-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Good Clean Science Fiction
- Thread starter kman
- Start date
But before Ender's Shadow there were three other direct sequels written to Ender's Game: Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, and Children of the Mind. I thought all three were pretty decent reading, but certainly not to the same extent as Ender's Game which was probably one of the first major SF books I ever read that wasn't Clarke or Asimov.
Ender's Shadow isn't so much a sequel as a parallel novel to Ender's Game - it tells the same story, but from the perspective of one of the minor characters in the first book. There is yet another book in the series, Shadow of the Hegemon, which I have not read but given the quality of the rest of the series I could probably recommend it sight unseen.
Update: Paying a visit to OSC's official Web site, I see that there is now a third Shadow book as well: Shadow Puppets.
[ November 21, 2002, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]
Ender's Shadow isn't so much a sequel as a parallel novel to Ender's Game - it tells the same story, but from the perspective of one of the minor characters in the first book. There is yet another book in the series, Shadow of the Hegemon, which I have not read but given the quality of the rest of the series I could probably recommend it sight unseen.
Update: Paying a visit to OSC's official Web site, I see that there is now a third Shadow book as well: Shadow Puppets.
[ November 21, 2002, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]
stubbornkelly
New Member
I've got Shadow of the Hegemon sitting on my shelves, but I haven't been able to get into it. It was the same with the second and third books. Ender's Game was enthralling for me because of it's portrayal of precocious children. I think it should be required reading for parents, particularly parents of extremely intelligent kids. But after that, it seemed like Card fell out of love with Ender. I got through Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, and Children of the Mind, but I can read Ender's Game over and over again. Of the three direct sequels, I enjoyed Children of the Mind the most, but none were all that thrilling for me. I was just fascinated with Ender in Ender's Game. I keep meaning to pick up Shadow of the Hegemon, though, because I also really liked Peter. Valentine . . . well, I never really had much feeling about her either way. She always felt like a throw away character.
Not to worry about the late Dr. Asimov, he confessed that no matter how hard he tried (and he problably did on more than one occasion) he could not write decent smutty prose. Limericks, yes; prose, no. So, his books IIRC are safe.
Peculiar person
New Member
Kman,
Some of the best science fiction is the old science fiction:
Arthur C. Clarke - "Childhood End"
Robert Heinlein - "The Door Into Summer"
Clifford Simak's dimension stories.
Harry Harrison's "Stainless Steel Rat"
Keith Laumer's alternate world stories
Douglas C. Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" series (Classic in the second or third volume is the explanation of how to fly)
Isaac Asimov's "I, Robot"
Go back 20 years or more, and you'll find excellent science fiction waiting for you, almost completely devoid of gratuitous sex and cussin'.
PP
Some of the best science fiction is the old science fiction:
Arthur C. Clarke - "Childhood End"
Robert Heinlein - "The Door Into Summer"
Clifford Simak's dimension stories.
Harry Harrison's "Stainless Steel Rat"
Keith Laumer's alternate world stories
Douglas C. Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" series (Classic in the second or third volume is the explanation of how to fly)
Isaac Asimov's "I, Robot"
Go back 20 years or more, and you'll find excellent science fiction waiting for you, almost completely devoid of gratuitous sex and cussin'.
PP
The Squire said:
Not to worry about the late Dr. Asimov, he confessed that no matter how hard he tried (and he problably did on more than one occasion) he could not write decent smutty prose.
I was going to suggest Asimov's Elijah Baley series, until I remembered that the plot of at least two of them hinges on a peculiarity of some planet's sexual mores, and so I wasn't sure if they would fall foul of the request for "clean" SF.
Nonetheless, they are recommended:
</font>
On the other hand, Robert A. Heinlein also tried to tie all his "Future History" novels together, and failed spectacularly.
Not to worry about the late Dr. Asimov, he confessed that no matter how hard he tried (and he problably did on more than one occasion) he could not write decent smutty prose.
I was going to suggest Asimov's Elijah Baley series, until I remembered that the plot of at least two of them hinges on a peculiarity of some planet's sexual mores, and so I wasn't sure if they would fall foul of the request for "clean" SF.
Nonetheless, they are recommended:
</font>
- The Caves of Steel</font>
- The Naked Sun</font>
- The Robots of Dawn</font>
- Robots and Empire</font>
On the other hand, Robert A. Heinlein also tried to tie all his "Future History" novels together, and failed spectacularly.
stubbornkelly
New Member
Ack! Speaking ill of RAH?!?
No, in many ways I agree with that. Too many of the "tie together" characters don't cross over well. I love the Future Histories, but they don't work as well as they could.
Ack! Speaking ill of RAH?!?
In this respect, at least. I think a lot of his novels are great standalone stories, especially The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Time Enough for Love. The keyword being standalone. RAH's post-Number of the Beast tendency to tie everything together with the Time Corps blazing from dimension to dimension strikes me as little more than an excuse to give all his major characters cameos in each others' books. It's kind of like all those "crossover" programs they did on TV in the 80s, where Magnum would appear on Simon & Simon and vice versa.
In this respect, at least. I think a lot of his novels are great standalone stories, especially The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Time Enough for Love. The keyword being standalone. RAH's post-Number of the Beast tendency to tie everything together with the Time Corps blazing from dimension to dimension strikes me as little more than an excuse to give all his major characters cameos in each others' books. It's kind of like all those "crossover" programs they did on TV in the 80s, where Magnum would appear on Simon & Simon and vice versa.
Another book I'm surprised hasn't made the list yet: Ringworld by Larry Niven. In the hard SF genre, it is second only to Dune.
The first sequel, The Ringworld Engineers, is also a worthy read. However, The Ringword Throne is a plotless mess. Its high point is the alternating battles/orgies with alien vampires. No, seriously.
Another worthy Niven classic is The Mote in God's Eye, which I believe he co-wrote with Jerry Pournelle (their frequent collaborations were usually fruitful).
The first sequel, The Ringworld Engineers, is also a worthy read. However, The Ringword Throne is a plotless mess. Its high point is the alternating battles/orgies with alien vampires. No, seriously.
Another worthy Niven classic is The Mote in God's Eye, which I believe he co-wrote with Jerry Pournelle (their frequent collaborations were usually fruitful).
I would not recommend Sagan to anybody. Especially "Contact". Sagan's religion was "there is no God and I'm going to spend my life proving it". Sagan always made statements that if life could be found in the cosmos then religion would self-destruct. If you will read Contact with this in mind you will note that there is a LOT of discussion among preachers and religious leaders questioning their faith after life was found. Sagan went out of his way; beyond that of a good scientist who simply states observed facts, to prove that there is no God. Just read his introduction in Steven Hawking's Book, you will see what I mean. Yes, Contact is clean, but it is not theologically appropriate. There is a difference between just pure fantasy and actually trying to point out that God could not exist.
stubbornkelly
New Member
I still don't see that it's inappropriate. I don't have any problems with reading such material -- I'm not worried I'm going to fall into Sagan's theology. Now, if that would be a problem for someone considering Contact, then I wouldn't necessarily recommend they read it. But generally, I think it's good to exopse ourselves to such things, if only because they challenge us to be better able to support our beliefs.
Ah, but doesn't Contact conclude with Dr. Arroway, the committed empirical scientist, attempting to explain to a Congressional hearing that she has no empirical evidence of her encounter with aliens, and that they just have to accept her word on faith?
Sagan was an agnostic, not an atheist.
I wouldn't wholeheartedly endorse the theology of Contact, but I do believe it to be a good example of the "Reformed epistemology" apologetic: that there are certain beliefs which are warranted even without empirical proof, such as belief in other human minds, and that belief in God properly belongs to this category.
[ December 06, 2002, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]
Sagan was an agnostic, not an atheist.
I wouldn't wholeheartedly endorse the theology of Contact, but I do believe it to be a good example of the "Reformed epistemology" apologetic: that there are certain beliefs which are warranted even without empirical proof, such as belief in other human minds, and that belief in God properly belongs to this category.
[ December 06, 2002, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]
JonathanDT
New Member
Found this thread and thought it was interesting so I'm bumping it. Anyone else have some more books to add?
I've read several books in the 2001 series(there are something like 4 or 5 books), and Arthus C. Clark is very anti religion, specifically ant christian. He perfered if people needed it, a mingling of religions.
Im not sure what you would call someone who says there is no God other then athiest.
I agree! His main purpose was to disprove God. A person can not beleive in God and still write decent sci-fi, they just don't have to work at disproving Him.
Im not sure what you would call someone who says there is no God other then athiest.
NeilUnreal
New Member
I liked the Lensman series by E.E. 'Doc' Smith. Ripping good space opera of the old-fashioned "Buck-Rogers" kind, but literate as well. Some people may find it objectionable because it posits that good and evil are mediated in our world by higher dimensional space aliens. However, it's not really any different than the way Tolkien and Lewis used angels in their fiction.
My favorite science-fiction stories are those of George R.R. Martin. These definitely deal with mature and often disturbing subject matter, but in an artistically responsible way.
Connie Willis is another favorite of mine. Her recent Passage is an interesting science fiction mystery involving Near Death Experiences (NDEs). It will keep you guessing right up to the last page.
-Neil
My favorite science-fiction stories are those of George R.R. Martin. These definitely deal with mature and often disturbing subject matter, but in an artistically responsible way.
Connie Willis is another favorite of mine. Her recent Passage is an interesting science fiction mystery involving Near Death Experiences (NDEs). It will keep you guessing right up to the last page.
-Neil
Thanks to Jonathan for bumping this thread and getting it started again.
donnA said:
I've read several books in the 2001 series(there are something like 4 or 5 books), and Arthus C. Clark is very anti religion, specifically ant christian. He perfered if people needed it, a mingling of religions.
In fourth year, I could have written a thesis in lieu of two courses. Ultimately I didn't, but when I was considering it one of the potential topics was A. C. Clarke's rather condescending dismissal of religion. You see this briefly in 3001 where the only remaining religious debate is whether there is no more or no less than one god. Another place where this cavalier shrugging off of religion occurs is in Childhood's End, where the alien visitor (who look like the popular conception of Satan) up and pronounces all religions false except Buddhism.
Oddly enough, mysterious and god-like aliens capable of directing the evolution of life, engineering entire planets, preserving a man's consciousness beyond his physical death, and other such incredible feats, are practically trademarks of Clarke's writing. See the 2001 and Rama series for the most obvious examples.
All he has really done is substitute one god for another. I suppose Clarke finds it more comforting to believe that man was created by aliens to whom he bears no accountability.
donnA said:
I've read several books in the 2001 series(there are something like 4 or 5 books), and Arthus C. Clark is very anti religion, specifically ant christian. He perfered if people needed it, a mingling of religions.
In fourth year, I could have written a thesis in lieu of two courses. Ultimately I didn't, but when I was considering it one of the potential topics was A. C. Clarke's rather condescending dismissal of religion. You see this briefly in 3001 where the only remaining religious debate is whether there is no more or no less than one god. Another place where this cavalier shrugging off of religion occurs is in Childhood's End, where the alien visitor (who look like the popular conception of Satan) up and pronounces all religions false except Buddhism.
Oddly enough, mysterious and god-like aliens capable of directing the evolution of life, engineering entire planets, preserving a man's consciousness beyond his physical death, and other such incredible feats, are practically trademarks of Clarke's writing. See the 2001 and Rama series for the most obvious examples.
All he has really done is substitute one god for another. I suppose Clarke finds it more comforting to believe that man was created by aliens to whom he bears no accountability.