Your thoughts on new science fiction?

[Rane Longfox]

Both have their strengths. I find more modern sci-fi authors that I like to read, but thats mostly because only the classics from the past are availiable any more, whereas there is a vast range of modern sci-fi availiable.

I don't know that I'd class the likes of E.E. Doc Smith in the same ranks as Al Reynolds, or Pater F. Hamilton, but the Lensman series is just as enjoyable as say, the Night's Dawn Trilogy. Different though. Very different though. I guess the main difference between modern and older sci-fi is that we now know more about a lot of the issues involved, and are more willing to interperet them in what might be a realistic fashion.

[erickad71]

It seems to me you can read a good or bad book no matter what year it was written.

[Quest]

I lean towards the older science fiction. I do watch a lot of modern SF, but it's the older shows which hold my heart.

[Princess Ivy]

Originally Posted by erickad71

It seems to me you can read a good or bad book no matter what year it was written.

I agree completely erica. so long as its well written and gripping, i don't really care who wrote it or when

[guthrie]

There is obviously good and bad SF in all ages of writing of it. However, what I think tends to happen is that the worst of the older SF gets forgotten about, thus painting an unduly rosy picture of the past because the best of the past ends up being compared to the average of the present.
On the other hand, my thoughts on current SF are that it is unduly magic based. I.E. too much use of nanotech without an decent explanation. Then theres the thinking machines, FTL travel, wormholes, etc etc, that appear in so much space opera. In fact I'm having trouble finding much SF these days that isnt akin to space opera. No doubt that will change, but in the mean time I'll keep reading older stuff.

[Seedorn]

Where there ever an golden age of SF?If it was, when was the golden Age of Fantasy?
I don´t think that such a thing exists.But that´s just my humble opinion.
I do like both, the "new"(e.g. Gibson,Banks) and the "old"(e.g.Stanislav Lem, Asimov) SF.Does it matter? I hope it doesn´t.If it matters...I have a big problem

[BlueSkelton]

I prefer the old stuff truthfully, Of course I read trash sci fi from second hand bookstores. Most of the stuff I read is long forgotten but i have found alot of good and decadent sci fi that way. Of course I have found alot of trash as well. I haven't found anyone new that could match Heinlein or Phillip K. Dick thou. Of course I dont judge new sci fi by their movies because I tend to blame the filmmakers. Pitch Black or the Chronicles of Riddick might be good books but they stank as films. Hollywood just doesn't know how to make a good sci fi film. They butchered Starship Troopers and that is something I find hard to forgive because its such a good book. But Hollywook can mess up anything they put out maybe 2 or 3 good movies a year.

[guthrie]

The golden age of SF was apparently in the 1930's in the USA, when there were plenty of magazines and most of the now dead original SF writers learnt their trade. Much of what was written was pulp, but then I would say the same thing today. Plus gibson has been around for 20 years and so has Banks, the first "culture" short story is over 20 years old. New (As in first widely pubshed as far as I know in 2000 and since then as far as I know) SF writers in the UK just now include:
John Meaney
Robert Reed
John Morgan
Adam Roberts
Alastair Reynolds

I personally only really like Meaney and Roberts, if youve read any of the above I'm sure we can have a good discussion.

As for Ken Mcleod, hes not brand spqueaking new any more, I have 3 of his books 2nd hand in paperback, hes been getting published for over 6 years now, which to my mind makes him old hat. Certainly I havnt bothered reading his new books, it just looks boring.

Blueskelton, I think there have been people who have matched Heinlein and Dick in some ways, but then they were also fairly individual authors, so being better than them is hard. You would have to specify what was so good about them in order to compare and contrast with modern authors.

[zorcarepublic]

Damn, I pressed the wrong button, so now Im going to have to reply from memory...

I haven't read any of the books by the authors you've named, guthrie, so I might have some light reading to do.

Generally, I like Military SF and/or humorous SF/F. I have four authors whose books I enjoy, but of those, I have only been able to read one book of one author.

[guthrie]

Then I am not sure how many of those I have listed would be of interest, off teh top of my head, only ALastiaru Reynolds writes stuff with a fair bit of military in i but since I havnt read all the books by these authors I may well be wrong. PLus Robert Reed is American, not british, I just thought wrongly from the cover quotes. Another British author whose breaking into the big time is Charles Stross, he writes well, generally intereting far future stuff involving nanotech and AI's.

[Winters_Sorrow]

I agree with ericka that a good book is a good book no matter who wrote it.

My feelings on this are split. I agree that the newer science fiction is written with a better understanding of telling a story and developing characters and I really, really enjoy a good number of current sci-fi authors (Walter Jon Williams, Anne McCaffrey, Harry Turtledove & Douglas Adams to name a few!) but one thing I lament about newer sci-fi is that a lot of the time they rehash old ideas or come at them from a new viewpoint. Some of those stories are cracking reads and can be very creative but very rarely am I surprised at the outcome.

Some of the older sci-fi works by people like Asimov, Herbert, Philip K Dick & HG Wells always strike me as very original (they're probably ripped off from earlier authors as well but I don't know that! )

I always liked the originality these authors brought into their work, even if their way of communicating it was not always as polished as it could be.

I find the same thing happening in modern TV & Film programmes, let's face it, Gladiator is just a re-make of any number of cheesy sand & sandals B movies during the 60's

For the same reason I love the older Twilight Zone & Outer Limits episodes as opposed to the new ones

So, in short (too late) I like the style & scope of modern sci-fi but liked the originality & twists present in early sci-fi!