Why do I like visual sci fi and seem to hate written Sci Fi?

[Sansophia]

When it comes to sci fi, I have a dilemma: I seem to like sci fi in movies and on TV with a hot and cold passion, but I don't seem to like written sci fi at all.

I know why I don't like Game of Thrones: watching political mechanizations holds as much appeal for me as watching a bowel movement. But then I look at written sci fi and find I have to go back to the beginning to enjoy it: I like Jules Verne, I like HG Wells and then....I don't like Bradbury, I don't care for Asimov, I did not enjoy either the movie or the film of 2001...the only sci fi books I can claim to actually like and remember fondly are the first four books of Harry Turtledove's World War and Timothy Zahn and Micheal Stockpole's contribution to the Star Wars expanded universe.

What I do like is (mind you I haven't had a working TV in a decade) what I've seen of new Battlestar Galactica and Firefly, the whole of Farscape and Star Wars and Equilibrium and Fifth Element. Like most people I like Star Trek 2-4, 6 and the first two NG movies. Also, all the parts of Mass Effect that aren't cosmic horror story.

I wonder if I'm a 'casual fan' because I don't like 'idea' stories. I felt cheated when I read 3001 in high school becase I wasn't interested in star children or monoliths or space elevators. Clark can actually compose pleasing story structure, but he skips the most fascinating parts of living in 3001: Poole creating a new life for himself, raising a family, exploring the mostly healed earth. And before I put 2001 down and as I watched the movie, I didn't find HAL all that interesting. nor the monoliths, and everything was tacked on.

As I've grown in how I take in sci fi I like my science fiction to be as hard as it can be without it being unimaginative (Aliens is a good benchmark), without space magic and space gods, but without the tech porn I was in Clarke's work. It could be that due to the conventions of cinema, the lack of good character development is less noticeable and necessary versus a book. Still, I cared a great deal more about the members of Rouge Squadron than I cared about any other literary sci fi characters I have ever encountered.

What do you make of all this?

 

[BenPanced]

Probably the same reason why I hate most horror books and prefer my blood and monsters marching around in front of me on a TV or movie screen: something about the visual aspect appeals to me more.

 

[shelleyo]

I know why I don't like Game of Thrones: watching political mechanizations holds as much appeal for me as watching a bowel movement.

That's not science fiction anyway. Is that what you meant?

But then I look at written sci fi and find I have to go back to the beginning to enjoy it: I like Jules Verne, I like HG Wells and then....I don't like Bradbury, I don't care for Asimov, I did not enjoy either the movie or the film of 2001...the only sci fi books I can claim to actually like and remember fondly are the first four books of Harry Turtledove's World War and Timothy Zahn and Micheal Stockpole's contribution to the Star Wars expanded universe.

What I do like is (mind you I haven't had a working TV in a decade) what I've seen of new Battlestar Galactica and Firefly, the whole of Farscape and Star Wars and Equilibrium and Fifth Element. Like most people I like Star Trek 2-4, 6 and the first two NG movies. Also, all the parts of Mass Effect that aren't cosmic horror story.

Sounds to me like you don't care for hard sci-fi at all, and prefer character-based stories that qualify as a type of space opera more than anything else. Very light sci-fi. That's my preference. Loved Firefly, Star Trek (and many of the novels), Star Wars, things of that nature. I love Bradbury, but I'm not crazy about Asimov. I prefer Asimov's over Analog for shorter fiction, because the stories in Analog are generally harder sci-fi.

Written sci-fi gives the authors much more time and space to explore the technical things than a TV show or movie does, and most science fiction authors love to delve deep into the science, naturally. I'm not one for long descriptions of such, but give me characters I can care about (Rogue Squadron via Stackpole, for instance), and I'm there.

It doesn't bother me that I don't like the more technical stuff, either. To each his own.

 

[benbradley]

I most like hard SF, which inevitably means I read SF novels rather than watch TV or movies.

But what most amused me about the OP is the phrase I bolded here - yeah, I know it's not what the OP meant by literary, but the comparison cannot help but be made:

Still, I cared a great deal more about the members of Rouge Squadron than I cared about any other literary sci fi characters I have ever encountered.

 

[Zoombie]

Personally, I love both hard and soft sci-fi, though some bits of soft science bug the crap out of me (for example, when soft sci-fi is trying to pretend to be hard sci-fi by throwing as much pointless technobabble at the screen as possible...seriously, if you don't know what a neutrino is, don't say you're reversing their flux polarity. You'll just sound stupid).

...but my question is how can you NOT like the Colonization series, the continuation of Worldwar? It's one of the FEW Turtledove novels that take place in a time period that isn't the Civil War, World War 2 or the Byzantine Empire!

Plus. Space Nazis. Can never go wrong with Space Nazis!

 

[Rhoda Nightingale]

I can tell you what it is for me: Too much sciencey wiencey and political stuff; not enough monsters or things going BOOM. Simple as that.

I prefer my Sci-Fi character driven and with only enough logic to propel the story forward. I couldn't care less about how the spaceship's artificial gravity works or why The Spice is so effing valuable.

 

[Vito]

I'm sort of the opposite: I haven't read very many works of science fiction -- only a couple each by Philip K. Dick, Ray Bradbury, and Arthur C. Clarke. I can't say I'm a big fan of the stuff, and I definitely haven't been converted to the sci-fi "tribe", but I wouldn't rule out reading more in the genre. In fact, Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is on my summer reading list.

Sci-fi movies are another thing, though. I remember watching Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind at a theater when they were first released, and I could barely stay awake. Just couldn't get into 'em, for some reason.

As far as TV goes, I've always loved the "Twilight Zone" episodes that had sci-fi elements. I'm also planning to check out some of the original "Star Trek" episodes when I get a chance, mainly because other people have been telling me for years, "Hey, you're gonna love that show!" Maybe they're right, because I really liked the two episodes that I remembering watching when I was a kid: The one about the Nazi planet and the one with the old-time gangsters.

 

[Torgo]

There's certainly an interesting distinction there. Look at the 20 top-grossing films of all time - bold for SF, italics for fantasy (I would class the Batmans as SF, really.) I don't have a similar list for books over the same period, but I suspect it'd be a very different mix.

Avatar
Titanic
The Avengers'
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2
Iron Man 3*
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Skyfall
The Dark Knight Rises
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Toy Story 3
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
Alice in Wonderland
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
The Dark Knight
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
Jurassic Park*
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1

 

[dolores haze]

What do you make of all this?

Sounds to me that you like old school pulp, space opera, and character-driven science fiction. And why not? That stuff is great fun!

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

There is no rule that you have to like everything. I tried to read Game of Thrones and LOTR. Didn't get very far in either. Didn't find the LOTR movies very interesting either. I like the original Star Trek and movies. And I love the reboots. Tolerated ST:TNG. Hated Firefly. Love Doctor Who. Love Bradbury. Admire Asimov, but can't read him. Not a fan of Clarke but like Heinlein. Love Edgar rice Burroughs and Robert E Howard. Don't care for Robert Jordan or Terry Brooks.

There's no rhyme or reason. Tastes are personal and often involve weird emotional quirks that we can't explain to others.

 

[Sarpedon]

Some of my friends and I have observed a generally lower standard of writing among published Sci-fi versus other genres. Fantasy is arguably worse.

I often have trouble with these, loving the genre, hating the writing.

 

[mercs]

you probably aren't into the science side of the fiction, so with the visuals you are fine, but with writers using technical terminology and so forth, you switch off. i love sci-fi films, but not the reading. i figure it's because i'm a fantasy fan that likes space-fantasy rather than sci-fi, as the thought of reading of distances, measurements, explanations for technology and so forth doesn't interest me. i'd rather believe it was magic rather than know why a microwave works

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

Some of my friends and I have observed a generally lower standard of writing among published Sci-fi versus other genres. Fantasy is arguably worse.

I often have trouble with these, loving the genre, hating the writing.

In what way? And is this scientifically quantifiable? Or is it just opinion? Were all genres included? Westerns? Men's adventure? Romance?

I have a hard time believing that across the board spec fiction has an overall lower standard of writing. In fact, I find that statement rather insulting. "Oh, and by the way, all you writers in this forum suck compared to everyone else."

 

[Sarpedon]

Naturally it's opinion. What else would it be?

You can misinterpret my opinion as a personal insult if you like.

Its a valid (though not necessarily correct) answer to the question in the original post.

 

[mirandashell]

What's a Rouge Squadron? Do they have to wear red jackboots?

 

[Sarpedon]

Well, I guess everyone's suspicions about Wedge are finally confirmed.

 

[Zoombie]

Some of my friends and I have observed a generally lower standard of writing among published Sci-fi versus other genres. Fantasy is arguably worse.

I often have trouble with these, loving the genre, hating the writing.

Could you cite some examples?

 

[Old Hack]

Some of my friends and I have observed a generally lower standard of writing among published Sci-fi versus other genres. Fantasy is arguably worse.

I often have trouble with these, loving the genre, hating the writing.

I often have trouble with writers dismissing other writers so lightly. It won't wash here.

Naturally it's opinion. What else would it be?

You can misinterpret my opinion as a personal insult if you like.

Its a valid (though not necessarily correct) answer to the question in the original post.

Sarpedon, I strongly suggest you read the Newbie Guide to AbsoluteWrite and refresh your understanding of our one rule of "respect your fellow writer".

 

[Sarpedon]

One example is Ringworld by Larry Niven. This one I quite liked. However, it was despite the quality of writing. A few flaws:

Unmemorable characters. In fact, I can't really remember any of them, except for the 3 legged alien herd-beast with eyestalks. Its kind of a bad sign. I know I have a poor memory, but no one really stood out as being a sympathetic character with understandable motives. I recall the protagonist was a really old guy who more or less went on the quest because he was bored. While that might have made a fascinating commentary on how people might live with artificially lengthened life spans, it wasn't really explored in any depth, and the guy more or less behaved like any middle aged protagonist.

Plot contrivances. The protagonists had a spaceship with an invincible hull but damageable engines. I mean the hull was explicitly invincible, they come right out and say it. But the engines can break, stranding them on the ringworld. Oh, and its only the manuvering engines that break, the FTL drive or whatever is also invincible or at least not broken. So all the characters have to do is figure out how to get off the ringworld and their golden. This seems incredibly contrived. It is also not the only one, but it is the most memorable contrivance.

Related to the previous: lack of risk or tension.

The ending was rather clever, and I won't spoil it (though its what, a fifty year old book at this point?) But it just leads one to wonder just why the hell people who are able to literally sweep up all the matter in a solar system, fashion it into a huge ring the size of the earth's orbit, and make the whole thing work, would then overlook or fail to prevent the thing that happened.

In all, it seemed the author imagined an amazing setting, but had trouble coming up with a good story to put there. Similar to Avatar in that respect.

And this is an example of one that had serious problems that I read and enjoyed anyway. There are dozens that I read a few pages and then put down, and can't name. There were some absolutely god awful classic sci fi anthologies.

If its worth anything, I think the standards of writing are getting better. The classics suck.

 

[Sarpedon]

I am not insulting anyone here. You are completely overreacting. I can criticize a genre of writing without meaning any disrespect to individual authors in the same way as I can criticize a country's policies without disrespecting an individual from that country.

 

[AW Admin]

I am not insulting anyone here. You are completely overreacting. I can criticize a genre of writing without meaning any disrespect to individual authors in the same way as I can criticize a country's policies without disrespecting an individual from that country.

Yeah, no she's not. You are however going to have to find another board to make your ignorant and entitled assertions.

 

[onesecondglance]

There's certainly an interesting distinction there. Look at the 20 top-grossing films of all time - bold for SF, italics for fantasy (I would class the Batmans as SF, really.) I don't have a similar list for books over the same period, but I suspect it'd be a very different mix.

Avatar
Titanic
The Avengers'
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2
Iron Man 3*
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Skyfall
The Dark Knight Rises
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Toy Story 3
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
Alice in Wonderland
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
The Dark Knight
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
Jurassic Park*
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1

I have this discussion with my friends all the time. For some reason, I don't ever think of superhero stuff as SF. Not sure why; The Matrix is clearly a superhero story and also clearly SF. Mental block, I guess.

 

[J.S.F.]

Like many, I like to see the writer's stuff turned visual and see how it plays out onscreen. We're all very visual in spite of our advanced (so-called) intelligence, and it's fun to see what the writer has penned given 'life' through a director's lens. I can read about Superman flying around, but it's a bigger kick to SEE him fly and kick butt. Same with all the superhero/monster/action movies.

Now, it's true that the best stories begin and end in one's own backyard (head), but at the same time, it's ultra-cool to see those stories onscreen and the images, if done right, are so vivid, they seem to stay in the memory longer. Just my take on all this.

 

[Sansophia]

Well, the reason I brought up Game of Thrones is not because its sci fi, its not, but that I could instantly know why I had no desire to even so much as look at it. With written sci fi, its harder to pick out.

As for Colonization Series, the World War decimology is why I pretty much stopped reading fiction from now to the present day. The series to my estimation, like most of what Turtledove writes (these based on summaries) are a failure of immgatination, although its not the aliens he fails to imaine, but human beings. There are immunerable failures of logic in the Colonization, beyond the British not have a nuke to blow up Jerusalem (the needed technical expertise to rebuild after the Lizard invasion being one of the few things World War's Special Alliance could have been easily provided), but the whole Nazis and Japanese Empire's being stuck in time, and worse the Soviet Union which we KNOW had to step back from Stalinists madness or end up in a slow decent like North Korea. The Americans relocate their capital to LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS? Berlin left in ruins by Hitler?! And everyone acts like petulant idiots from the Colonization Fleet, the Americans, the Nazis are man children who don't understand what a nuke means despite living through about a dozen or so limited holocausts across Europe.

Now I guess it needs to be said that I don't want ideas to be the main focus of what I want to watch (see Farscape) but I want the science to be either so advanced I couldn't understand it (Star Wars) or hard as a diamond if its relatively near future. Use the near future to explore the ramifications of today's bleeding edge.

 

[gambit924]

It is amusing, the interest of people with Thrones. Personally I watched the first episode, and I was like "court drama? This is going to be so annoying". Add the annoying sex to it and you have a pair of things I have no interest in. After that it kind of picked up and I enjoyed it, but I can't say that I am especially a "fan". There are enough politics in the real world, I don't need a plethora of them in my reading. I do enjoy sci-fi, but as people have noted here, a character driven story is perhaps more appealing than a tech driven story. Each to his own, lol, but I can't say that I want to sit there are read pages of tech jargon as the story creeps slowly forward. As for films, I love the idea of films, that's why I like to write them so much. In a way, film can be more fun, but reading needs to be a joy in your life as well. Very often the book that the film is based on is so much better. I plan on reading the first book of Thrones this summer. Hopefully it will be interesting.