Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:IMO the only thing worse than Heinlein is Asimov! Asimov can be basically summed up as technology and progress = bad, and the usual fodder of robots taking over the world.
Philip K Dick is a worthy writer, because instead of Asimov's simplicity, his idea is to explore the moral themes. For example, instead of the usual fare of robots taking over the world, why not explore the morals of humans sleeping with robots/androids. It will happen one day!
So yeah, K Dick is the man!

Mostly, Dick's writing is about the nature of identity and memory and how they are connected (as well as mind-feths beyond compare). This crops up in more of his work than any other theme.
The sleeping with androids/robots thing is not quite it. If the "robots" concerned are indistinguishable from humans, then what difference does it make?

The man did too many of the wrong drugs in his San Francisco days, and did apparently have other psych issues stemming from family issues.

chromedog wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:IMO the only thing worse than Heinlein is Asimov! Asimov can be basically summed up as technology and progress = bad, and the usual fodder of robots taking over the world.
Philip K Dick is a worthy writer, because instead of Asimov's simplicity, his idea is to explore the moral themes. For example, instead of the usual fare of robots taking over the world, why not explore the morals of humans sleeping with robots/androids. It will happen one day!
So yeah, K Dick is the man!

Mostly, Dick's writing is about the nature of identity and memory and how they are connected (as well as mind-feths beyond compare). This crops up in more of his work than any other theme.
The sleeping with androids/robots thing is not quite it. If the "robots" concerned are indistinguishable from humans, then what difference does it make?

The man did too many of the wrong drugs in his San Francisco days, and did apparently have other psych issues stemming from family issues.

Add in living in poverty (at one point he could only afford dog food to eat) and you've got the recipe for science fiction greatness!

But yeah, he got messed up (and saw others get messed up) by his drug experiences. You just have to look at the dedication in A Scanner Darkly to see how many people he knew who ended up seriously ill or dead from their abuses.

There's a series showing on our free-to-air TV at the moment called "the prophets of SF" and one of the episodes was devoted to PKD (with a lot of the connecting material by Ridley Scott. PKD wasn't originally in favour of RS's treatment of his book - until he got a tour of the sets and art departments. Then he became Blade Runner's #1 fan - shame he didn't live to see it).

I'd count a lot of Michael Crichton's work as Sci-Fi, though possibly not the side of the genre that the OP was interested in as they're generally set in the late 20th century.
I do enjoy his books, he takes scientific debate and ideas and fuses them with a page-turner of a story.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I would avoid Heinlein even if I were paid to read his work. Starship Stormtroopers can be basically summed up as this: only the military can be trusted.

Maybe you should read Starship Troopers again, because that's not a very good summary.

It's interesting that Starship Troopers is such a famous book (iconic in the Sci-Fi genre, really) and yet it's so widely misunderstood. I also think some of the political ideas have a certain amount of merit, particularly the ones involving public service. That doesn't mean I think they would actually work if implemented in the US or Europe today, but that's mainly due to cultural differences, not that the ideas are inherently bad or juvenile.


I like Heinlein though, and I enjoyed Stranger in a Strange Land as well.

Other people have already suggested a lot of the books I would have mentioned, but just to reiterate, Michael A. Stackpole's X-Wing books are quite fun, and Timothy Zahn's Star Wars stuff is good too.

Mannahnin wrote:Thanks for clarifying your position! I also agree that night is day, up is down, the remake of Gone in Sixty Seconds is way better than the original, and this sex thing is a silly waste of time which will never catch on.

Y'know, the older I've gotten, the more I've come to accept the subjectivity of reality. We all operate in worlds of our own creation. And when worldviews threaten collide, it's best to just walk away, because you can't convince someone that their absolute truth is a complete falsehood or vice versa. This is one of those moments.

Hordini wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I would avoid Heinlein even if I were paid to read his work. Starship Stormtroopers can be basically summed up as this: only the military can be trusted.

Maybe you should read Starship Troopers again, because that's not a very good summary.

It's interesting that Starship Troopers is such a famous book (iconic in the Sci-Fi genre, really) and yet it's so widely misunderstood. I also think some of the political ideas have a certain amount of merit, particularly the ones involving public service. That doesn't mean I think they would actually work if implemented in the US or Europe today, but that's mainly due to cultural differences, not that the ideas are inherently bad or juvenile.


I like Heinlein though, and I enjoyed Stranger in a Strange Land as well.

Other people have already suggested a lot of the books I would have mentioned, but just to reiterate, Michael A. Stackpole's X-Wing books are quite fun, and Timothy Zahn's Star Wars stuff is good too.

I'll second the idea that some form of mandatory public service (not necessarily military) for a couple of years isn't necessarily a bad idea.

Amaya wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I would avoid Heinlein even if I were paid to read his work. Starship Stormtroopers can be basically summed up as this: only the military can be trusted.

Maybe you should read Starship Troopers again, because that's not a very good summary.

It's interesting that Starship Troopers is such a famous book (iconic in the Sci-Fi genre, really) and yet it's so widely misunderstood. I also think some of the political ideas have a certain amount of merit, particularly the ones involving public service. That doesn't mean I think they would actually work if implemented in the US or Europe today, but that's mainly due to cultural differences, not that the ideas are inherently bad or juvenile.


I like Heinlein though, and I enjoyed Stranger in a Strange Land as well.

Other people have already suggested a lot of the books I would have mentioned, but just to reiterate, Michael A. Stackpole's X-Wing books are quite fun, and Timothy Zahn's Star Wars stuff is good too.

I'll second the idea that some form of mandatory public service (not necessarily military) for a couple of years isn't necessarily a bad idea.

It's also worth noting that a decent number of European countries still have mandatory public service, either military or civil, and several more only did away with it recently. Germany had mandatory military service up until 2011 (although there was also a civil option). It's not tied to the right to vote like it is in Starship Troopers, but at the same time, public service in Starship Troopers is strictly volunteer, and not mandatory.

gorgon wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Thanks for clarifying your position! I also agree that night is day, up is down, the remake of Gone in Sixty Seconds is way better than the original, and this sex thing is a silly waste of time which will never catch on.

Y'know, the older I've gotten, the more I've come to accept the subjectivity of reality. We all operate in worlds of our own creation. And when worldviews threaten collide, it's best to just walk away, because you can't convince someone that their absolute truth is a complete falsehood or vice versa. This is one of those moments.

I may be under sixteen but I totally agree with you. A more precise definition is that everything is relative to their contexts; short of that there is no facts. The theory of relativity and all. How big are you in a void? A thing (book) is always relative to it's context (your mind).

I'm fundamentally a nihilist. You can tell.

As for my book tastes; Ive always been more interested in more soft SF. Soft SF is becoming more popular than it used to be as people see hard to a dating. The thing is it's a one shot deal. It's hard to come up with anything original as so many things have been done and concepts used. But that means fundamentally my whole generation goes without hard SF beside the odd crappy movie (Tron Legacy; wow that's a let down). So that's why I started this thread.

To be honest, I find the whole idea that only people who have served the nation can vote, to be an offensive one, as any laws passed will effect most/and or all citizens.

Starship Troopers wears its politics on its sleeve: Authority = good, war is a natural part of existance, military are the only ones to be trusted etc etc

TBH, it all depends on your politics, that's not to say you can't enjoy the escapism of a book, but the movie version, had a liberal Dutch director at the helm, and it's no coincidence that he took a similar approach to how he filmed robocop i.e mocking authority.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:To be honest, I find the whole idea that only people who have served the nation can vote, to be an offensive one, as any laws passed will effect most/and or all citizens.

Starship Troopers wears its politics on its sleeve: Authority = good, war is a natural part of existance, military are the only ones to be trusted etc etc

TBH, it all depends on your politics, that's not to say you can't enjoy the escapism of a book, but the movie version, had a liberal Dutch director at the helm, and it's no coincidence that he took a similar approach to how he filmed robocop i.e mocking authority.

And that's why it wouldn't work, people don't like the idea. Keep in mind though, that to get the right to vote in Starship Troopers, you only have to do public service. It doesn't have to be military service. It could be anything from police, firefighting, volunteering in a hospital, working for the post office, all kinds of things. It even says in the book that (just like today) the vast majority of people in the actual military are not in the infantry, and in ST you have to volunteer for the infantry anyway. Also in Starship Troopers, public service is a civil right, so you can't be kept from getting the right to vote if you want to serve. Even if you have some kind of disability that would preclude you from getting into the military, they would find something you could do.