The State of Space Sci-Fi

[Mattias Westlund]

(08-02-2019, 10:48 PM)bigcat1969 Wrote: I tried 5 minutes of Another Life...

It doesn't get much better than that unfortunately. I wanted to like it, being a fan of Battlestar Galactica and Katee Sackhoff. But as much as I think she is an underrated actress she can't save a show that is so deeply flawed and badly written.

(08-02-2019, 11:12 PM)Nayrb Wrote: Unfortunately I rarely watch much of any of the new stuff these days; but the Expanse has been recommended to me time and again, so maybe I'll have to check it out.

You really should. Admittedly I have only watched the first two seasons since S03 isn't available anywhere in this corner of the world. And I'm not sure what's going to happen to the show going forward... it was first canceled and then bought out by Amazon or something wasn't it?

(08-02-2019, 11:12 PM)Nayrb Wrote: Not a TV show, but isn't there a new Dune in production, too? I'd be interested in that. Oddly enough, I don't think it's been done poorly on film. I know the Lynch movie isn't to everyone's taste, but I like it. And the Sci-Fi Channel's mini series was good.

I have a vague memory of hearing something about that. I have read the first Dune book but didn't like it much and I really can't see what's so great about Herbert's universe. Then again I too like the Lynch movie, despite its flaws. Or maybe thanks to them. Being weird and campy is a large part of its appeal IMO.

[Nayrb]

(08-03-2019, 12:11 AM)Mattias Westlund Wrote:

(08-02-2019, 11:12 PM)Nayrb Wrote: Not a TV show, but isn't there a new Dune in production, too? I'd be interested in that. Oddly enough, I don't think it's been done poorly on film. I know the Lynch movie isn't to everyone's taste, but I like it. And the Sci-Fi Channel's mini series was good.

I have a vague memory of hearing something about that. I have read the first Dune book but didn't like it much and I really can't see what's so great about Herbert's universe. Then again I too like the Lynch movie, despite its flaws. Or maybe thanks to them. Being weird and campy is a large part of its appeal IMO.

I'm a big fan of the book; but I haven't read any of the others besides the first. I remember being bored by the second book. Maybe I'll have to come back to it. I recall the first book was one of the first books I read in three days (fast for me at the time, but I'm sure I've beat that record since), and I think it might have had to do with the fact that I had seen the Lynch film so many times. I was on the lookout for various things, you know? And yes, the campiness of the Lynch film is part of the fun; but some people hate it because of that. I don't get it; I think it's stylized and atmospheric. Though suggesting a sci-fi movie could be impressive "beyond my imagination" a year after the original Star Wars trilogy wrapped up is kind of a stretch. The special effects are cool in Dune, for sure, but these days they show their age where Star Wars often doesn't.

I'm pretty sure Lynch and some old RTS Dune games were my introduction to the universe. So, once I got around to the book I was sort of "primed."

[Mattias Westlund]

(08-03-2019, 01:10 AM)Nayrb Wrote: I'm a big fan of the book; but I haven't read any of the others besides the first. I remember being bored by the second book.

That sounds a lot like general opinions about Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game vs later novels. Are you familiar with those?

It's been a long time since I read it, but I think Dune is clever in the way it takes sci-fi and turns it on its head, depicting a future that is superstitious and backwards while at the same time so advanced that we have no idea how their tech works. But reading it I felt no love for any of the characters, and everything that happened felt like an excuse for Herbert to show off the world he had created. Not a bad thing in itself, but it spawned a ton of sequels IIRC and I just don't understand what's so great about it.

If we're talking classic sci-fi, I much prefer Asimov's Foundation books. Not that he was much of a character writer either, admittedly.

[Nayrb]

(08-03-2019, 02:13 AM)Mattias Westlund Wrote:

(08-03-2019, 01:10 AM)Nayrb Wrote: I'm a big fan of the book; but I haven't read any of the others besides the first. I remember being bored by the second book.

That sounds a lot like general opinions about Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game vs later novels. Are you familiar with those?

It's been a long time since I read it, but I think Dune is clever in the way it takes sci-fi and turns it on its head, depicting a future that is superstitious and backwards while at the same time so advanced that we have no idea how their tech works. But reading it I felt no love for any of the characters, and everything that happened felt like an excuse for Herbert to show off the world he had created. Not a bad thing in itself, but it spawned a ton of sequels IIRC and I just don't understand what's so great about it.

If we're talking classic sci-fi, I much prefer Asimov's Foundation books. Not that he was much of a character writer either, admittedly.

I'll need to do another read through of Dune before I can say yea or nay on whether I agree concerning character development; but I get what you mean about him showing off the world. And if it's a world you don't really enjoy, then you won't want to go there via the books. I know Herbert wrote something like six books himself and his son(s) carried that on to a seemingly infinite number that is apparently still going. For my part I'd like to give the other five Herbert novels a go and see what's up with them. I just remember finding the second book less appealing right off the bat after enjoying the first so much. So much so that I never actually got very far in the second one. But that was also probably fourteen years ago.

I've not read any Orson Scott Card or Asimov, unfortunately. I need to rectify that.

[bigcat1969]

I loved the Foundation Trilogy and the two Robots books by Asimov. I vaguely remember trying to get into Dune and failing. Then again while I did read LotR cover to cover, I don't ever want to do it again, so I may not be a good SF/Fantasy barometer.

[Mattias Westlund]

(08-03-2019, 02:08 PM)bigcat1969 Wrote: Then again while I did read LotR cover to cover, I don't ever want to do it again, so I may not be a good SF/Fantasy barometer.

In that particular case, I honestly can't blame you. Tolkien was a master world-builder, but I (and I seem to be relatively alone in this) don't think he was a great writer. As in "good at actually writing". His storytelling is roundabout, long-winded and archaic, and his ideas about brotherhood, women and foreigners haven't really aged all that well.

Tolkien was a child of his own time like everyone else, and what he wrote reflected his life experiences and the society and world that formed him. I get that. But there is nothing so singularly brilliant about his prose that I feel the need to excuse him for its flaws.

There, I said it. I think the Lord of the Rings, one of the most celebrated works of fiction from the past 100 years, is very overrated.

[bigcat1969]

Sometimes I wonder as I read some classics if they are worth it aside from the bragging rights. Some of the 'goodness' of them might just be the difficulty of reading ye olde texte, Not all certainly. Forgive me mentioning religion, I've been getting back to my roots and studying the Bible. I went with the modern respected ESV translation and I'm stunned at how easily it reads versus the old school KJV. It is closer to the original and still is a better read and I don't have to run a constant filter in my mind from Shakespearean English to my English. At the risk of heresy, modern English is better than classics' English. Now back to PG Wodehouse...

[Terry93D]

(08-25-2019, 11:08 PM)Mattias Westlund Wrote:

(08-03-2019, 02:08 PM)bigcat1969 Wrote: Then again while I did read LotR cover to cover, I don't ever want to do it again, so I may not be a good SF/Fantasy barometer.

In that particular case, I honestly can't blame you. Tolkien was a master world-builder, but I (and I seem to be relatively alone in this) don't think he was a great writer. As in "good at actually writing". His storytelling is roundabout, long-winded and archaic, and his ideas about brotherhood, women and foreigners haven't really aged all that well.

Tolkien was a child of his own time like everyone else, and what he wrote reflected his life experiences and the society and world that formed him. I get that. But there is nothing so singularly brilliant about his prose that I feel the need to excuse him for its flaws.

There, I said it. I think the Lord of the Rings, one of the most celebrated works of fiction from the past 100 years, is very overrated.

Oh, agreed, at least to a point. He laid down the foundations of the modern fantasy genre, but... I never did actually finish when I tried to read the first LotR. Now, for a fantasy series from around the same time that hasn't aged at all, which has been hailed as the true classic of its era, which has been said by some to be a work of fiction so excellent that it should be taught in schools... Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast is utterly striking, unique, and original, it is totally unduplicable, it is as strange and wonderful today as it must've been in its own time. It reads like a work of prose poetry. It is completely and utterly different not merely from LotR but just about any other fantasy series (though I hear that the Viriconium books are strongly influenced by it) and it comes with my personal (albeit probably somewhat worthless) recommendation.

[Nayrb]

(08-26-2019, 04:21 AM)bigcat1969 Wrote: Sometimes I wonder as I read some classics if they are worth it aside from the bragging rights. Some of the 'goodness' of them might just be the difficulty of reading ye olde texte, Not all certainly. Forgive me mentioning religion, I've been getting back to my roots and studying the Bible. I went with the modern respected ESV translation and I'm stunned at how easily it reads versus the old school KJV. It is closer to the original and still is a better read and I don't have to run a constant filter in my mind from Shakespearean English to my English. At the risk of heresy, modern English is better than classics' English. Now back to PG Wodehouse...

I can be a sucker for ye olde texte, myself. But then again, if all goes well, I'll be starting my masters in Literature next year. So, perhaps I'm a little biased. The King James Bible, though antiquated, is actually a very interesting piece of literary history. I'm a bit rusty; but it might have been one of the first English translations that wasn't considered heretical or that resulted in someone's execution. I'm not religious myself; but it's amazing to think that maybe 100 years prior to the KJV people were just expected to listen to someone read Latin at them even though they couldn't understand it. Church must have been extremely confusing. And anyone who tried to remedy that risked death!

I'm a fan of reading multiple translations of things. For instance, Homer has a number of great translators going back through the centuries. Some are more modern, and some more flowery and highfalutin. It just depends on the mood you're in.

(08-26-2019, 02:47 PM)Terry93D Wrote: Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast is utterly striking, unique, and original, it is totally unduplicable, it is as strange and wonderful today as it must've been in its own time. It reads like a work of prose poetry. It is completely and utterly different not merely from LotR but just about any other fantasy series (though I hear that the Viriconium books are strongly influenced by it) and it comes with my personal (albeit probably somewhat worthless) recommendation.

This is one I have not yet read, somehow, even though it keeps coming up. I'm going to try to grab a copy one of these days. It gets nothing but good recommendations.

[bigcat1969]

Cool. I have a buddy who likes to tell me about ff being read s or maybe it was the other way around and he likes to talk about how much cooler Beowulf is the in the original! Yeah it is ironic if memory serves the KJV officially sanctioned by the British government was based on the Tyndale for which the translator was burned at the stake. Then again Irish independence is based on slaughtering poets in a post office. Brexit seems downright civil compared to most changes in English history! ;P

Rocketh on in ye olde English Lit Master program! Grateths! Sorry too many Ren Faires.