Discussion in 'Science Fiction' started by jelder, Dec 5, 2011.
I'm curious what people consider to be the top sci fi review sites.
Unfortunately, there aren't enough SF review sites out there (that I've found anyway) so I'd be anxious to see what others suggest as well, but the few that I've found are the following:
www.sfsite.com/home.htm - okay, but not great lately
www.sfreviews.net/index.html - okay, has done a lot more in the past, and have enjoyed most past reviews
www.cybermage.se - random blog from Sweden, but the guy is on his game and let's me know what's coming out in the future
ww.goodreads.com - not focused specifically on Sci-fi, but has a lot of members
and, of course, sffworld.com
I've use Google Chrome's new function to block sites in its search engine so I don't see goodreads and company, since they never have good info in my experience; the site is mostly filled with soundbites-lenght reviews, or no reviews at all.
The best results I've obtained have always been through the use of the following Search words: review "[title] [author's name]"
Reviews are spread out per personal reading preferences of the reviewers, so you can never base yourself on one site alone to find all of your review needs.
An obvious URL but I always liked this guy's reviews:
And a good Asimov-only one:
Our own Chitman has a good site (90% sf/10% fantasy or so) although he just went on indefinite hiatus:
I don't consider any sites to be TOP. The majority of reviewers hardly talk about the science or technology in the story and how it relates to any relevance to reality. There is plenty of talk about characterization and world building like it is hardly any different from fantasy.
Is this enough?
I've got more.
Of course this can't be the best sci-fi community with Darth Vader on the front page.
SFFWorld also reviews, as many of our members know:
There are a ton of pop-science or natural philosophy books out there, some written by top names in their field and with tons of sfnal like speculation if that's the reason you read sf, namely "the science or technology in the story and how it relates to any relevance to reality".
Who said there was only ONE reason I read SF. But I have also said that young kids shold read it to get ideas into their minds while they are still plastic. What does it matter what SF people over 40 read?
Newtonian Physics is 300+ years old. If people can't understand the importance of the distribution of steel in a skyscraper we have some serious problems.
i utterly disagree; people should read just to read so to speak; ideas will come, do not worry and trying to force feed them only turns off people from reading
as for knowing stuff, again understanding social dynamics may be as crucial as understanding physics for example and i am not particularly worried that science loses ground as ultimately (at least so far) the facts win always out whatever particular foibles (eg overpopulation or catastrophic climate change) are hyped at one moment or another that the public seemed not to get for good reasons as it turned out in the overpopulation thingy and I am pretty sure in the climate-scare of today (science/tech will take care of stuff here in time too)
other foibles like ID are just that and while they may get the odd vote and odd book choice in school, they are still inconsequential in the grand scheme of things
Me too, but that's his schtick
People should read for whatever reason they want. But why read to accomplish one purpose if the same amount of reading will accomplish two or three purposes? It might just be a question of what to read.
Whoever said anything about FORCE FEEDING? You don't think concepts can just be easily assimilated with the reading? Here are two examples in order to avoid vague generalizations:
Omnilingual, by H. Beam Piper
The People of the Crater, by Andre Norton
Andre Norton was often entertaining but other stuff was far more informative and just as entertaining. But there was no way to tell until after I had read it. The marketing people don't describe sci-fi they are trying to sell as shallow entertainment.
This explains the substance to the first story.
So two kids could read 50 books each and both be entertained but one could encounter a lot of information and ideas while the other could learn almost nothing. If the so called science fiction is no better than Harry Potter then why call it SCIENCE fiction?
To me it was always science FICTION, not SCIENCE fiction. Literally, in the stress on the different words in the phrase. It's fiction first and anything else is secondary.
So why not read Westerns and detective stories! They are FICTION!
I already do!
Wrong on both counts, apparently. Now can we get back to the point of this thread? I'm interested to know.
Incidentally someone put together an enormous list of book review sites a while ago. I think it was that guy from Grasping for the Wind, but don't rightly recall. He enouraged people to swipe the list and put it on their sites, which I did. Here it is:
So someone can criticize a Western about the historical accuracy of the weaponry if they know the subject well enough. If an author writes a story supposedly set in 1868 and mentions some gun that wasn't introduced until 1875 then a knowledgeable reader has a legitimate complaint.
To all of the readers that don't know the weapons that well it is irrelevant.
But Newtonian Physics worked a certain way even before Newton and I doubt that there are thousands of schools around the world teaching the history of weapons in the Wild West.
I guess it's a personal thing, but I like to learn something when I read. Where possible, I expect what I read in a novel to be accurate. If it's not, I consider it to be poorly researched. Obviously with science fiction some things are unrealistic (time travel for example is likely a bunch of BS but makes for a great story). On the other hand if a character sets out to make a homemade bomb out of two elements that don't even react then the author is an idiot.
Separate names with a comma.