The Evolution of Science Fiction discussion

Nominations time again! This month will be a split month. It's the last chance to nominate from the 1990's and the first chance to nominate from the 2000's (2000-2009).

1990's
Ammonite by Nicola Griffith
Archangel by Sharon Shinn
A Deepness in the Sky by Vernor Vinge
The Giver by Lowis Lowry
Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson
Parable of the Sower by Octavia Butler
The Time Ships by Stephen Baxter

2000's
Perdido Street Station by China Mieville
The Last Theorem by Arthur C. Clarke/ Frederik Pohl
The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi
Old Man's War by John Scalzi
Little Brother by Cory Doctorow
Blindsight by Peter Watts
Altered Carbon by Richard K Morgan

For the 1990's with I was thinking of Vernor Vinge - A Fire Upon the Deep but i've changed my mind. I'm going to nominate something from my waiting to be read pile, Ammonite by Nicola Griffith.

For the new decade I will nominate something else from my to read shelf, Perdido Street Station by China Mieville. It's quite a long one 867 pages so i've been putting off reading it!

perdido is a fantastic book.

2000's The Last Theorem by Arthur C. Clarke/ Frederik Pohl

1990's im struggling to come up with one.

I'm glad Perdido is a good one, some of Mieville's books are fantastic and others so so (kind of the reason why i've been putting it off!).

I was surprised what you said about the 90's in the e-mail, it being a less favored decade. Some of my all time favorite books came out in the 90's.

I thought I might nominate Archangel despite what I said last month about needing to read all three books. This book took me by surprise. I bought it on a bargain shelf on a long vacation. I ended up seeking out the other two books immediately and read them in succession. But I don't think we've read an Octavia Butler book yet, so I was thinking about Parable of the Sower.

Then I remembered Geoff Ryman's Was. This is an amazing book. It blends Wizard of Oz lore about the movie and who Dorothy might have been if she were a real girl and how she would have grown up, the AIDS crisis and intertwined them all in spectacular fashion. And then as I'm writing this I'm realizing this book is really a Fantasy, not Science Fiction. Arghh! So, it's inappropriate for this group, but you really should not miss this book.

So, I will nominate Archangel by Sharon Shinn for the 90's. Yes, I've given up on getting us to read Michael Swanwick, but you should read Stations of the Tide and you also shouldn't miss Parable of the Sower by Butler either. Maybe we'll get to these in another run through this decade.

I discovered I haven't read much from the 2000s or what I've read just didn't turn up on the lists I looked at. I'll nominate The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi. It just barely made it into this time frame, published in September 2009. In my opinion it is probably the most important novel I've read in a very long time because it speaks so well to everything we'll actually be dealing with in the next 20 to 40 years and from a non U. S./ Euro point of view, which is a rare thing. Other books I thought about nominating are on my to read list Air and Oryx and Crake.

David wrote: "I was surprised what you said about the 90's in the e-mail, it being a less favored decade. Some of my all time favorite books came out in the 90's.

I only mentioned it as this decade seems to have less nominations than most of the others. Considering all the books written in the 1990's it's quite surprising. It maybe that I am misreading things and it's more due to the fact that everybody has already read the books they want to from the 1990's.

Oryx and Crake is on my to read list as well. Margaret Atwood came to Brussels and did a talk, she's a really inspiring person. I read Air not so long ago, a really enjoyable book.

90s: A Deepness in the Sky by Vernor Vinge

2000s: Old Man's War by John Scalzi

1990's The Giver
2000's Old Man's War

I have to admit, I hated Old Man's War. I know a lot of people liked that book, but it just didn't work for me on a lot of levels. I read it this year with a Meetup SF reading group. The reaction of our group was very mixed. It did make for an interesting discussion for that reason, though. I find the more poorly written books that some people love for other reasons make for the best most, fiery discussions. People really dig into their positions on those.

1990s
I've read a few of the books from the 90s that have been nominated. I haven't read any by Kim Stanley Robinson, so I nominate Red Mars, the first and most highly rated of his Mars trilogy. It won the BSFA in 92, the Nebula in 93 and was nominated for the Hugo, Clarke, and Locus SF in 93.

2000s
I nominate Little Brother by Cory Doctorow. It won the Campbell and was nominated for the Hugo, Nebula, and Locus YA awards. I haven't read any of Cory Doctorow yet either.

Buck wrote: "1990s
I've read a few of the books from the 90's that have been nominated. I haven't read any by Kim Stanley Robinson, so I nominate Red Mars, the first and most highly ..."

I haven't read the Mars trilogy, but I really liked his California trilogy that came before it. I started Red Mars once years ago, but ended up putting it down for something else, just wasn't in the right mood for it. What I read was good, though. If it wins I'll definitely give it another go.

Old Man's War by John Scalzi

Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson

My interest in Red Mars has been rekindled, considering the recent announcement the trilogy may be produced into a TV series!

http://deadline.com/2014/09/kim-stanl...

Rotuma wrote: "Old Man's War by John Scalzi

Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson

My interest in Red Mars has been rekindled, considering the recent announcement the trilogy may be produced..."

I love the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson, it will make a brilliant TV series. I see they've got the Game of Thrones executive working on it so it hopefully will be good. I read Game of Thrones and it was really hard work and they've made a great series.

90s I second The Parable of the Sower by Butler
00s Blindsight by Peter Watts

What is it about Game of Thrones that deserves the word "great"? It's soft porn. I'm not a prude but is that really considered high cinema today just because it's popular? If I seem sensitive it's because I just found out Asimov's Foundation series is being done by HBO.

p.s. I read the KSR Mars series, gave it 2 stars overall and couldn't finish the third one--only got half way.

GoT:
This is getting off-topic, but Jon put the bait out, I know there's a hook in that worm, but I'm hungry, and I'm gonna have to bite :-)

Jon wrote: "What is it about Game of Thrones that deserves the word "great"? It's soft porn.

If I had to classify it, I would say its a political thriller (in a fantasy setting, of course). If you want to call it soft porn that's fine, not going to argue, the term is vague. However, if you think it is soft porn first and foremost, then I would have to challenge you, some nudity and sex-scenes do not define it. If you think otherwise, then I challenge your "I'm not a prude" statement ;-p

Mars Trilogy:
I read Red Mars and enjoyed the science of it, only made it half way through Green Mars (book 2), it got to political for me at the time. I suspect I would enjoy it much more these days, but worry it might be too dated.

The Mars Trilogy are amongst my favorite science fiction series. I can see why some people wouldn't be into it. It's one of those sorts of books you either love or hate. I like to read the trilogy every 10 years or so.

For the 1990s I'll nominate Steven Baxter's book The Time Ships, which manages to be a very enjoyable hard scifi sequel to HG Wells The Time Machine written in the the style/voice of the original.

For something completely different I'd like to nominate Richard Morgan's Altered Carbon for the 2000s - an interesting and violent blending of scifi with detective noir.

Blindsight and Altered Carbon are both great in completely different ways.