[Andorion]

Reynolds leans more towards 'hard sci-fi, so there is no FTL, time dilation and its effects are real, and the vast distances of space are real barriers. So if you read the date and time stamps at the beginning of chapters it would become evident how long the events of the book are

[Salt-Man Z]

Reynolds has that tinge of horror to his work that makes the universe not just vast and cold and bleak and strange and uncaring, but also potentially terrifying.

[Macros]

I got that andorian, but I still didn't like it, just wasn't my scene at all, everything was too slow and drawn out, and still far too much pseudo science babble, I prefer them to say, this shit works, your puny mind wouldn't understand how, it just happened

[polishgenius]

Afaik, much of Reynolds' science has its basis in real theories acurate at least at the time of writing so while it might be fair to say he goes too detailed (I didn't have any problem with it, but yeah), it's probably harsh to call it pseudoscience.

[Andorion]

Macros, on 01 November 2015 - 06:43 AM, said:

I got that andorian, but I still didn't like it, just wasn't my scene at all, everything was too slow and drawn out, and still far too much pseudo science babble, I prefer them to say, this shit works, your puny mind wouldn't understand how, it just happened

polishgenius, on 01 November 2015 - 07:43 AM, said:

Afaik, much of Reynolds' science has its basis in real theories acurate at least at the time of writing so while it might be fair to say he goes too detailed (I didn't have any problem with it, but yeah), it's probably harsh to call it pseudoscience.

I might be wrong, but when I first read Reyolds a few ears back, I googled him a bit and I think he has a degree, maybe even a career in astrophysics. So its highly likely that a lot of stuff he puts in may have its roots in real science.
Pseudoscience is a strange word to use in sci-fi. A lot of the science is stuff authors made up. Some authors on the other hand try to stick closer to established science. The dividing line is FTL usually

[Macros]

I can call it whatever I want, its unproven theoretics, so its pseudo science, until it happens, it ain't real

[amphibian]

Macros is determined to not like Reynolds despite the astrophysics career, the direct line to Iain Banks, and the existence of Chasm City and Neville Clavain.

It's ok. Different strokes for dif'rent folks.

[Macros]

I didn't like it, I apologise if this offends people (not sincerely, but at least I went through the motions).
There's not much in Sci-Fi that I have read that I have enjoyed, I'm sure there's a wealth of stuff out there I would enjoy but bar the 6 40k novels that I've read I honestly cant think of sci-fi I've enjoyed.
As amph says, horses for courses

[polishgenius]

It's your inaccurate terminology that offended me, not your dislike of Reynolds.

[Andorion]

Unfortunately, I have recently discovered that Reynolds is disliked by a fair percentage of SF readers. But Macros seems to have a different issue. If you donlt like books being based on unproven science, then SF as a genre is not for you

[Macros]

Nah, I just don't like scifi, science waffle, however accurate, doesn't interest me. Its like over explained magic systems, I don't need to know how the gun works, just show me the explosion

[polishgenius]

Andorion, on 01 November 2015 - 05:44 PM, said:

I have recently discovered that Reynolds is disliked by a fair percentage of SF readers.

Really? I've never found that. Always very popular in my experience.


Macros, just sounds like you're trying the wrong SF tbh. Someone like Ian M Banks or Richard Morgan, who don't get too hung up on technical explanation, might be more up your alley if you've not tried them. Reynolds is definitely not your guy coz he is very much about exploring scientific ideas and theories. Also be wary of Neal Stephenson; I love his work, especially Snow Crash and Anathem, but he infodumps like no-one you've ever seen.




Anyway, this morning I started a book called The Explorer by James Smythe and then dropped it almost immediately because the author thinks that spaceships stop moving when you turn the engines off. I can take scientific inaccuracy in my SF, quite large dollops of it depending on the book or film but there is a limit and that's way over the line.

Not really sure what to read next tbh. I started The Liar's Key before but I wasn't really feeling it, too much of a tone clash with Radiance perhaps, so I'm pausing until I'm more in the mood, but nothing I've got available is grabbing me. Quick reread of The Magician's Land going on while I ponder.

This post has been edited by polishgenius: 01 November 2015 - 06:08 PM

[Andorion]

polishgenius, on 01 November 2015 - 06:07 PM, said:

Andorion, on 01 November 2015 - 05:44 PM, said:

I have recently discovered that Reynolds is disliked by a fair percentage of SF readers.

Really? I've never found that. Always very popular in my experience.


Macros, just sounds like you're trying the wrong SF tbh. Someone like Ian M Banks or Richard Morgan, who don't get too hung up on technical explanation, might be more up your alley if you've not tried them. Reynolds is definitely not your guy coz he is very much about exploring scientific ideas and theories. Also be wary of Neal Stephenson; I love his work, especially Snow Crash and Anathem, but he infodumps like no-one you've ever seen.




Anyway, this morning I started a book called The Explorer by James Smythe and then dropped it almost immediately because the author thinks that spaceships stop moving when you turn the engines off. I can take scientific inaccuracy in my SF, quite large dollops of it depending on the book or film but there is a limit and that's way over the line.

Not really sure what to read next tbh. I started The Liar's Key before but I wasn't really feeling it, too much of a tone clash with Radiance perhaps, so I'm pausing until I'm more in the mood, but nothing I've got available is grabbing me. Quick reread of The Magician's Land going on while I ponder.

I thought Reynolds was highly popular too, then I started going through a few /r/printsf threads on Reddit, He seems divisive, most people either like him or hate him. Principal objections being too slow, too dark, too much gore (WTF?) His most hated books: Absolution Gap, Pushing Ice. Most loved book House of Suns.

I don't get it. I love Reynolds. Only one I didn't like was Terminal World.

Inertia cancelling drive/field is a concept I have come across in military SF and I found it made space combat very interesting to read. But what you describe is just wrong. Without engines, momentum and gravity take over.

I really admire people who read books while figuring out what books to read

[Chance]

Currently reading Dragonfly Falling and finding shadows of apt eminently readable a nice twist on the basic fantasy epic, I must have put down the first one just before it started getting interesting because this time it is very enjoyable light reading.

Andorion, on 01 November 2015 - 06:15 PM, said:

I thought Reynolds was highly popular too, then I started going through a few /r/printsf threads on Reddit, He seems divisive, most people either like him or hate him. Principal objections being too slow, too dark, too much gore (WTF?) His most hated books: Absolution Gap, Pushing Ice. Most loved book House of Suns.

I don't get it. I love Reynolds. Only one I didn't like was Terminal World.

The only explaination is that he went temporarily insane when writing Absolution Gap which is probably one of the worst books I've ever read, it's very hard to imagine the same guy wrote his Poseidon's Children stuff which is soo good.

This post has been edited by Chance: 01 November 2015 - 08:24 PM

[Baco Xtath]

Reynolds is my favorite sci-fi author by far. I love everything he's done. I've re-read everything he's written. Love, love, fucking love me some Reynolds.

40% into the Dread Wyrm. Shaping up to be a damn good book. Also listening to Shadows of Self by Sanderson. He's actually cut back a bit on his cringe-worthy banter. Still eye-roll inducing but at least I haven't thrown it. As much as I dislike his prose and dialogue, I generally love his worlds.

[Abyss]

FAITH by John Love. More like fantasy in starships than SF. Mind fuckingly epic.

[worry]

Sorry, I couldn't get over John Love's pseudo spiritual babble. Unproven theologics, I call it. So sue me.

[polishgenius]

Abyss, on 02 November 2015 - 02:54 AM, said:

FAITH by John Love. More like fantasy in starships than SF. Mind fuckingly epic.

You read his second book yet? Roughly, does for Takeshi Kovacs what Faith did for Captain Kirk.

[Abyss]

polishgenius, on 02 November 2015 - 05:19 AM, said:

Abyss, on 02 November 2015 - 02:54 AM, said:

FAITH by John Love. More like fantasy in starships than SF. Mind fuckingly epic.

You read his second book yet? Roughly, does for Takeshi Kovacs what Faith did for Captain Kirk.

Funny you should mention.,.. having just finished FIREFIGHT, am starting EVENSONG.



As for Sanderson's FIREFIGHT... it's more of what was in STEELHEART.
Either you're in the mood for YA/near-juvenile superhero urban fantasy or you're not. I was, it was a super-fast (pun intended) read, i was entertained for the most part, and now ready for something heavier.
Spend five minutes overthinking the core mechanics of the RECKONERS series and you'll pretty much check right out of the series. It's far from the level of work he's doing in TSA or Mistborn, but fun enough.

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

I plowed through The Martian yesterday. While I wouldn't say it was a very good book, it had damn good pacing. I didn't really feel like it dragged much or for long. And the writing style, while all tell and no show, worked for this sort of book.

I wonder if its popularity is due to the fact that it's like 90% factoids, which are like crack to the human brain.

This post has been edited by Whisperzzzzzzz: 02 November 2015 - 03:48 PM