel I read and enjoyed was Hastur Lord. It's got a couple of plot glitches that could have been fixed with proofreading and changing a couple of paragraphs, but otherwise it's very good.
 
@Valka

Read Dune a few years ago. Great book. Did not attempt to read any of the sequels, and I have caught hints that perhaps they are not as good?
 
@Valka

Read Dune a few years ago. Great book. Did not attempt to read any of the sequels, and I have caught hints that perhaps they are not as good?
It's really subjective.

For starters, ignore EVERYTHING written by Kevin J. Anderson and Brian Herbert (although BH's biography of Frank Herbert, Dreamer of Dune, is very interesting). Their books are crap, and blatantly contradict the fundamental premises Frank Herbert set up for the series.

Now, for the real sequels:

2. Dune Messiah
3. Children of Dune
4. God Emperor of Dune
5. Heretics of Dune
6. Chapterhouse: Dune

Dune Messiah and Children of Dune were partly written at the same time as Dune itself. I have read an alternate ending for Dune Messiah, in which Princess Irulan is killed by Fremen fanatics for reasons I won't go into because I'd have to give away a major spoiler.

Dune Messiah takes up 12 years after the end of Dune. The Fremen jihad that enables Paul to consolidate his power and control over the Imperium has accomplished most of its goals, and the novel is concerned with how the various factions are still vying for their portions of power (not to mention there are rebel factions among the Imperial Great Houses plus some of the Fremen tribes). So it's a political power struggle among the Atreides, the Bene Gesserit, the Guild, the Tleilaxu, various Fremen factions - some of whom hate what the Atreides have done to their world and others who are using their past associations with Paul and Jessica to set themselves up as the power behind the religious arm of the Atreides family - plus the exiled Corrino family. And in the midst of all this, there's the domestic arrangements where Paul is married to Irulan, but it's in name only; he considers Chani his true wife, and he also has to deal with his 16-year-old sister, Alia, who if you recall from Dune, was Pre-Born with a fully adult consciousness.

So Dune Messiah is more politically-oriented than action-oriented. Some people find that not as interesting, but personally I enjoyed it.


Children of Dune takes up 9 years after the events of Dune Messiah, with Paul and Chani's twins, Leto and Ghanima. Note that Leto is formally known as Leto II, even though Paul and Chani's first son, also named Leto, was killed by the Sardaukar in Dune. There's a lot of confusion among some fans who think the character in Children of Dune should be Leto III; they don't understand how standard naming practices work when talking about dynasties.

Some people love this book; personally, it's not my cup of tea because I honestly do not find Leto to be a likable character. At all. And one thing to be aware of, if you've seen the TV miniseries: the twins in the miniseries are several years older than they are in the book.

There's still more politicking going on as the twins have to be readied to take their places within the Imperial government. The Corrino family is still determined to take back what they consider their rightful place, and are hatching plots. It's a bit hard to describe some of the aspects of this book without giving away spoilers from the second. Basically there's a lot of court intrigue on Arrakis and Salusa Secundus, and one of the major themes of the series is really spelled out: Never put your faith in charismatic leaders. They are only human, and flawed.


God Emperor of Dune starts a whopping 3000 YEARS after Children of Dune. The God Emperor in question is Leto II, who has been slowly changing into a sandworm during the past 3 millennia. Leto is fully in control of the Imperium, and he's really Not A Nice Guy/Worm. The Bene Gesserit have another name for him: Tyrant.

The ecological transformation of Arrakis from desert to green world is nearly complete, with the exception of enough desert for Leto to survive (since he's a human/sandworm mutant by this time, he can't come into contact with water).

This is a book that the reader either loves or hates. I didn't like it for a really long time. There's a lot of talk where Leto is yakking away to his servants, various members of his family, the Bene Gesserit, and even himself. It seems heavy and pretentious to me, but there are fans who consider it the best book of the whole series. I will admit that there are some good parts to it, and one character I really like (spoilers! ;)), but it took many years and a lot of discussions with other Dune fans with more patience than I have before I could understand much of what Frank Herbert was getting at. It's not a straightforward adventure story; there's some politics, but in this one there's a great emphasis on philosophy.


Heretics of Dune begins 1500 years after the end of God Emperor of Dune, and there's been a profound change in the former Imperium. The Bene Gesserit and Tleilaxu are the factions in charge, and they haven't forgotten their hatred of the Tyrant. Arrakis is slowly being transformed back into its former desert ecology, and there are once again Fremen tribes roaming the sands. After Leto's death came the Scattering, where the humans who had been closely stifled and restricted from travel and learning under Leto's rule took the opportunity to leave their worlds and head out into space - find new planets and create new societies.

One of these new societies is the Honored Matres, who for some reason have it in for the Bene Gesserit...


Chapterhouse: Dune takes up pretty much right where Heretics leaves off - no huge span of time on this occasion. There's a power struggle going on among the Bene Gesserit, the Honored Matres, the Tleilaxu, and the mysterious enemies the Honored Matres are fleeing from (they found something or someone Very Nasty in the Scattering...).

Chapterhouse ends on a cliffhanger. Frank Herbert had started the final novel of the series (we don't know what he intended to call it; it's known as "Dune 7" among the fans), but died before he could finish it. In this never-written book we would have found out who the Honored Matres' mysterious enemy was, and there would have been a lot of loose ends tied up concerning the Bene Gesserit and the Tleilaxu. This novel would have partly taken place on a spaceship.


Some fans point to Hunters of Dune and Sandworms of Dune as the sequels to Chapterhouse, but those abominable wastes of trees were written by KJA/BH and are just a revolting mess of contradictions and self-references to their own crappy "prequels" that have nothing to do with what Frank Herbert wrote.

As far as the Dune "purists" are concerned, "there can be only six" (genuine Dune novels).


So... I don't know if any of this sounds appealing. I've tried to describe them as best I can without getting bogged down in too much detail or giving away major spoilers. Be aware that a major criticism of Heretics and Chapterhouse is that there's a lot of emphasis on sex in those two novels - and one of the less-than-willing participants is a 15-year-old boy.
 
@Valka

Read Dune a few years ago. Great book. Did not attempt to read any of the sequels, and I have caught hints that perhaps they are not as good?

Since Valka went through the details, I'll just give you a Cliff Notes version of my
impressions:

Dune : Amazing book. Its reputation is totally justified.

Dune Messiah : Pretty good, but there was a plot element that never made any
sense to me (it's a big spoiler...).

Children of Dune : Didn't like it. The philosophy angle really started to grate on me, and there
were other story elements that didn't work for me.

God Emperor of Dune : Somewhat better than Children (i.e. better story), but the philosophy
stuff was sufficiently grating that I decided to call it a series and thus
never read the last two.
 
Has anyone ever read any of the Greatship books by Robert Reed? Awesome books and short stories. Premise: mankind has lucked into a mysterious jupiter sized "ship" wandering the galaxy, and as the first claimants under galactic law they own it. The ship is totally uninhabited and no one knows where it is from, who made it, where it is going, or what it's purpose is. People being people, they took control of it and set it on course for a tour of the galaxy, which any aliens and other human can attend for a very large fee. Mankind has also essentially developed immortality by successfully creating an artificial "bioceramic" brain which is basically indestructible unless it is thrown into a star or melted with superheated plasma, and the human body is full of nanomachines that can essentially regenerate any injury no matter how severe.

The immortality bit is a very cool plot device, and after reading a bunch of those stories it sort of makes other "regular" humans in other stories seem... limited. Also of course the constant mysterious undercurrent of "what the heck is this ship?" is very cool.
 
I don't think you have to take FTL out to have something be hard SF. But it does matter how it's handled. Even some of the Trek books made a plausible science explanation for their warp drive. Even though Trek as a whole is really weak on plausible science. As opposed to Wars, which can't even be bothered to try.

The Mote in God's Eye has a working FTL. Sure, we don't know if the theory behind it will ever pan out. But there is a theory behind it. Same for Ringworld. Asimov's works had FTL. He was certainly considered 'hard SF'. Another to look at is Aurthur C Clark. I haven't pursued too much of that genre in a lot of years, so don't have any on my shelf anymore.
 
Some fans point to Hunters of Dune and Sandworms of Dune as the sequels to Chapterhouse, but those abominable wastes of trees were written by KJA/BH and are just a revolting mess of contradictions and self-references to their own crappy "prequels" that have nothing to do with what Frank Herbert wrote.

@illram, Don'te listen to Valka ;), the prequels/sequels written by the son and the other guy aren't that bad :)

You will probably not enjoy them if you go in expecting Frank Herbert though, his writing style can not be matched.. if you go in expecting a light space opera type story, then you might have a good time, circumstances depending.

The stories definitely have everything to do with the original 6 novels. But either way I wouldn't call any of Dune hard science fiction.

But ya, the KJA/Herbert Jr. novels are not horrible. People who hang out on Dune forums seem to hate them though, you'll run into a lot of people on there who are just obsessed with the subject (not you Valka, you're cool!). It's sort of like the whole hate of ENterprise & the JJ reboot you'll see discussed on Trek forums. Die hard Trek fans who care too much about canon pile up tons of hate on them. They are out of control. The novels can be enjoyed if you go in expecting the right thing.

I have read only one Stephen Baxter book--Manifold:Origin. It was...weird. Is his stuff good? I will have to give it a second go.

I've only read Timeships and I liked that quite a bit, I'm not sure about any other of his novels, but I have heard good things.
 
Back
Top Bottom