Thread: Russian Science Fiction - Recommended books?

I don't see the point in searching for "unrealistic" details in SF. Do you really believe that it is possible to describe (and explain "scientifically") ALL aspects of common life and technology in a far future? "Orwell did not predict cell phones OMG He's so outdated!!!" - This way? I don't think that even pretending to the realistic description of everything is not very wise because it means obvious and predictable epic fail.

For me the difference between the truъ and would-be SF is the main purpose of the author. If the purpose if to predict\warn\admire about something new that comes out with a sci/tech (and connected social) progress - it is truъ. If the main purpose is to entertain/stylize/escape-the-reality/get-the-profit/whatever else - it is would-be SF. That is subjective of course (as everything) but I believe that the criterion is clear enough for the most.

Also I believe that the main purpose of SF is a social aspect rather than technical. Fiction literature is a humanitarian tool and solving technical problems with it does not look like a good idea. Can you name a single technical prediction of Jules Verne that does not come out as obvious fail? Submarines? Hey, sample submarines existed before Jules Verne. Jules Verne is about the spirit of the modern age, not about the particular technics or physical laws.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Also I believe that the main purpose of SF is a social aspect rather than technical. Fiction literature is a humanitarian tool and solving technical problems with it does not look like a good idea. Can you name a single technical prediction of Jules Verne that does not come out as obvious fail? Submarines? Hey, sample submarines existed before Jules Verne. Jules Verne is about the spirit of the modern age, not about the particular technics or physical laws.

Я придерживаюсь точки зрения, что хужественная литература в первую очередь для развлечения читателя. То есть опция "поднимать серьёзные и неоднозначные вопросы" — не умолчательная. Если, например, здесь будет топик типа "литература, которая заставляет задуматься", тогда конечно в нём будет важен именно аспект "гуманитарного инструмента".

Но поскольку этот тред о развлекательной литературе, то для неё важны иные критерии. Люди обычно любят книги, схожие по сеттингу. В этом плане классификация фэнтэзи — мягкая НФ — труЪ НФ имеет практический смысл, т.к. помогает ориентироваться.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

I don't see the point in searching for "unrealistic" details in SF.

Well, it depends on how you define "unrealistic." Old sci-fi which assumed that Venus is covered with swampy jungles is "unrealistic", but not "unrealistic" in the same sense as modern sci-fi which assumes that spaceships will someday be able to travel through Einstein-Rosen bridges, aka wormholes.

After all, early sci-fi about the "Swamp People of Venus" did not actually contradict the scientific information about Venus that was known at the time -- rather, the authors took advantage of the fact that there was practically NO scientific information about Venus back then!

On the other hand, today's real-world physics predicts that IF Einstein-Rosen bridges actually exist at all, anything much larger than an electron would be crushed into "singularity" while attempting to pass through the wormhole. So, science-fiction which depicts ships going back and forth through wormholes is essentially "stealing" a valid concept from modern physics and using it in Magical and unrealistic way -- they might as well forget any pretense of science and solve the problem of interstellar travel by using the Floo Spell from Harry Potter!

On the other hand, there's nothing necessarily wrong with this sort of unrealism. The classic Mote In God's Eye uses a variation on the wormhole so that ships can travel between stars instantly, but this "magical" premise is simply an excuse to bring humans into contact with extraterrestrials who are biologically, psychologically, and culturally very different from humans. In fact, the rather unusual sex lives of the aliens -- they're sequential hermaphrodites -- has played a major role in shaping their history and culture, and so you could argue that the novel is "hard" sci-fi from a socio-biologist's point-of-view, even though a physicist might consider it "science fantasy" or "soft."

Do you really believe that it is possible to describe (and explain "scientifically") ALL aspects of common life and technology in a far future? "Orwell did not predict cell phones OMG He's so outdated!!!"

If I were going to criticize Orwell for anything, it would be that he did not predict hackers! (In other words, he assumed that the two-way "telescreens" were, and would remain, under the permanent control of the totalitarian government, and that dissidents would not find a way to exploit the technology for subversive purposes.)