[asydhouse]

yeah but since Orwell's book is specifically social sf, ie not interested at all in the effects of technology, his lack of speculative rigour in addressing the central issues of his novel invalidates the very sf aspect of his novel that is his central concern... ie it's just a social satire, not sf... ftl and all that is usually at least given some credence as a future technology (wormholes are a part of modern science, if still speculative, and therefore fair game for use in sf), and in a novel concerned with space and politics I would expect a certain rigourous sfnal thought, or I would dismiss it also as bad sf. The work of Alaister Reynolds is a good example of real sf using the difficulties of Relativistic time drift to address genuinely sfnal (and bloody entertaining!) issues in a rigourously developed milieu. I just feel that Orwell is held up so often because of people's sense of insecurity over the literary respectability of sf... and as sf 1984 is piss poor on just about any sfnal criterion you care to look at, so we seem to be appealing for serious consideration by the snobs of the literary establishment on the basis of a poor example of sf, whereas we should be holding up examples of good sf which also meet the requirements of the literati, such as McDonald's River of Gods, or Mary Doria Russell's Sparrow, or so much of Brian Aldiss's works, or Bruce Sterling... all of whom have the sfnal virtue of being stimulating of thought, and liberating of the mind through interesting speculation... and fun to engage with! 1984 fails on all sfnal counts!

PS Ken MacLeod and Adam Roberts are also among my favourite modern authors! I agree that some of Baxter is dry, but the ones I mentioned (and Time from more recent times) are rollicking good reads, with mindblowing ideas (ie great sf!)