If you'll look at the sequels to Neuromancer you'll see they get rather fantastic,Jucifer said:Neuromancer by William Gibson is a great work of sci fi. Its becoming a very possible reality as a matter of fact. Artificial Inteligence while at its infancy is a must take course for every computer science major in college. And the interenet absorbed many humans into it.
Err, have you tried "Lord Valentin's castle" by Robert Silverberg ?Lacedaemonian said:I don't mean to offend. I was hoping that perhaps people who were passionate about SF could show me the error of my ways. If people named works that blew my words to dust than I would be much pleased, as my eyes would be open to new possibility. How best to stoke passion then step on a few toes? You're right of course, but a bit friendly banter is always welcome in the house of the Lake Daemon. Fantasy is essentially based on peoples and events in history, and is sometimes considered to be an ode to the unwritten history of man. SF is based on concepts of the future. What can I say I am a pessimist, the future holds nothing for me. I see mankind as being vile, and becoming viler at an uncanny rate. Fantasy offers the promise of an end to such matters. The Once and Future king and all that. SF does offer warnings....
My first day here and again I find myself agreeing with you Lace. Having read Ender's Game i found it to be an alright book. OSC does have a talent for keeping you interested, but the conclusion was just altogether to predictable.Lacedaemonian said:What can I say I am a pessimist, the future holds nothing for me. I see mankind as being vile, and becoming viler at an uncanny rate. Fantasy offers the promise of an end to such matters. The Once and Future king and all that. SF does offer warnings....
I just finished the third sequel (Children of the Mind) and the character that really pulled those four together was Jane.Plo Addonnas said:The three sequels are filled with less action but a lot more intelectual stimulation. The stories are so different and so good I really don't see why anyone's bitching about it.
i completely agree with this statement and i just want to point out to lacedaemonian that not all scifi literature is inherently based in science. there are times when i wish we could re-name the genre entirely! for example, look at star trek (star trek: the next generation comes quick to mind). here we have a universe that so depends on the science that brings humanity across the galaxy but the majority of the plotlines for ST centered around characters and interaction between humans/aliens. there were always some episodes where all the science gobble-de-gook got in the way, yes, but they were few and far between.like ST, OSC uses science as a vehicle to propel his characters into the plot. he does not depend on it to explain his story.Nebogipfel said:My favorite aspect of Card is that he never lets the science get in the way of the story and the characters. He makes no attempt to "immerse" the reader but lets them see natural progression of technology through his characters.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Windows Defender ATP Coming To a Mac Very Soon||Technology||0|
|D||Vaccine or interspecies mating causes gender change at puberty on moon colony||Book Search||3|
|The Defenders (major spoilers ahead)||General TV Discussion||0|
|How to render air travel obsolete?||Writing Discussion||33|
|B||Favorite Visions of the Future in Literature, Movies and Television that Have Been Rendered Obsolete||SFF Lounge||46|