• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

What makes a good sci-fi story?

Avid SciFi Fan

Avid SciFi Fan

New Member
In my experience, I found that a good sci-fi story frequently has a mix of the following:

1) A philosophical issue to explore with a "what if" scenario.
2) A moral lesson that is sometimes connected to the philosophical issue.
3) A parallel reality that mirrors current political climates so readers can relate to the story.

I found the Star Trek series was very good at this.

What are your thoughts on this?
What other attributes have you notice in other good stories?
 
Agreed. If its specific enough to parallel a specific event, but I would expect any good story would generalize the political climate enough to make it last longer.

Not to refer back to star trek again, but I found events like the cold war were mirrored with the confrontations with the Klingons. As well as many other civil rights aspects. Although old and out dated, some of these issues seem to constantly reoccur (just the player change).

In addition to the other three items I listed, I forgot to mention a science/tech background that doesn't deviate too far from real physical limit (Otherwise this pushes things into the fantasy realm).
 
too often Science Fiction usually ends up being Fantasy in Spaaaace. Even the great "hard" SciFi authors were guilty of this --
Asimov with his Foundation series and the ESP/telekinesis powers of the mutant The Mule and Clarke with God in the Rama series
-- and the TV shows regularly do it as well.
 
I think that is mainly because sci-fi is suppose to push the limits of what we know and stretch the imagination. Look at sme of the old classics by Jules Verne or Mark Twain. Back in thier day it was almost unimaginable to travel 20,000 leagues under the sea. As technology progresses, I think the realm of possibilities needs to progress as well to maintain the "what if" alure of sci-fi.

There are some things that are still sci-fi that don't involve space that explore medical advances or the human conciousness/soul, but I agree, the vast majority of them do seem to focus somewhat around space (Maybe the captivation of the Apollo space days is still alive). But then again, to push the boundaries of where we are technilogically now, you amost expect that.
 
There are some things that are still sci-fi that don't involve space that explore medical advances or the human conciousness/soul...
Click to expand...

The Windup Girl was neither of those and was brilliant. if you have not yet read it, do yourself a favor and check it out.
 
Interesting. It sounds like it revolves around a genetically modified humanoid named Emiko.

What did you like most about it?
 
I really liked the backdrop he created for the story. He doesn't come out and explain everything but instead expects you to read between the lines. I like it when an author does that. Plus, I really, really liked the story.
 
Got it. Good setting, but I would think parts that make readers "readers read betweeen the lines" may mean some of the audience would miss the point. I guss you can't win them all.

As for the story, what element of it did you like?

It sounds like the setting drew your initial interest and kept you reading, but what held your interest and appealed to you? Was it the plight of Emiko, the "New People" and characters or the writting style, the action/intrigue, conversations, etc...(or combination of all of the above).

I suppose everyones tastes are different, so no two people would respond the same.
 
Avid SciFi Fan said:
Got it. Good setting, but I would think parts that make readers "readers read betweeen the lines" may mean some of the audience would miss the point. I guss you can't win them all.

As for the story, what element of it did you like?

It sounds like the setting drew your initial interest and kept you reading, but what held your interest and appealed to you? Was it the plight of Emiko, the "New People" and characters or the writting style, the action/intrigue, conversations, etc...(or combination of all of the above).

I suppose everyones tastes are different, so no two people would respond the same.
Click to expand...

I thought I answered this but apparently I did not.

The story piqued my interest because it was a "what-if" about three "current event" issues: the end of oil, Global Warming, and GMO. I think the author did a great job taking those topics and making a believable world.
 
Alien encounters are a personal favorite. Good sci fi that portrays believable aliens aren't easy to find though. Any suggestions, I'd love to know. (Love SciFi!)
The alien characters in books range from humans-with-rubber-foreheads to beings so different, humans can't even relate. Something in between these types seem most enjoyable as relatable characters.
Decent science and not screwing up known physical laws helps.
What an interesting thread!
 
Good sci-fi has two things I believe:
- an interesting story (which is something every good book has), this includes character development and such.
- a cool concept, which for me includes the setting, the idea and a very original what-if scenario.

I read '2001: A Space Oddysey', which had an amazing concept (as to how us humans came to be), but it lacked in character development.
 
An interesting story and an idea that makes me think, what if...
I enjoyed Star Trek and the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxies...

If I may be so bold, may I mention Spyrits? :D :D
 
Last edited:
I hate when sci-fi is "bare" in terms of psychology. I've read a lot of cool stories with fascinating plots, but they lose a lot if there is nothing about people. I don't mean love and romance, I mean human interactions, their aspirations, their joys and sorrows...
 
Lory said:
I hate when sci-fi is "bare" in terms of psychology. I've read a lot of cool stories with fascinating plots, but they lose a lot if there is nothing about people. I don't mean love and romance, I mean human interactions, their aspirations, their joys and sorrows...
Click to expand...

For me it's the opposite, Arthur C Clarke, Brian Aldiss and Iain M. Banks amongst others minimise the human content and emphasise universe building. I like to be transported.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top