Favourite sci-fi books?

[LV_Pro]

---

@Blokk wrote:

---

@jwscs wrote:

so i found the "Altered Carbon" Series and am 5 episodes in, and i must say its quite good.

i have the book on the shelf, but somehow .. other books always queued themselves in front.

judging from the series, i guess the book (by Richard K. Morgan) is a very good read (also it got a Philip K. Dick award).

:cheers:

---

I just finished Altered Carbon series on Netflix. When I started to watch it, through the first 2 episodes, I was not sure whether I would like it, but it became enjoyable later. Some of the special effects could have been better, but in overall, it was good. Specially because it becomes a kind of "Sherlock Holmes" crime investigation by the end...

---

Thank all of you ... Not!!! Watched 3 episodes in a row last night, was up past my bedtime! Running a bit ragged this morning!!! Not sure about the special effects comment, was watching on a 42" 4K TV from 5 feet away, and thought they were pretty good, though I grew up watching the first Star Trek series, early Doctor Who, and lots of movies with lizards with dorsal fins glued on for dinosaurs (even as a small child I found those annoyingly unbelievable) so I appreciate where they have gotten to. I head back to my home from my "work week lodging", where, ironically, it is harder to watch Netflix, et al. TV there is one of the earlier "smart TVs", not as capable as they one at my apartment, which I purchased last November for about 1/5 of the one at home.

[Ben]

Ok since we have drifted beyond just books...

My better-half and I have been doing the max-Tolkien thing again. But this time we are running the full gambit including the Silmarilian (book on tape) and then the extended versions of the 3 Hobbit movies and then the 3 Lord of The Rings. We have almost finished The Return of the King. Not much comes close in our house to Tolkien's writings. I think I had read The Return of the King about 12 times before I got out of the Navy. I have lost track how many times I have read it since then.

Ben

[PaulG.]

 I loved Heinlein. This century I went Audible and listen to Neal Stephenson, Larry Niven and Kim Stanley Robinson. Must say Aurora by KSR is my all-time favorite. It was narrated by Ali Ahn and her voice is perfect for the material. Enjoyed it twice.

[jwscs]

---

@Ben wrote:
...Tolkien ...

Ben

---

mhh .. you definately misunderstood the genre distinction 😛

tolkiens books are like the archetype for fantasy.

let's start the flame war

[Blokk]

---

@jwscs wrote:

---

@Ben wrote:
...Tolkien ...

Ben

---

mhh .. you definately misunderstood the genre distinction 😛

tolkiens books are like the archetype for fantasy.

let's start the flame war

---

Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. 

Gandalf used such advanced technology in the Lord of The Rings, that it appeared to be magic for simple people. But he was actually an alien life form using a human body as a cloak

And that Balrog was an AI out of control, using a genetically modified body to gain control over the orcs...

[jwscs]

@blokk that is not fair handing in one of the main arguments so nonchalantly, now my safe space has cracks in the walls

[jwscs]

i like to see fantasy as a separate genre,

but in my own broad definition of sci-fi, that is: the extrapolation of technology's impact on society,

fantasy would be a sub-genre.

my personal distinction point is exactly how the story would handle the-magic-question.

unfortunately i have not found a definitive formulation how this has to be made clear in the story.

for example:

there is some artifact (real or mnemonic) that can be used without understanding of its inception and was found, left by some distinct (unreachable) agency

with this kind of premise a technology could be introduced, that satisfies asimovs law.

now the kind of incorporation in the story's universe and the possibilities of interaction are essential for me to make the distinction.

the tolkien'esque magic leaves every explanatory incorporation open, there is no description of how to get it (you either have it or not, sometimes it can be bestowed upon you) but that does not try to explain what separates wizards from muggles. there is no progression path.

so sci-fi has to have this - possibly not yet conceived, but asked for at the least - a progression path, from stone-tools to the magic artifacts.

i hope i make sense.

[Ben]

---

@jwscs wrote:

---

@Ben wrote:
...Tolkien ...

Ben

---

mhh .. you definately misunderstood the genre distinction 😛

tolkiens books are like the archetype for fantasy.

let's start the flame war

---

Interesting point. It never occurred to me that there was much of a difference in my minds eye since I moved from one to the other and back with little thought.

But speaking to your point of archetype. Archetypes and Types are closely related and if one changes so too does the other.

From where I sit...

Both are forms of literature that spin the hands of a clock to a distant time frame. Sci-fi is typically moving into the distant future and  fantasy to the distant past. If spinning the clock backwards is an issue then "The Time Machine" where the clock moves both forward and backwards is...?

But then again...

If we carefully read The Silmarilian ( a couple of times) all of Tolkien can be seen as a form of philosophy or even religion ( that we are not allowed to mention here) because it speaks of a "Prime Mover" that sets the world into existence with an underlying plan that deals with order and disorder.

And now looking at the other hand...

The term "may the force be with you" is almost a blessing as well and is Sci-Fi... correct?

"So what is the end of it all?" (Eclesiastes)

I will let you decide that.

Ben

[jwscs]

star wars is fantasy, so no 😉

star trek is sci-fi

edit: and oops in my longer post above, i meant "clark's law" and not "asimov"

and regarding the thing-that-cannot-be-named ... without offense .. belongs in the fantasy category from my point of view, but that is because i am not a believer. and i acknowledge, that science is a form of believe too.

ps: i hope i don't break any rules .. if so please remove the post

[Blokk]

"and i acknowledge, that science is a form of believe too"

I disagree. Science is based on principles like experiment based evidences, repeatablity, mathematics, etc. Ok, of we go deeper, we can start argue about what is the level we can understand nature via modern physics...

Excellent writing also on this topic, is  the book from Harari: "Sapiens, a brief history of humankind". I really enjoy the book!