1: The assumption that humans, particularly masses of them, have negative value.
2: The singularity used as the secular End of Days.
3: Inconsistent application of technology without reasons why it is applied so unevenly [A] This goes double for technology that should be universal but is not applied on Earth. Note that implied reasons are OK.
4: Inexcusably stupid science. Stars move. Lasers cannot be used as radiators. If you skim (or as we like to call it, "aerobrake in") a gas giant's atmosphere, you still need to pay the delta vee for each kg lofted to orbit. Don't get me started on space-straws. You cannot use reflected light to warm something up hotter than the light source you are using. And so on.
5: The embrace of ignorance as a social good (This pops up more as a meta than in stories [B] but it's the rallying cry of thousands who I assume were forced to read Thomas Hardy in high school). I call this the "For fucks sake, the New Wave was over and done with before most people reading this LJ were born!" principle.
6: The unconsidered use of ideas that may have made sense 50 years ago or which perhaps never made sense at all but sounded good at the time.
7: Any mention of Zheng He. I know, it's a pity such an interesting individual has to be sequested for the moment but right now SFnal discussions of him almost always end up Bad Touch SF.
8: Speaking of real Bad Touche SF, creepy sexual politics without any apparent awareness of how creepy the creepy sexual politics are.
9: The joyful embrace of highly restricted human rights (and if you waterboard a variety of SF authors on this subject, you will see that this is not a right-left thing. It probably ties into 1).
10: Scale errors, like stories where humanity settles the literally dozens of stars in the Milky Way or where the author provides a handwave for the Fermi Paradox that works for a period of thousands of years but not the billions of years it needs to work for.
A: Earth for example has quite a range of technological kits in common use but there are reasons why it works like this here.
B: Although there is the fact that when authors like MacDonald or Williams dip their toes in the pool of regions outside the core Anglosphere, this stands out because it is unusual. Comments like
"This system (Pohl and Kornbluth used to write) has evident virtues, together with some defects. For istance, as in Wolfbane [...] you may get a brilliant analysis of the Oriental life pattern, developed and projected onto a future civilization on this continent (1500 calories a day: slouching gait, politeness, minuscule sub-arts-- Water Watching, Clouds and Odors, Sky Viewing...people named Tropile and Boyne, in towns called Wheeling, Altoona and Gary, walking through an elaborate life-long ritual, purely and simply because their diet permit nothing better) [...]."
are probably not as dated as I'd like to think they are.
On Sep 6, 8:25 pm, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> 2: The singularity used as the secular End of Days.
What kind of end days do you mean? Are you referring to the rapture of the nerds where we'll be bodily lifted into VR heaven, or do you dislike the doomsday prophesies that claim we're all gonna die painfully when the new machine race awakens?
If it's the first - when (or how often) has this been done in written SF? I know the idea has its pop-sci proponents but its SFnal treatment, to the best of my knowledge, has been bleaker than what the Kurzweils of the world predict, if only because an Eden with no conflict doesn't make an interesting story.
>> 2: The singularity used as the secular End of Days.
>What kind of end days do you mean? Are you referring to the rapture of >the nerds where we'll be bodily lifted into VR heaven, or do you >dislike the doomsday prophesies that claim we're all gonna die >painfully when the new machine race awakens?
>If it's the first - when (or how often) has this been done in written >SF? I know the idea has its pop-sci proponents but its SFnal >treatment, to the best of my knowledge, has been bleaker than what the >Kurzweils of the world predict, if only because an Eden with no >conflict doesn't make an interesting story.
Unfortunately the example that comes to mind first is not out yet and I try not to discuss book I hated before they are out (The book in question had most of the things I hate, which is what prompted the list).
There's CUSP, where the Singularity is seen as inevitable and something everyone (except the spear-carriers, who are massacred in their billions to show that this is a grimandgritty world) has to plan to exploit as best they can. CUSP is the book where people can gain superpowers from having superheated plasma forced into their head rather than just having their brains cooked like an egg. -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
James Nicoll <jdnic...@panix.com> wrote: >3: Inconsistent application of technology without reasons why it is >applied so unevenly [A] This goes double for technology that should be >universal but is not applied on Earth. Note that implied reasons are OK.
I don't recall any implied reasons for Turtledove's premise in "The Road Not Taken": that every primitive culture in near space develops the spacedrive when it's still in the blunderbuss-and- chamberpot stage, *escept* humans. Pure chance, IIRC. And yet that's a pretty darned good story.
Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djhe...@kithrup.com
>>> 2: The singularity used as the secular End of Days.
>>What kind of end days do you mean? Are you referring to the rapture of >>the nerds where we'll be bodily lifted into VR heaven, or do you >>dislike the doomsday prophesies that claim we're all gonna die >>painfully when the new machine race awakens?
>>If it's the first - when (or how often) has this been done in written >>SF? I know the idea has its pop-sci proponents but its SFnal >>treatment, to the best of my knowledge, has been bleaker than what the >>Kurzweils of the world predict, if only because an Eden with no >>conflict doesn't make an interesting story.
> Unfortunately the example that comes to mind first is not out >yet and I try not to discuss book I hated before they are out (The >book in question had most of the things I hate, which is what prompted >the list).
Oh, dear. Will you identify it, please, when you're allowed to?
> There's CUSP, where the Singularity is seen as inevitable and >something everyone (except the spear-carriers, who are massacred in their >billions to show that this is a grimandgritty world) has to plan to exploit >as best they can. CUSP is the book where people can gain superpowers from >having superheated plasma forced into their head rather than just having >their brains cooked like an egg.
Ouch. I'll pass, thanks.
Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djhe...@kithrup.com
>>>> 2: The singularity used as the secular End of Days.
>>>What kind of end days do you mean? Are you referring to the rapture of >>>the nerds where we'll be bodily lifted into VR heaven, or do you >>>dislike the doomsday prophesies that claim we're all gonna die >>>painfully when the new machine race awakens?
>>>If it's the first - when (or how often) has this been done in written >>>SF? I know the idea has its pop-sci proponents but its SFnal >>>treatment, to the best of my knowledge, has been bleaker than what the >>>Kurzweils of the world predict, if only because an Eden with no >>>conflict doesn't make an interesting story.
>> Unfortunately the example that comes to mind first is not out >>yet and I try not to discuss book I hated before they are out (The >>book in question had most of the things I hate, which is what prompted >>the list).
>Oh, dear. Will you identify it, please, when you're allowed to?
>>3: Inconsistent application of technology without reasons why it is >>applied so unevenly [A] This goes double for technology that should be >>universal but is not applied on Earth. Note that implied reasons are OK.
>I don't recall any implied reasons for Turtledove's premise in >"The Road Not Taken": that every primitive culture in near space >develops the spacedrive when it's still in the blunderbuss-and- >chamberpot stage, *escept* humans. Pure chance, IIRC. And yet >that's a pretty darned good story.
Those were all independent events so one of many many trials producing a low-probability outcome does not bother me.
That universe does have stupendous Fermi Paradox problem unless there's a reason why all the technological species popped up in over the span of only a few thousand years [1].
1: My verion of the Tenchi universe has the Dimensionals fiddling with the galaxy so that most of the planets produce human(oids) close enough to interbreed at pretty much the same time. I never worked out why they did this but civilized apes have to have worked out better than the previous cycle in that universe, the Galactic Prehistoric Meowmeow Paleozoic Era, which sounds like it might have involved intelligent cats.
James Nicoll wrote: > There's CUSP, where the Singularity is seen as inevitable and > something everyone (except the spear-carriers, who are massacred in their > billions to show that this is a grimandgritty world) has to plan to exploit > as best they can. CUSP is the book where people can gain superpowers from > having superheated plasma forced into their head rather than just having > their brains cooked like an egg.
And this is any worse than many of the other classic ways of gaining superpowers like being exposed to enough gamma radiation to vaporize your chromosomes, overdoses of cosmic rays, etc.?
Oh, wait. You mean this is a REGULAR book, not a comic book?
1. People using science fiction as a way to insult contemporary people. (The cynical and corrupt Grand Inquisitor is named Clintaaahn!).
2. Planets which don't have climate zones.
3. Utopias. I especially hate the ones where the abandonment of money solves our social problems, but I'm not real fond of the libertarian utopias either.
4. Universes in which humans are uniquely wicked. And that especially includes ones in which our aptitude for violence is unique.
5. Fans and creators who make a big deal about the hardness of science fiction despite the severe limitations that puts on what you can reasonably do and who reject one thing for its lack of hardness and instead substitute something even softer.
6. Nanotechnology that ignores just how limited the power supply of a machine that small would have to be. If you're going to have magic, then have magic. Don't pretend it's engineering.
7. Taking it for granted that an AI is going to be more capable than a human in all ways.
8. Treating doves as not merely wrong but wicked en masse. The same is true of hawks of course, but I don't see a lot of that because there's milsf but there's almost no diplomasf
9. Atheistic worlds. By which I don't mean worlds that have no gods, but (human) worlds that have no theists. Highly improbable.
10. Failure to understand that space is not an ocean and the worlds not fixed islands within it. To take an example from a rather good book, there's that Space JAG series where the first novel's pretext actually required the planets of the solar system to be stationary so it would make some sense to patrol a specific patch of space to intercept all the ships travelling through it.
I thought of something I hate in SF, although it's been a while since I ran into a good example: cynical contempt for the reader on the part of the author. -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
1: Every character acts like they're twelve. And not the shy, bookish, overly-educated kind of twelve that you're thinking of, either.
2: Everyone is an asshole. The point of the book turns out to be to glory in how much of an asshole the protagonist is. Just because Vin Diesel looks good on the screen doesn't mean you have to aspire to be the characters he plays.
3: This speculative-science gimmick that you saw in a magazine is so cool that you have to make it a central macguffin of your novel. With all the characters standing around asking "What is that thing? I've never seen anything like it!" until the sheet is pulled away and you can stick in your expository lecture. Bonus points if you lifted the gimmick from an existing SF novel which I've read.
4: The moment that I realize that your bullshit sciencey doubletalk is in the book not because it makes the story work, but because you seriously believe it. This goes double for your explanation of why <accepted scientific theory> is false.
5: Gross stuff. I realize this is a personal reaction, but I am 100% done with Neal Asher. (Even if he hadn't already hit the #2 criterion above.)
Nothing else is coming to mind, so I'll stop at half a decade.
Note that I am *not* listing "Things that I roll my eyes at but don't really care as long as the story is fun." Many of the items listed by people in this thread fall into that category for me. Human societies remaining static for ten thousand years with no explanation? Whatever. Time travel doesn't make sense? Dude, surprise! Pick a set of special effects and get on with the story. The more pedantic you get about time-travel logic, the duller your story gets, until you disappear into what I like to call the "Timemaster event horizon". (Robert L. Forward, 1992; a reading experience much like watching paint dry on a row of limp marionettes. Forever.)
--Z
-- "And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..." * Sig repository offline for update...
