Originally Posted by rcentros
You're talking to the wrong guy. I hated "2001: A Space Odyssey" (or, as I called it, "A Space Idiocy".) I don't know about "The Expanse," never heard of it. If it's like "2001," I'm happy not to have heard of it.
As for "Star Wars" ... I liked the first one (I was barely out of my teens and nothing like it had been seen before). Watched the second one and thought, "A huge galaxy and everyone is related to everyone ... gee, what are the chances of that?" Special effects were pretty cool, that was about it. Got to the third one and didn't like it much and then, when they got to the walking and talking teddy bears, that was the end of "Star Wars" for me. Haven't seen the others, don't want to. Don't want to see the originals ever again. I'll never get the "ewoks" out of my head. I never bought into all the BS saying the original "Star Wars" was really the fourth one anyhow.
Here's what I don't like about most "hard" SF I've read (or started to read). Stories should be about people, not about technology or philosophy. Hard SF is almost always about someone's worldview or philosophy – and the author is almost always obnoxiously "religious" about it. They also tend to explain EVERY little goo-gah in their story in minute detail, while pretending that their science FICTION is actually "reality" ... or reality that is "just waiting to happen." Problem is, it's just theory. Maybe it'll happen, maybe it won't. But if you want to write a book on technology or philosophy, don't call it a novel, call it non-fiction.
Now, I know that this is the extreme position, and that there are (probably) good hard SF books with realistic (and interesting) characters. Unfortunately most of the "hard" SF I've read (and there hasn't been a lot, because I hate it) is written by cranks.
Sorry, I'll step off the soapbox now.
|