[asimovian]

I would be hard put to define exactly the difference between classic and more recent writers, but you know what I mean with "classic writers" : Bradbury, Asimov, Van Vogt, Clifford Simak, John Campbell...
Do you have a preference for one or the other of these two categories, and if so, why ?

[toriphile]

What about those inbetween? :-)
In my opinion, the best writers are those who came with the New Wave in the '60s - Delany, Zelazny, Le Guin, Herbert, Dick, Silverberg, Moorcock.
As for the classic vs. recent writers clash, I'm for the oldies - van Vogt is one of my favourite authors: his insights on reality and delusions are great, though the 'science' part of his sci-fi is a bit weird :-).

[Kamakhya]

To be honest, I don't really see the difference. There was a ton of schlock written in the 50's and 60's. There is a ton of schlock being written today. Yet, I can't say that good Science Fiction hasn't been written since 1980.

I enjoy the "classics". I like to mix up my reading with books from the 1930's onward. I love seeing how Science Fiction holds up over time or how someone in the 50's would perceive Earth in the 21st Century. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

I also like seeing how today's writers perceive what can be.

For me, seeing how Science Fiction has evolved over the years is important.

Kamakhya

[asimovian]

toriphile, I know what you mean. What these New Wave authors wrote was less 'pure' science-fiction ; it was the least scientific science-fiction, and other elements were predominant - fantasy, thrillers, psychological drama...
Van Vogt could give you the impression he knew something others didn't, didn't he ? http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif
At least that was the impression *I* got.

[Raisuli]

I agree with Kamakhya's points.

One thing I personnally don't like so much is the trend for longer and longer modern novels. I just can't see why 400-500 pages is now the norm. Even 700 page novels are pretty common.

Also too many of the novels I've read that were published in the last twenty years are trying to cover too much ground: either in world-building, up-to-date science or ideas/themes. Sometimes I feel like I'm reading encyclopeadias rather than storytelling.

I really found novels like Stephen Baxter's 'Manifold: Space' to be extremely demanding reads. I know this is 'cutting edge hard SF', but I felt like I needed several science diplomas to understand the thousands of details and dozens of ideas.

Too many sequels and series today. Maybe this has something to do with the contracts
writers are working under.

[Kamakhya]

It's like you have to have to have a physics degree anymore to enjoy science fiction. Maybe new authors are intimidated by the basic earth meets new speciies novel. I like a bit of science, but, I really love the human response and interaction in a novel.

If you haven't read The Sparrow, do so. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

Kamakhya

[fatboy1523]

The sparrow? by who plz.

[toriphile]

Yes, asimovian!
van Vogt can make you think that he posseses some esoteric knowledge :-).
I felt this when I read him for the first time, and when I read him now, I still get that feeling.

[sci-fi_fantasy_fanatic]

Anything that doesn't reach two far back into the depths of time is fine by me. To tell the truth, the only sf that I considered truly bad would be Twenty-thousand Leagues Under the Sea

Shef
the envious

[asimovian]

sci-fi_fantasy_fanatic, did you actually read 20.000 leagues under the sea ? I read it (in the original) when I was about 13, and I thought it was fantastic. I saw the movie too, and I am of the opinion that, considering the special effects technology available at the time, it was one of the best science-fiction movies I ever saw.