I thought science fiction was about passionate romantics who cast off the shackles of morality to make the world better, or about shocking revelatory visions of the future using new technology or casting current technology forward, or about a darkly satirical view of modern society, but all I've read is dry fucking autism with no style, passion or soul. Am I just reading the wrong authors? So far I've read Verne, Wells, Clarke, Asimov, Egan and Stanley Robinson and out of those I only liked Clarke and Wells
Try this.
>>24881825I prefer this
>>24881829I'm going to level with you, friend. You posted that at me before, and I don’t get it. Your humor is wasted on me.
>>24881834It's a vintage meme
Get some Dick in you
>>24881816>Am I just reading the wrong authors?For what you've said you've wanted, very much so.
most classic sci-fi i've read was more about pointing out how technology risks destroying society, beauty, meaning and human connection
>>24881825Is this about what happened between Trump and Bubba?
>>24881816you're not only reading the wrong authors, but your list is almost designed specifically to irritate you given your priorities. Did someone suggest you those books? If so they were pulling a prankLook at Jack Vance, Ursula LeGuin, M. John Harrison, Greg Bear, CJ Cherryh, John Crowley, or Dan Simmons
>>24883484They were listed as some of the best authors in the genre
>>24883609It's a tricky thing to rate authors over such a huge genre and over such a long period of time. Verne, Wells, Clarke, Asimov are all foundational to the genre, but in the same way that Citizen Kane or Gone with the Wind are to film. Those are picks for people who have already dug into the genre, enjoy it, and want to go backward to the roots. You don't start there, generally.Egan and KSR are great but they have a shtick, which is "I have actual, diagnosed autism and I'll use it to write speculative fiction"
