I had not an inkling of an idea that this was a thing; but I am glad that I have stumbled upon this. Thank you for sharing! Will have to explore further.
The Rise and Rise of Chinese Science Fiction
201–205 of 205 posts
Re: The Rise and Rise of Chinese Science Fiction
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found just the opposite. I thought the first book was OK, but definitely not great. I thought the second and third atrocious, and a couple of the least memorable books I've ever read. I didn't finish the third. I wouldn't had started it had I not bought the set. I couldn't understand the appeal or relate to them at all. That said, I'm glad they exist, it's refreshing after so much copy-cat blandness in today's publ…
I wouldn't say attrocious but the third one isn't holding my attention. I don't want to know what happens next, I just want to know what happens at the end. Meanwhile, I'm really bummed that the last book of the Expanse got delayed 4 months. I don't know how they're going to wrap up the story line in only one more book.
I’m now halfway through and the story introduces a lot of new information.
Slow intros are dangerous for reader retention.
Re: The Rise and Rise of Chinese Science Fiction
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
They get to invent as many "impossible" things as they want, really. But they all need to have plausible-sounding explanations (given our current level of scientific understanding), and they need to act in a consistent, predictable manner, including consistency with known laws of nature - e.g. if you have antigravity, the default assumption is that it obeys the inverse square power law, and if it doesn't, that needs…
I'd hew closer to TeMPOraL's definition. On the one hand, one obviously needs some technological leeway to write a fun novel set in the future. On the other, if every roadblock is responded to by suspending scientific treatment, it doesn't seem like that's a good faith "hard" effort. I think Ringworld is instructive. The Wikipedia article specifically calls out technical inaccuracies in the original... inaccuracies N…
I would consider Ringworld to be borderline hard sci-fi, but precisely because it has some reasonably sounding explanation for his technomagic. E.g. the General Product hulls - them being a single macro-molecule is a reasonable pop-sci explanation for their properties, even if the book doesn't explain how such a molecule is made. Does that count as an intentional lapse?
Re: The Rise and Rise of Chinese Science Fiction
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd hew closer to TeMPOraL's definition. On the one hand, one obviously needs some technological leeway to write a fun novel set in the future. On the other, if every roadblock is responded to by suspending scientific treatment, it doesn't seem like that's a good faith "hard" effort. I think Ringworld is instructive. The Wikipedia article specifically calls out technical inaccuracies in the original... inaccuracies N…
I would consider Ringworld to be borderline hard sci-fi, but precisely because it has some reasonably sounding explanation for his technomagic. E.g. the General Product hulls - them being a single macro-molecule is a reasonable pop-sci explanation for their properties, even if the book doesn't explain how such a molecule is made. Does that count as an intentional lapse?
What are your thoughts on Diaspora? (Greg Egan)
Re: The Rise and Rise of Chinese Science Fiction
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Namely, (minor spoiler) scientists killing themselves when science did something they couldn't explain. This was more of "science turned into magic", experiments started to produce arbitrary nonsense, though I don't remember if they realized the cause at the time. That said, I found it weak and weird too; I'd expect those scientists to try much harder before giving up.
All of human society is treated pretty poorly in those books. People make fundamental society level decisions once and never ever re-examine those decisions, even when the circumstances are wildly different. For the most part everybody who isn't a named character is a total sheep and a total idiot. Many of the name characters (even the protagonist in some cases) aren't much better.
In Chinese culture, rocking the boat is generally heavily discouraged and decisions by family heads and/or leaders are not to be questioned or second-guessed. It's again another hint there may be some cultural differences that readers in the USA and other democracies find odd. (Yes, I know the USA is arguably not a democracy, but I don't want to get into a vocabulary or political debate here.)