The Sword and Laser discussion

I have started reading and I am not really that far, but from the very beginning the feel of the book reminds me of many older classic science fiction novels - for example books by Clarke or Asimov or Baxter - that could be considered "hard" science fiction.

And that feeling is a certain "coldness".

It just seems that the author has a bit more love for - or maybe just "interest" in - creating a believable, in itself "logical" world, but comparably little love for the characters living in this world. Maybe that's just my bias regarding natural sciences, but I often got the feeling that many authors in the genre are more concerned with the "hard" in the name than the "fiction" part, in the sense that intellect is more important than emotions...

Do you think that's fair? And do you think that applies to "Consider Phlebas"?

For me, I have to admit I am much more fascinated by the worldbuilding than anything else so far...

At this early point of his career I feel that Banks is looking down a microscope at his characters..

I have picked up a real feel for this book on this reread that I will post elsewhere but the main character explains his reasoning rather than demonstrating it. Banks certainly digs into the inner feelings of his characters in his more mainline prose (not that that is any nicer) novels.

Certainly this book is in line with the ideas and the politics are more important than the characterisation (which is a Kim Stanley Robinson thing as well). I don't think this is a requirement as Ted Chiang's diamond hard SF demonstrates.

His later books tend to have better rounded characters (even if many of them are the ships) and has less explaining. First novel teething problems.

I nearly snorted at Baxter being considered older classic SF...

If you want cold read Greg Egan ruminations on the more esoteric corners of physics.

I agree that this book is emotionally distant, but I wouldn’t characterize it as Hard SF. It’s no more realistic than Star Wars/Trek, Halo or Known Space.

I think that “cold” feeling just comes from certain writers who don’t (or can’t) engage in the touchy-feely aspects of human emotion. As Iain says, that’s not an intrinsic feature of Hard SF, it’s merely part of the specific style of those writers who also happen to be known for that subgenre.

While I’m glad we have a variety of more well rounded authors, I think for some readers this is a feature, not a bug. I think that is what draws them to these books. Think about the historic stereotypical science fiction reader, and you have people who are probably not as socially involved, and enjoy the fact that what they are reading is similar to how they think. I’m not sure it wasn’t part of what drew me to enjoy reading Foundation as much as I did at about age 12, or why I still enjoy authors like Kim Stanley Robinson or even Neal Stephenson, who both can have better developed characters, but still have a bit of this “cold” feel to them.

Now don't get me wrong I’ve also been really enjoying the soft hard sci-fi of Becky Chambers and others and love the variety. And I think this expansion will bring a bigger variety of readers into the genre. But I think there is also room for the colder more worldbuilding and plot over characters side as well.

I don't think it's necessarily bad if a novel focuses more on the world and the plot rather than characters, but I did have the (totally unsubstantiated) feeling it happens quite often in hard science fiction.

But if the Culture series is not hard science fiction, then maybe I just think that it's hard because it's cold?! *lol*

The highlight for the Culture novels seem to be the machines rather than the people, at least judging by this one. I think Peter F. Hamilton does characters better. I once saw a Google hangout with Reynolds/Hamilton/Banks, and Hamilton emphasized feeling characters with his heart.

Google Play presents: Iain M. Banks, Alastair Reynolds, and Peter F. Hamilton

Peter Hamilton kicks more ass than should be possible in the Big Cosmic Idea category tho. Now, I'll still rate Niven higher because he made me salivate for potentially buildable spaceships. I don't hold with the current theory that Bussard ramjets won't work, because we would need two major breakthroughs to make them function anyway. But perhaps that's nostalgia.

Short answer? No. Slightly less short. But this is not a) classic SF in the vein of Asimov etc or b) Hard SF.

And really, this isn't a character driven book in the sense that we get in touch with their inner lives and feelings. It's one of the reasons I wouldn't pick this book if we're only ever going to read one Culture book, but then Tom has picked a few books that just aren't the best representation of an author's work (the Czerneda choice for example).

I'd have picked Player of Games, Use of Weapons or another book. And of course, no author, even Banks, is for everyone.

Jan wrote: "But if the Culture series is not hard science fiction, then maybe I just think that it's hard because it's cold?! *lol*"

Wassup all you cats and kittens, this one goes out to Jan and everyone at the chilllll milllll!

https://youtu.be/rog8ou-ZepE

John (Taloni) wrote: "Peter Hamilton kicks more ass than should be possible in the Big Cosmic Idea category tho. Now, I'll still rate Niven higher because he made me salivate for potentially buildable spaceships. I don'..."

Tried reading Hamilton (Great North Road) and hemmed when nothing had happened in the first 100 pages (life is too short)... Are their better examples because after that attempt I had no interest in his door stops.

Not for me. I tried two of Hamilton’s books and hated both of them.

I read Hamilton’s The Reality Dysfunction and its sequels many years ago and didn’t find it especially “hard” or “cold” - the books seemed to mix together a lot of Big Ideas about consciousness and the nature of humanity, and then used them in service of telling a pulpy space adventure story. Or maybe that’s what others would consider hard science fiction to be, idk.

^ Nothing particularly wrong with Great North Road or Night's Dawn (starting with Reality Dysfunction) but they aren't his best. My faves of his are the Commonwealth books of which there are three series'. Pandora's Star / Judas Unchained starts that. Keep in mind it's really a 2,000 page novel. The other Commonwealth books feature the Dreaming Void where reality is fungible.

I thought his latest trilogy, the Salvation Sequence, ended with a bangup third novel. The first one was mostly setup tho. Good individual scenes, puzzling overall plot. If you keep going it is a beautiful setup of cosmic big ideas.

Pandora's Star is my favorite, but it's still long and there's a bit of a buildup. Some pretty cool things happen early on though. The alien in it is great.

This is why I tell people it’s okay not to like something that everyone else loves (really it was ESB)… not every book is going to spark with every reader. And that’s cool. There’s something out there for everyone.

Trike wrote: "This is why I tell people it’s okay not to like something that everyone else loves (really it was ESB)… "

You monster! ;-)

Rick wrote: "but then Tom has picked a few books that just aren't the best representation of an author's work (the Czerneda choice for example). "

Ouch

Tom wrote: "Ouch"

Well, while I think it's cold, I do find the book very interesting. I also think your reasoning for picking this one is very solid. And it does place not that rarely in the top spots in rankings of the series (The Guardian for example put "Consider Phlebas" in the 3rd spot for the series). As always: Different people like different stuff

No book is perfect, and some parts I'm going to like better than others. (No one seems to like the Jabba the Hutt guy.) I think it has plenty of science fiction goodness, if that's your jam. I actually like this better than Use of Weapons, which a lot of people like, but it didn't seem much like science fiction to me. Player of Games seems to be a popular pick, but I haven't read that.

What is cold is Banks(view spoiler)[ describing every member of the pirate crew, and then killing them off. That sounds like he cared, but the descriptions were rather quick broad strokes, so vague I had to reference them to figure out who was who. In the end, they don't seem to matter, except the one woman he has a relationship with and the captain (I guess Mips too) (hide spoiler)]

Tamahome wrote: "No book is perfect, and some parts I'm going to like better than others. (No one seems to like the Jabba the Hutt guy.) I think it has plenty of science fiction goodness, if that's your jam. I actu..."

Which book has the line, “The quickest way to a man’s heart is through his sternum.”? Or is it chest? Something like that.

Trike wrote: "Which book has the line, “The quickest way to a man’s heart is through his sternum.”? Or is it chest? Something like that."

Isn't that a meme?

Jan wrote: "Trike wrote: "Which book has the line, “The quickest way to a man’s heart is through his sternum.”? Or is it chest? Something like that."

Isn't that a meme?"

Yeah. Based on a 25-year-old sci-fi novel.

“The quickest way to a man`s heart,' said the instructor, 'is proverbially through his stomach. But if you want to get into his brain, I recommend the eye-socket.”

― K.J. Parker, Devices and Desires

Nanny Ogg:" "They say the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach, which just goes to show they’re as confused about anatomy as they gen’rally are about everything else, unless they’re talking about instructions on how to stab him, in which case a better way is up and under the ribcage"