I’m curious what users feel makes a great sci-fi story. What elements do you feel “make or break” the story specifically where sci-fi is concerned? For me, I really enjoyed the Expanse series, as it feels like there’s a sort of “believability” to it all. The authors make everything seem very realistic, even if some of the descriptions and physics are made up.
What is it about your favorite sci-fi books and shows that make them your favorites?
Strong world building. No matter how farfetched the technology/society/species, if there is enough backstory or precedent anything is believeable. For example, Isaac Asimov’s robots aren’t realistic at all but he starts by laying down a set of rules (three laws of robotics)and wrote entire books worth of stories detailing their development. This not only allows readers to suspend their disbelief and accept that sentient robots exist but gives context and relatability to all of your characters/events/locations. The Expanse acheived the same by simply rooting it’s fiction deeply in reality which makes it inherently relatable. The rest is normal storytelling.
I particularly enjoy sci-fi that explores philosophy using various archetypes that can’t exist yet without some advance in texhnology, or explore society by taking certain aspects to their logical extreme.
Blade Runner is a good movie example of the former. It explores the nature of humanity, consciousness, and “self” using advanced synthetic beings. Children of Time is a book example that explores evolution, religion, and more.
GATTACA is a good example for social exploration: eugenics, and morality. Children of Men is another good one: what would happen to society if we saw the end of our species in the near future.
Other books I’ve enjoyed along those lines: XX, Left Hand of Darkness, Three Body Problem (all 3 books). Other movies: District 9, Ex Machina, WALL-E, The Matrix.
I completely agree with this take. Good sci-fi examines and questions what it is to be human.
I get the enjoyment of the alt-technology focused works that are more of space engineering thought experiments. Those Weir-esk books are totally valid, and I enjoy them enough, but I really think the works that will stand the test of time are those that present worlds with different circumstances and examine humanity in that context.
I’ve read a lot of Philip K. Dick and enjoyed them, even though some are waaaaay out there, but he has a real gift with writing that I don’t think many can emulate as well and still get the point across like he can. I’ll definitely add the others you’ve mentioned to my lists!
Good sci-fi, to me, is an idea or concept that makes you wonder and think “I never thought of that.” It’s good sci-fi, to me, if I find myself thinking about the ideas and concepts when NOT actively reading the book. It’s about an idea that sounds plausible, not just complete BS. Like half truths with half fiction.
Starting with a world and rules for that world and allowing the various entities to intelligently work with those rules. As opposed to starting with a story and plot and then ignoring things that would complicate or defeat that plot.
Star wars ep 8 is an example of that second one. If you could destroy ships by just ramming them with another one at light speed, then there would be a ton of weaponry based on that, probably even being a great equalizer that prevented any kind of empire from growing too powerful because any concentrated power would get hit by asteroids with light speed propulsion and navigation systems strapped on. Not to mention the numerous tactical errors made and them somehow immediately guessing the weakness of a brand new tech they had only heard rumors about prior to it being deployed against them.
I think part of what made the Expanse so great was that they followed this. Those rules happened to be similar to the ones we have (ignoring the alien advanced tech stuff).
Star Trek is another example of world first, then plot within that world.
Even more comedy style stuff like Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett do well with that, where they have rules thrown in for humour but then still figure out how to make the plot remain consistent with those and allow propagandists and antagonists to play intelligently by those rules.
I hate it when the question “why didn’t they just do instead?” is answered with “it’s just a story, don’t think about it too much”. It’s just lazy/shitty writing and producers that don’t really care and just want their paycheck IMO.
If you liked the Expanse you might be interested in Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars series, and for the same reasons.
As for your original question, for me the important part is good writing and story telling. Some writers’ styles just turn me off no matter how good or important the work is. Narrative style is what makes or breaks a book for me no matter the genre.
I will add Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars series to the list then, for sure! I agree about the writing styles. I feel like sometimes authors seem to have the assumption that the reader will understand the very intricate details of the world they built without them needing to explain much, and this is a huge turn-off for me. If I can barely understand what’s going on after 3-5 chapters, I lose interest.
