What do you like in science fiction

[Peter Vida]

I am curious what everyone likes in their science fiction novels. By this i mean what elements do you like? What structure? Do you like a slow build or something that starts with a bang? Things along that line.

 

[Victoria Silverwolf]

This is a very big question.

I guess the very first thing I demand is a reasonably high level of general writing ability. Unlike some, I can't enjoy an exciting plot that is poorly written.

Like just about everyone who reads SFF, I want the "sense of wonder." I want to be amazed by new things. This is why I tend to be allergic to series.

I want to able to feel the things I am reading about. Vividness and strong sensory appeal are important.

Complex characters that seem real are a big factor.

I could name many other things.

 

[hardsciencefanagain]

I want to be amazed by new things. This is why I tend to be allergic to series.

I want to able to feel the things I am reading about. Vividness and strong sensory appeal are important.

Complex characters that seem real are a big factor.

I could name many other things.

That'll do Vic.For me as well.
Bad writing,bad plots,unbelievable situations,badly drawn characters and writers trying their darnedest to preach are major bummers.Example:Tom Ligon's The Gardener.
He committed all of the above sins.In one novella.
Regarding "serial novels":exceptions:Vance,Silverberg,Leguin,Asimov,Brin.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Something interesting has to happen in the first 20 pages or I'm out. Doesn't need to be action-adventure, but something engaging has to happen. Crazy situation, interesting characters, bizarre setting... something.

I prefer SF that's either a complete mindf*ck a la Philip K. Dick and some of the New Wave writers, or social SF with a whopping-big what if in the middle... but preferably both. SF as metaphor is big for me. Even if it's not the most original metaphor, it should be there. It tells me the writer at least tried to think about their story and setting in more depth than just 'oh, neat, 'splosions'. Interesting twists and ideas that at least try to cover new ground, or look at an old idea in a new way. 'What if aliens are real and they invade' could be utterly boring and trite or it could be spectacular is done differently than the mindless and heartless action that's so typical. Other varieties can be fun from time-to-time, of course, but that's the stuff that really gets me going.

But it's gotta be interesting what ifs that are explored without bogging down in excruciatingly dull details. Huge lists of equipment is a dead stopper for me. Tell me there's a backpack with some gear or a toolbox about and that's good enough. If the writer's so dull as to list out a dozen or more items, or go into painfully boring detail about the history and physics of the equipment and tech, then I'm out. I don't read SF to glimpse hypothetical technical manuals or dull history lessons about the setting. If it's relevant to the story the writer should be able to include it in dialogue or quick exposition without need for length tracks about this scientists and that discovery. A sentence or two is fine, more than a paragraph makes my eyes roll back in my head. More than that and it's permanent consignment to the bin and swearing off the writer.

 

[Temperance]

A sense of scale, the civilisation that has colonised the entire solar system but only has a couple dozen ships puts me right off. But this also applies on the individual level, I want a civilisation that's lived in, that works, that has people going around living their lives not waiting for the plot to happen or to get in the protagonists ways.

Anything that avoids It's The Modern World But In Space automatically wins points in my book, there's far too many sci-fi novels where the military is just the US Navy in space with it's little quirks (like "dry" ships no one else bothers with) becoming the default for all of humanity. This also applies to cultures in the distant future where art stopped in 1990, so Bob Dylan and Jimi Hendrix shows you have musical taste etc, post 21st century art is mentioned, ever. And it's only the cool stuff, no renegade space captain goes around listening to the venga boys or one direction.

I don't particularly like info dumps, all to often it comes across as just padding, but I like to get the idea that the author has actually thought through the technology that is being used rather than just space magic which seems to have no other implications for society and that I can have a decent idea of the tech by the end.

Monolithic societies, especially alien, will result in a book being put down and never looked at again. So the entire race of vile multi-tentacled horrors from beyond humanities understanding which have conquored half the universe and every single one of them thinks the same? Not a single one thinks humanities ok in small dosses, you wouldn't want to get stuck in a lift with them or anything but by and large we don't have to wipe them out?

Religion in space - not because I believe humanity will move beyond religion but it is always the nutjob literalists who'd have wahhibiest clerics and assorted doomsday cults in their Utah compounds going "eh don't you think you're going a bit far there mate?". There is never a middle ground, so best to avoid.

 

[Vertigo]

I love hard SF that explores the possible future of science and technology but I also love the fact that SF doesn't have to be tied to our current society. Almost any kind of society structure can be imagined and then the book can explore the consequences of that structure (think books like Le Guin's The Dispossessed). Basically, because you are not constrained to writing within the current reality or the reality of history where the actual facts are fixed creating an unchangeable framework, the SF (and fantasy) author has much more freedom to create interesting social dynamics that stand outside what is possible for the non-genre author.

 

[Foxbat]

This is a very big question.

I guess the very first thing I demand is a reasonably high level of general writing ability. Unlike some, I can't enjoy an exciting plot that is poorly written.

Like just about everyone who reads SFF, I want the "sense of wonder." I want to be amazed by new things. This is why I tend to be allergic to series.

I want to able to feel the things I am reading about. Vividness and strong sensory appeal are important.

Complex characters that seem real are a big factor.

I could name many other things.

My view is pretty similar. I'm also interested in how we can hold up SF as a mirror and use it to take a fresh look at ourselves.

 

[Mark Ragland]

Something interesting has to happen in the first 20 pages or I'm out. Doesn't need to be action-adventure, but something engaging has to happen. Crazy situation, interesting characters, bizarre setting... something.

I prefer SF that's either a complete mindf*ck a la Philip K. Dick and some of the New Wave writers, or social SF with a whopping-big what if in the middle... but preferably both. SF as metaphor is big for me. Even if it's not the most original metaphor, it should be there. It tells me the writer at least tried to think about their story and setting in more depth than just 'oh, neat, 'splosions'. Interesting twists and ideas that at least try to cover new ground, or look at an old idea in a new way. 'What if aliens are real and they invade' could be utterly boring and trite or it could be spectacular is done differently than the mindless and heartless action that's so typical. Other varieties can be fun from time-to-time, of course, but that's the stuff that really gets me going.

But it's gotta be interesting what ifs that are explored without bogging down in excruciatingly dull details. Huge lists of equipment is a dead stopper for me. Tell me there's a backpack with some gear or a toolbox about and that's good enough. If the writer's so dull as to list out a dozen or more items, or go into painfully boring detail about the history and physics of the equipment and tech, then I'm out. I don't read SF to glimpse hypothetical technical manuals or dull history lessons about the setting. If it's relevant to the story the writer should be able to include it in dialogue or quick exposition without need for length tracks about this scientists and that discovery. A sentence or two is fine, more than a paragraph makes my eyes roll back in my head. More than that and it's permanent consignment to the bin and swearing off the writer.

Agreed. But for me, I give a book 100 pages. Larger books, 200.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Sexy space pilots. But we knew that. I like mine with people in it. I like fun, cool ships that don't have to be believable. In short, I like escapism.

 

[SilentRoamer]

I like either of the following:

Handwaved science of the mystical variety or hard science. I hate when authors want to be scientific whilst also breaking all known laws of physics. Either handwave the science away (FTL, Stargates and that sort of things) or make it part of the plot (Rama for example).

 

[Peter Vida]

This is a very big question.

I guess the very first thing I demand is a reasonably high level of general writing ability. Unlike some, I can't enjoy an exciting plot that is poorly written.

Like just about everyone who reads SFF, I want the "sense of wonder." I want to be amazed by new things. This is why I tend to be allergic to series.

I want to able to feel the things I am reading about. Vividness and strong sensory appeal are important.

Complex characters that seem real are a big factor.

I could name many other things.

So you are not a fan of series? Have you ever read the honor harrington series or parts of it? You see, i have always preferred epic scale stories and you do not get epic in a single book. I like continuity serials. I remember this tv show in the 1970's called cliffhanger. It was an hour show comprised of 3 20 minute parts. Each part was a separate story that would continue next week. Each installment would end on a cliffhanger to bring you back. It was a neat show though short lived.

 

[Peter Vida]

Something interesting has to happen in the first 20 pages or I'm out. Doesn't need to be action-adventure, but something engaging has to happen. Crazy situation, interesting characters, bizarre setting... something.

I prefer SF that's either a complete mindf*ck a la Philip K. Dick and some of the New Wave writers, or social SF with a whopping-big what if in the middle... but preferably both. SF as metaphor is big for me. Even if it's not the most original metaphor, it should be there. It tells me the writer at least tried to think about their story and setting in more depth than just 'oh, neat, 'splosions'. Interesting twists and ideas that at least try to cover new ground, or look at an old idea in a new way. 'What if aliens are real and they invade' could be utterly boring and trite or it could be spectacular is done differently than the mindless and heartless action that's so typical. Other varieties can be fun from time-to-time, of course, but that's the stuff that really gets me going.

But it's gotta be interesting what ifs that are explored without bogging down in excruciatingly dull details. Huge lists of equipment is a dead stopper for me. Tell me there's a backpack with some gear or a toolbox about and that's good enough. If the writer's so dull as to list out a dozen or more items, or go into painfully boring detail about the history and physics of the equipment and tech, then I'm out. I don't read SF to glimpse hypothetical technical manuals or dull history lessons about the setting. If it's relevant to the story the writer should be able to include it in dialogue or quick exposition without need for length tracks about this scientists and that discovery. A sentence or two is fine, more than a paragraph makes my eyes roll back in my head. More than that and it's permanent consignment to the bin and swearing off the writer.

It seems most people who have responded are not a fan of the soft opening. how do you feel about authors who use the first few chapters to introduce you to the "universe" and the characters before the action begins?

 

[Peter Vida]

Something interesting has to happen in the first 20 pages or I'm out. Doesn't need to be action-adventure, but something engaging has to happen. Crazy situation, interesting characters, bizarre setting... something.

I prefer SF that's either a complete mindf*ck a la Philip K. Dick and some of the New Wave writers, or social SF with a whopping-big what if in the middle... but preferably both. SF as metaphor is big for me. Even if it's not the most original metaphor, it should be there. It tells me the writer at least tried to think about their story and setting in more depth than just 'oh, neat, 'splosions'. Interesting twists and ideas that at least try to cover new ground, or look at an old idea in a new way. 'What if aliens are real and they invade' could be utterly boring and trite or it could be spectacular is done differently than the mindless and heartless action that's so typical. Other varieties can be fun from time-to-time, of course, but that's the stuff that really gets me going.

But it's gotta be interesting what ifs that are explored without bogging down in excruciatingly dull details. Huge lists of equipment is a dead stopper for me. Tell me there's a backpack with some gear or a toolbox about and that's good enough. If the writer's so dull as to list out a dozen or more items, or go into painfully boring detail about the history and physics of the equipment and tech, then I'm out. I don't read SF to glimpse hypothetical technical manuals or dull history lessons about the setting. If it's relevant to the story the writer should be able to include it in dialogue or quick exposition without need for length tracks about this scientists and that discovery. A sentence or two is fine, more than a paragraph makes my eyes roll back in my head. More than that and it's permanent consignment to the bin and swearing off the writer.

SF as metaphor is big for me.

What do you mean by this? Can you give an example?

 

[Peter Vida]

I like either of the following:

Handwaved science of the mystical variety or hard science. I hate when authors want to be scientific whilst also breaking all known laws of physics. Either handwave the science away (FTL, Stargates and that sort of things) or make it part of the plot (Rama for example).

Any sufficiently futuristic sci fi is going to include technology that goes beyond out understanding to the universe and physics. Take star wars for example, surely you are a fan of that line?

 

[Peter Vida]

Sexy space pilots. But we knew that. I like mine with people in it. I like fun, cool ships that don't have to be believable. In short, I like escapism.

So not a fan of the older, overweight food soiled wife beater wearing pilots huh?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Any sufficiently futuristic sci fi is going to include technology that goes beyond out understanding to the universe and physics. Take star wars for example, surely you are a fan of that line?

But he wasn't arguing against soft sci fi or technology - he was arguing against mixing soft sci with supposedly real tech presented as such when it's clearly escapist (I think). So be hard, be soft, but don't hope to be both at the same time?

 

[Brian G Turner]

how do you feel about authors who use the first few chapters to introduce you to the "universe" and the characters before the action begins?

The story begins from the first word. Usually it's character-driven, which means we must learn their internal conflict, theme, and stakes, from the beginning.

 

[hardsciencefanagain]

I don't like incident inflation(Hollywood suffers from that affliction)
**Guys,we're already five minutes into the movie and there hasn't been a slomo explosion
yet **
I don't like two dimensional villains(**Muwahahahhh,I'm evil,deal with it**)
There must be equivalents in written fiction
Although i'm not a writer,i've tried something between techspeak and the "full explanation"
bit.The old Vancean footnotes,might that not work,BTW?
When you're writing tech(nology/science-based)fiction,it's very hard NOT to explain the technology. If technology is at the center of your story, meaning e.g. that it takes care of/is at the root of what i call story propulsion(=that which drives you to read on),you'd better explain(at least some of)it.
Otherwise it's a murder mystery without a corpse.
You have to to take into account that with Sf you're dealing with a knowledgable audience, reasonably educated,and with a modicum of common sense,and able to see faulty logic(not to mention faulty writing).
Prometheus caused me to grind my teeth while watching,as did OBLIVION......

 

[SilentRoamer]

Any sufficiently futuristic sci fi is going to include technology that goes beyond out understanding to the universe and physics. Take star wars for example, surely you are a fan of that line?

But he wasn't arguing against soft sci fi or technology - he was arguing against mixing soft sci with supposedly real tech presented as such when it's clearly escapist (I think). So be hard, be soft, but don't hope to be both at the same time?

Yeah Jo Zebedee has it right. I don't like semi scientific explanations - either make it hard sci fi (such as Rama) or make it soft sci fi, don't give me soft science and then try to explain it - it always ends up bothering me. Like trying to explain advanced physics behind an FTL drive whilst also not including any relativistic effects and ignoring causality - either keep is hard or keep it soft.

To use your example of Star Wars - I really like Star Wars and in particular the idea of the mythical Jedi, could the Force be explained by science - sure, did it make sense to introduce midichlorians and mess with the mythos? Not in my opinion.

Hope this makes a bit more sense. I was sure you were going to quote Clarke that "Any sufficiently advanced Science is indistinguishable from Magic" or to put this another way "Any sufficiently advanced Sci Fi is indistinguishable from Fantasy"

 

[vgunn]

I enjoy Space Horror, along the lines of, Alien or the Legacy of Heorot. Planetary exploration or survival. Andy Weir's The Martin and Deathworld (I) by Harry Harrison for instance.