Forum menu
Thanks everyone for all the suggestions. I've not really had a chance to look at all the replies yet, but will try tomorrow.
I'm going to try to put a list together of all the recommendations/authors and will endeavour to make it available here. Few questions that people asked which I'll answer when I get the chance too.
Only books I've really read in the last decade were uni books and a song of ice and fire. I really enjoyed that series, especially the world building and lore that accompanies it. Infact, that's what I tend to enjoy about most scifi/fantasy. I enjoy the deep, intricate connections and feel cheated when an in depth history or technical explanations of tech etc aren't given.
Just for a bit of balance, and I realise book choices are a very personal thing, but some I've read after recommendations on other threads but not got on with are: (Science fiction)
• Asimov - Foundation. Nothing much happens in the first book, other than world building if you're into that.
• Neal Stephenson - Seven Eves. Long winded technical explanations. Ridiculous last third.
• James SA Corey: The Expanse. Corny. Written for Hollywood.
Recommended:
John Scalzi - The Interdependency series. Each book is fairly short, but funny, skip along well with interesting concepts. Limited to the 3 books
And I'd add to my previous: read what you think you'll like, rather than reading what you think you 'should' read, just because it's on a classic list.
Some great suggestions above.
I'l probably get flamed for this but if you are after some 'pulp' fiction style yarns have a look at the Games Workshop Black Library 40k stuff. The 40k Universe is brilliantly dark.
On the Fantasy side I don't think the Winter of the World Series by Walter Scott Rohan has been mentioned (Anvil of Ice, Forge in the Forest, Hammer of the Sun) - well worth a look if you like the world building and lore that accompanies it. The books feel more like an alternative history if that makes sense.
Infact, that’s what I tend to enjoy about most scifi/fantasy. I enjoy the deep, intricate connections and feel cheated when an in depth history or technical explanations of tech etc aren’t given.
Argh, best give my list a pass in that case 😉
Enjoying this thread. Someone piqued my imagination mentioning a ‘first contact’ story. I enjoyed Contact (movie) but didn’t know it was a book. Worth a read? Read the first few pages of ‘The Mote In God’s Eye’ and tbh it appears at first a lot wooden/starchy/of it’s time? I’ll give it a go, but are there any more recent ‘first contact’ type novels?
I cant find the reference I was looking for but do explore Judith Merril's writings and compilations of Best SciFi and Fantasy. Late sixties vintage is good if you like that sort of thing.
I’m currently working my way through the Horus Heresy books by Games Workshop. I can hardly put them down; ok I’m and Old GW fan but you don’t really have to be for the Heresy books.
Currently reading Legion and John Grammaticus is one of the best Sci fi characters ever.
GW and the black library have huge number of books. Ok not to everyone’s taste but there are some cracking books.
Enjoying this thread. Someone piqued my imagination mentioning a ‘first contact’ story. I enjoyed Contact (movie) but didn’t know it was a book. Worth a read? Read the first few pages of ‘The Mote In God’s Eye’ and tbh it appears at first a lot wooden/starchy/of it’s time? I’ll give it a go, but are there any more recent ‘first contact’ type novels?
@Malvern Rider I just read a fantastic book that had this as a tangential theme - Engine Summer by John Crowley. Don't know if you've read JC but he is a top drawer writer so recommended if you're in the mood for some quality writing, but not so much if you fancy a more classic big SF universe first contact book.
I’l probably get flamed for this but if you are after some ‘pulp’ fiction style yarns have a look at the Games Workshop Black Library 40k stuff. The 40k Universe is brilliantly dark.
I'd add Star Wars novels to the guilty pleasures list, if you're willing to risk them the Timothy Zahn books are great 🙂
Read the first few pages of ‘The Mote In God’s Eye’ and tbh it appears at first a lot wooden/starchy/of it’s time?
As I said Niven is not a great writer. He is, though, very good at creating plausible universes and situations, and following them to a logical conclusion.
The human society in "The Mote ..." is believable, and the aliens are ... well odd, but he gives entirely rational reasons for why they've turned out that way.
I'd stick with it. You notice the writing less as you get caught up in the universe.
I probably shouldn't say this, but i've always thought of 'sci-fi', as much as it is lauded for being amazingly inventive, as actually being a failure of imagination.
Having said that, The Handmaid's Tale and 1984 are obviously bona fide classics, and the Hitchhiker series is a lot of fun.
^. You should definitely say it. And you may ‘always’ have thunk it. But, contrast could be even more interesting. What genre (for instance) have you so far found to be the ‘most imaginative’?
OK, you've probably had enough people recommending Banks, Pratchett, Gibson, Stross, etc., to you so I'll try and mention some relatively recent books and authors that I've enjoyed.
For sci-fi I'd back up a recommendation from page one to try Ann Leckie's Ancillary Justice. It's the first in a trilogy and there's a fourth book set in a different part of the same universe. She's also written a fantasy novel called the Raven Tower. Ancillary Justice moves along at a decent pace but annoyingly I reckon it's more enjoyable to read if you haven't read the blurb for it first, as the blurb gives away much of the setup and it is more interesting for that setup to be slowly revealed through the story itself.
Another sci-fi novel I'd recommend is Ninefox Gambit by Yoon Ha Lee. Again, it's the start of a trilogy (this seems to be what the publishing industry demands these days). One similarity it shares with Ancillary Justice is that it's set in a civilisation that in many ways isn't very nice. Actually, it may just be easier to copy and paste the blurb for this one:
When Captain Kel Cheris of the hexarchate is disgraced for her unconventional tactics, Kel Command gives her a chance to redeem herself by retaking the Fortress of Scattered Needles from the heretics. Cheris’s career isn’t the only thing at stake: if the fortress falls, the hexarchate itself might be next.
Cheris’s best hope is to ally with the undead tactician Shuos Jedao. The good news is that Jedao has never lost a battle, and he may be the only one who can figure out how to successfully besiege the fortress. The bad news is that Jedao went mad in his first life and massacred two armies, one of them his own.
As the siege wears on, Cheris must decide how far she can trust Jedao – because she might be his next victim.
Fantasy-wise I'd recommend the Divine Cities trilogy by Robert Jackson Bennett. It's definitely fantasy, but it's a setting that's moving into an industrial era after one country rose up and killed the gods, so there's a mix of the industrial and the miraculous going on. The first book in the trilogy is called City of Stairs:
You've got to be careful when you're chasing a murderer through Bulikov, for the world is not as it should be in that city. When the gods were destroyed and all worship of them banned by the Polis, reality folded; now stairs lead to nowhere, alleyways have become portals to the past, and criminals disappear into thin air.
The murder of Dr Efrem Pangyui, the Polis diplomat researching the Continent's past, has begun something and now whispers of an uprising flutter out from invisible corners.
Only one woman may be willing to pursue the truth - but it is likely to cost her everything.
Robert Jackson Bennett is two books into another fantasy series now, he really likes his world building, so there's quite a lot of "well if this is how <fantasy thing> works, then this is what will happen because of that" type world building in his stuff.
Finally, I'll second an earlier recommendation for Kate Griffin’s Matthew Swift books. They're entertaining, fairly grim at times, urban fantasy. I initially found the first one, A Madness Of Angels, a bit difficult to get into, but once I did I found it and all the rest of the series (and the related Magicals Anonymous books) really enjoyable.
The blurb on Amazon for A Madness of Angels is a bit dull, but here it is:
When a man is tired of London he is tired of life; for there is in London all that life can afford - Samuel Johnson
In fact, Dr Johnson was only half right. There is in London much more than life - there is power. It ebbs and flows with the rhythms of the city, makes runes from the alignments of ancient streets and hums with the rattle of trains and buses; it waxes and wanes with the patterns of the business day. It is a new kind of magic: urban magic.
Enter a London where magicians ride the Last Train, implore favours of The Beggar King and interpret the insane wisdom of The Bag Lady. Enter a London where beings of power soar with the pigeons and scrabble with the rats, and seek insight in the half-whispered madness of the blue electric angels. Enter the London of Matthew Swift, where rival sorcerers, hidden in plain sight, do battle for the very soul of the city...
something which was written differently which i really enjoyed was 'The Themis Files Series' by Sylvain Neuvel
Jack Vance wrote some wonderful science fiction and fantasy books - The Demon Princes was probably my favourite but The Dying Earth and the Elder Isles trilogy run it close.
Others I have enjoyed:
Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe
Elric by Michael Moorcock
Earthsea trilogy by Ursula le Guin
Hmmm, there's a reason everyone recommends Ian Banks.
Lots of Sci-Fi/Fantasy writing is just churned out and properly shit*. I'd even go as far as to say much of it is just sub par fan fiction. (most of the Star Wars, and Warhammer stuff falls into this category) There are a few (and I mean a few) that are worth investing in, the rest are publishing houses cashing in.
OP, make use of your Library (and be prepared to shove the 12 year olds aside) or the Charity shops, don't spend your hard earned on anything, especially not multi book series, until you've road tested them for free (or 50p max)
* I'd make the comparison that Sci-Fi is the men's version of the poverty porn and chick-lit that women are feed by the publishers.
Some good books here, reminds me of a youth with lots of long, book-filled, flights....
I see there have been some 'first contact' stories mentioned but my favourite of the genre hasn't been listed: Footfall, by Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven. A proper alien invasion and fight back story.
I’d agree that much SF is lightweight stuff but that’s probably what many people want - see the chick lit, action stories and whodunnits in the paperback bestseller lists to understand the sort of thing that’s read by your average commuter on the train. Anyway, on the more literary side I don’t think anyone’s mentioned Station 11 by Emily St John Mandel for some topical post-pandemic dystopia. Also I’d echo the recommendation of anything by Adrian Tchaikovsky, also Connie Willis for a quirky take on time travel.
This thread has sent me on a mega mission to work out the title of a book I read in the late 90s, a really twisted piece of very British science fiction called Vurt by Jeff Noon. It won the Arthur C Clarke Award when it was first published, but I don't know how it has aged on the page, but the story, characters and world still rears its head in my imagination.
I don't know where they sit with most people, but I think David Mitchell's novels (no, not the comedian) are wonderful. Especially Cloud Atlas, Bone Clocks and the Thousand winters.
Lots of Sci-Fi/Fantasy writing is just churned out and properly shit*. I’d even go as far as to say much of it is just sub par fan fiction. (most of the Star Wars, and Warhammer stuff falls into this category) There are a few (and I mean a few) that are worth investing in, the rest are publishing houses cashing in.* I’d make the comparison that Sci-Fi is the men’s version of the poverty porn and chick-lit that women are feed by the publishers.
That's a pretty snobbish attitude IMO. I know various successful and intelligent women who would describe chick-lit as an (admittedly) guilty pleasure. Nothing wrong with that.
Similarly I'm reading some Margaret Atwood at the moment - which I don't think anyone would describe as sub-par fan fiction - but last week I read "Chaos Undivided" by John French, the 47th (?) book from the Horus Heresy series. It absolutely is Warhammer cashing in, but I still enjoyed it wholeheartedly.
That’s a pretty snobbish attitude IMO. I know various successful and intelligent women who would describe chick-lit as an (admittedly) guilty pleasure. Nothing wrong with that.
I think it’s realistic rather than snobbish. The standard is pretty low when it comes to SF&F. There’s a reason why Iain Banks is named in every one of these threads - it’s not just his utter brilliance, but also because no-one even comes close to his SF stuff. And while his non-genre output was excellent, he doesn’t often get listed in ‘books you must read’. So does that mean that he was better at SF, or that the standard of non-SF is much higher? I think it’s the latter.
Anyway, as you say, not everyone wants to read high-brow stuff all the time. That’s why James Corey gets a name-check in these threads. You can watch it on TV. 😁
That’s a pretty snobbish attitude IMO
It has nothing to do with snobbery, other wise every writer has to be judged as equally good, and that just simply isn't the case is it? There are some great sci-fi books, but there's also a huge amount of utter dross. This is true for everything,not just books, or sci-fi for that matter.
For every Alan Dean Foster, Attwood and Ian Banks, there's a Brain Herbert. Kevin Anderson and L Ron Hubbard.
It has nothing to do with snobbery, other wise every writer has to be judged as equally good, and that just simply isn’t the case is it? There are some great sci-fi books, but there’s also a huge amount of utter dross. This is true for everything,not just books, or sci-fi for that matter.
I disagree. The arts are subjective. My little sister liked One Direction. Did I tell her they were 'utter dross' and what she ought to be listening to instead? No, that would be arrogant, unpleasant and snobbish in my opinion.
The standard is pretty low when it comes to SF&F.
I would disagree. The genre is so wide and deep that there is everything from literary masterpieces examining complex human actions to pulp potboilers
a lot of popular SF is poor yes - but there is a huge body of good work.
I probably shouldn’t say this, but i’ve always thought of ‘sci-fi’, as much as it is lauded for being amazingly inventive, as actually being a failure of imagination.
Explain, please, how a form of literature that relies primarily on imagination to portray worlds and people and societies far beyond anything that we can experience, shows a failure of imagination? Enquiring minds want to know.
The arts are subjective
Up to a point, but literature is different; plots have to make sense, the grammar needs to be correct, the story needs to hang together and be gripping and entertaining, the characters need to be believable, have their own motivations, and so on...So the comparison with music doesn't work. If a writer can't manage those things; it's objectively bad.
Look, Don't be defensive, if you like something, cool, be happy, but everyone knows what trash looks like. The point was be selective; Use of Weapons, Dune, 2001, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Starship Troopers are all decent novels...Star Wars: Darksaber, not so much.
Edit, I haven't said don't enjoy whatever, all I said was be selective; there's a lot of rubbish out there. Use the library and charity shops before splashing the cash, I don't see this as massively controversial, TBH.
Explain, please, how a form of literature that relies primarily on imagination to portray worlds and people and societies far beyond anything that we can experience, shows a failure of imagination? Enquiring minds want to know.
An argument would be that real life is so fantastic, and so mysterious, that walling the reader off in a completely made-up world is a very unnecessary, juvenile approach - shows a stunted imagination that cannot be expected to really come up with much insight or depth of feeling.
But you can shift that argument over and apply it to the novel in general. If real life is so deep and frightening (it is), then aren't all novels just nursery rhymes at heart and we should all just read about World War II or a biography of Stalin for a real imaginative experience?
Clearly that's not right and there's a happy medium. Some of the best stuff IMO is found in so-called low fantasy, books with fantastical elements in everyday setting, so stuff that lacks the superficial imaginative effort that goes into world-building but is far harder to write well. Is there a better post-war fantasy novel than 100 years of Solitude?
My little sister liked One Direction. Did I tell her they were ‘utter dross’ and what she ought to be listening to instead?
BTW, 1D; both objectively and subjectively a really great band, so clearly you're the one with issues, I'd say...
And we were doing so well.
Any contenders for the first sci-fi book?
I’m going to throw in ‘Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus’ (1818)
Chose to read it when a teenager because I was into ‘horror’. Turned out it was by far the deepest, most insightful and prescient work of ‘science-fiction‘ I think I’ve ever read. It transcends time and genre/s. It becomes more prescient. I struggle to think of a book that more perfectly describes where we are today.
@Malvern Rider, yeah I'd always thought it was Frankenstein, however a quick google suggests something else that may substantially predate it... https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/may/23/work-from-1616-is-the-first-ever-science-fiction-novel
I will give you props for a unique argument, but that is probably the least correct thing I have ever read 😂 unless you have just worded what you meant VERY badly 😃I probably shouldn’t say this, but i’ve always thought of ‘sci-fi’, as much as it is lauded for being amazingly inventive, as actually being a failure of imagination.
^ zilog6128 you beat me to it! I just googled ‘first sci-fi’ and found same article. Fascinating stuff. That’s some reading sorted for tonight. Let’s see if it’s not Thomas Moore’s ‘Utopia‘ (1516)?
Oh, nearly forgot, don't think he's been mentioned yet, but Stanislaw Lemm wrote some good stuff...
With Lem, I wonder if some are put off by Solaris, which is frequently cited as his best. He wrote a lot of different stuff, some quite silly yet still worth reading.
Any contenders for the first sci-fi book?
Rig Veda maybe? - something like 1500 BCE.
And we were doing so well.
Tbh I’d far prefer to read a discussion about SF, and why people think that book X is worth reading, rather than ‘what’s the best SF book I’ve read that I picked up in Tesco, which is where I get all my books’. (That’s proper snobbery, btw, not whatever was suggested earlier. 😁 )
Any contenders for the first sci-fi book?
Bible innit?
THE BIBLE AS SCIENCE FICTION
INTRODUCTION
The definition of science fiction is a notoriously awkward area. Definitions tend not to cover everything, or to cover things you don’t actually want them to, and it all becomes very awkward. But one I rather like is the definition given by Brian Aldiss in his critical history of science fiction called Billion Year Spree (which was updated as Trillion Year Spree, and there are persistent rumours that he’s going to do a new version called Zillion Year Spree, which he denies).
He defines science fiction in the following terms. He says:
Science fiction is the search for a definition of mankind and his status in the universe which will stand in our advanced but confused state of knowledge (science), and is characteristically cast in the Gothic or post-Gothic mode.1
Now, if I can ‘unpack that’ a bit, as we Greenbelt speakers say, you’ll notice – well, for a start you’ll probably notice the exclusive language: ‘mankind and his status in the universe’. And you can probably ignore the bit about ‘cast in the Gothic or post-Gothic mode,’ because, while that is true of some science fiction, it seems to me largely a historical accident of the way science fiction started.But I want to focus in on the ‘definition of mankind and his status in the universe’, which is about humanity and the rôle humanity takes in God’s creation, because it does seem to me that that is an intrinsic and vital element of most science fiction, and certainly of the best science fiction. And it seems to me that those two poles of the definition, of the universe and of humanity, foreground the ‘science’ and the ‘fiction’ aspects of science fiction respectively. Science is all about finding out about the universe, finding out the reasons for it, finding out the way things work within it; whereas fiction is all about human beings, and the way they interact, and their relationships. So you have the universe and humanity, science and fiction, and I rather like the way that brings out that contrast.
I will give you props for a unique argument, but...
Yes, there is that.
I felt a bit bad about dropping a grenade and running off like that, so thought at least some sort of follow up was in order.
The reason i prefaced it with 'i probably shouldn't say this' was more that i'm not particularly au fait with the genre, though that in itself is because it's not something that floats my boat. But i'm not that sort of person that thinks that if i don't like it, it is therefore completely worthless, because, well, why would anyone think like that?
The writers i admire take the real world and make you look at it anew - it's everywhere now but look at Tolstoy taking you through multiple 'views' of the same scene through different perspectives; same with Bronte taking you into the story 2/3rds in, bringing you up to speed then taking you home.
These are books 'populated' with people who look just like you.
They, Catherine, Anna, Atticus, seem like real people, dealing with real things, that you, the reader (i married him), have to really deal with.
When someone creates a world that bends to their will, populated with fantastical beings, yes they are being inventive, but is it as imaginative?
That was an actual question by the way, i'm not standing on solid ground here.
I) most SF ( please folks not sci fi) has human as well as non human characters. Indeed many are mainly or totally human
2) to invent a universe that has no internal contradictions and appears believable is difficult and creative - more so that just using our world.
Creating a good alien species that acts and thinks differently to humans is a really difficult task. In poor quality SF they are bug eyed monsters - but their motivations are human. In good quality SF they are not humans in disguise, they think differently. Take Nivens puppeteers. They are herbivores. Being herbivores leads them to act in different ways to humans ( omnivores) and Kzinti ( carnivores) to make this seem true it has to be done with no logical contradictions - again a tricky task in writing. Or Iain M Banks Dwellers. Giant creatures that live in gas giant clouds who live for millennia and thus think and act very differently to humans. To create a race of aliens that think and act differently to humans but to keep them logically coherent is a very difficult trick to do and one that IMO shows great creativity.
On universe building. Nivens Ringworld as an example. In it there are materials that do not exist in our universe and again these have to be used in such a way as to be logically coherent and believable. The material that makes up the actual ring of ringworld acts differently to any materials we have - but all the ramifications of having this material need to be considered, SF readers have some real geeks among them and any logical inconsistencies will be seen, discussed and picked to bits.
Or take interstellar travel. You have to decide the parameters of your drive. How does it work and what are its limitations. the limitations you build into your stare drive will create situations. again this all needs to be logical and coherent ( once you accept the basics) so if you have an instantaneous drive it will create a very different society to one where interstellar travel is limited in some way. Its again the need to avoid internal contradictions and inconsistencies that means huge creativity is needed.
Don't base your ideas on SF on the poor quality crap on TV. Star trek is wagon train in space. Star wars is cowboys and indians. Both use incredibly simple universes and plot lines. Something like the algebraist by Ian M Banks would be pretty much unfilmable - as any film that covered any significant amount of the plot would be 20 or 30 hours long.
Johnny Mnemonic (Gibson) which is a decentish SF film is based round a fairly short short story. Trying to Film Gibsons masterpiece ( IMO) which is a trilogy and needs all three books to make a whole story would simply be impossible as it would be so many hours of film. tiny details in the first book that are an aside to the main story become incredibly important in later books - no detail can be missed out
so basically I reject your premise and suggest you read some quality SF
yes they are being inventive, but is it as imaginative?
Surely invention comes from imagination.
The writers i admire take the real world and make you look at it anew
+1
… but, writing human characters in non-SF is hard enough - writing non-humans with alien ideas, experiences, environments, &c., seems to me as if it would require exceptional creativity and imagination. Hats off to those who do it well.
tj - excellent post.
Mileages will always vary. People enjoy different stuff.
Taking ‘Frankenstein’ (again) as an example and analogy. Four (imagined) contrasted readings:
Reader 1: Cool book about a mad scientist who makes a monster called (sic) ‘Frankenstein‘. The monster gets mad, wreaks havoc, then kills it’s creator. Props to Mary Shelley for inventing such funny movies before their time!
Reader 2: I’ve heard of it, but really? What use is such a far-fetched romance? It’s the very epitome of a failed imagination. Man makes monster? Monster kills man? My five year old daughter could have dreamed that up while destroying her Lego castle.
Reader 3: Yes, I read it at school. Did you know that Mary Shelley began writing it as a teenager? I had a few questions about it at school but read it again when older as it had stuck in my mind. It (The novel) had raised some questions.
Firstly, is doctor Frankenstein a martyr or a miscreant? Ask this because
He ignores his “beloved” family for years. He shows no care for the creature?
He allows the creature to become other people’s problem?
He offers lame excuses for failing to save Justine from execution?
He focuses on his own emotions rather than the harm he has caused?
He often blames fate or “the angel of his destruction.”?
When his family is in jeopardy, he spends time on the lake or in the Alps?But then it made me think about ‘ Are monsters made, or born?’??
I liked the way Shelley connects all the complex elements of characterization. The similarities between the creature and the doctor are especially striking.
I learned that Shelley based the creatures mental state largely on philosophies from John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. It is not surprising that many mistakenly refer to the monster as Frankenstein. Shelley obviously saw the two characters to be distorted images mirroring one another. And then I thought about how foreshadowing the whole story seemed? Uncannily so. Milton, again?
From an imaginary lab in Ingolstadt to a post-truth world on the Internet? From dividing atoms to splicing DNA. From artificial insemination to artificial intelligence. Lonely souls in lonely ‘labs’ creating ‘monsters’ from ‘meme-magic’. Putting the spark into the shooter who wanders forth and commits real acts of terror in our post-truth world?
Mary Shelley also placed Victor in a loneliness of his own appointment. Or did he really choose his path? How ‘free’ is our will? And, so, who was the ‘monster’?
If Victor Frankenstein was the true beast, then he was “science's hideous prodigy,” the man behind the blood. He was to society what the monster was to him; creating a killing machine that didn't stop until it killed him too. But that's too simplistic?
Yet didn’t the creature/creation have his own free will? Does being unloved and repelled automatically grant someone license to become ‘wear the hat’ just because others seem to think that it fits?
When I say ‘someone’, I mean of course a sentient being. Shelley (by design?) didn’t give the creature’ a name? To not name something dehumanizes it and makes that thing an ‘It’– lack of identity due to no name fear of unknown.
Yet she gives it such human characteristics by allowing the beast to talk, read, learn another language and even have the capabilities of emotions?
Maybe sometimes the real monster is not the hideous beast standing in front of you, but rather the beast looking back at you in the mirror? Shelley related Frankenstein’s creation as the product of neglect and lack of responsibility by the creator.
The author was obviously a young woman well-versed in the Old Testament, Paradise Lost, and “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” but it made me wonder why she chose ‘The Modern Prometheus’ as the title? Did Hesiod’s Prometheus predate the Biblical account of Genesis? I made a quick comparison between Genesis 1–11 and the poetry of Hesiod and found many interesting similarities that suggest the Bible’s authors were familiar with Hesiod's works in the fifth century BCE.
Interesting similarities include the decline in the quality of human existence, the distancing of God/ gods from the world, creation of the world, woman and the “fall,” divine-human offspring, the descendants of the ‘good hero’, segmented genealogies, and other themes. I discovered that parallel themes in ‘Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus’ are manifold, ie:
Rebelling against a father figure
Creating a new race of beings
Upsetting the proper order (ambition)
Horrible creations
Absence of forethought
Failed rebellion
Falling from grace
Curiosity
Keeping secrets
Intense suffering
Temptation
Duality of humankind
Forbidden knowledge
Gifting knowledge
Cursed gifts
Origins of evil
Fire (element and symbol)
Hell (different names and forms)Before you think it all a bit ‘boring’, I have to defend Mary Shelley’s youthful mastery of imagery. At face-value Frankenstein’s epistolary delivery had me turning the pages quickly, yet to her credit - the imagery (and themes) of the tale lingered long past the closing of the book.
“The world to me was a secret, which I desired to discover; to her it was a vacancy, which she sought to people with imaginations of her own.”
― Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, Frankenstein
Reader 4. Yeah, a total load of made-up bollocks. If it had really happened it would be, like, the best story EVER!
The latest Abercrombie is really good, as you might expect - Lord Grimdark does not disappoint. Been laid up with a cold so inhaled it in two sittings.
He's so fluent with his style now that it's prob quite easy for him to churn something out that his fans would like without really doing anything new - bit of a tightrope for him with fan-service v trying something new. He's succeeded here IMHO - everything you'd want to see in a JA book but also some original voices and a strong story of medieval capitalism / industrial revolution.
Any contenders for the first sci-fi book?
I'm going to go with the Epic of Gilgamesh
https://theconversation.com/guide-to-the-classics-the-epic-of-gilgamesh-73444
When someone creates a world that bends to their will, populated with fantastical beings, yes they are being inventive, but is it as imaginative?
When you invent something new, is that not through the use of imagination? Otherwise said invention couldn’t exist, without someone having imagined it and its uses in the first place.
And yes, you are on very shaky ground!