Enjoyed your observations about what is or isn’t SF. While I see your point I do disagree. An example that comes to mind is ‘Flowers for Algernon’. The science is limited to the development of an injection which increases IQ. From there we get a beautiful and tragic story. Almost all of D. G. Compton’s writing falls into this minimalist science in science fiction category. To me, even minimal science can be the catalyst for a great SF read. I think I’m more interested in the outcome in people’s lives from the novum introduced. From my recollection of this book, the characters, in particular the wife, were rather narcissistic. My interest came from the tactical and political maneuvering caused by this unexpected technology. Shaw’s great at spinning out the consequences of a plot pivot to the extreme. Great hearing your views. Made me think.
Not sure we actually disagree: Using a SF concept to explore a speculative/futuristic circumstance; I am on board with this type of book and Flowers For Algernon is certainly that. Or Theodore Sturgeon's amazing More Than Human, almost no science of any kind but indubitably SF because of the consequences it explores. I did not feel like GZM was very SF and I had time to be annoyed by that, because I was not enjoying it. (I probably should have kept the 'what is sci-fi' debate for it's very own video instead of introducing it into this review). I am glad people did enjoy Ground Zero Man despite that I really, obviously, didn't. Shaw's writing is so good it deserves to have it's following. Anyhow, thank you for commenting.
Sounds delicious. And that is what GZM could have been if we had some salt and chicken soup: Or maybe information/a subplot about nuclear programs world wide or something...
Cold mash potatoes with no salt or butter are just plain old potatoes, all bashed up. A terrifying prospect. Well, thanks for the honest review.
Enjoyed your observations about what is or isn’t SF. While I see your point I do disagree. An example that comes to mind is ‘Flowers for Algernon’. The science is limited to the development of an injection which increases IQ. From there we get a beautiful and tragic story. Almost all of D. G. Compton’s writing falls into this minimalist science in science fiction category. To me, even minimal science can be the catalyst for a great SF read. I think I’m more interested in the outcome in people’s lives from the novum introduced. From my recollection of this book, the characters, in particular the wife, were rather narcissistic. My interest came from the tactical and political maneuvering caused by this unexpected technology. Shaw’s great at spinning out the consequences of a plot pivot to the extreme. Great hearing your views. Made me think.
Not sure we actually disagree: Using a SF concept to explore a speculative/futuristic circumstance; I am on board with this type of book and Flowers For Algernon is certainly that. Or Theodore Sturgeon's amazing More Than Human, almost no science of any kind but indubitably SF because of the consequences it explores. I did not feel like GZM was very SF and I had time to be annoyed by that, because I was not enjoying it. (I probably should have kept the 'what is sci-fi' debate for it's very own video instead of introducing it into this review). I am glad people did enjoy Ground Zero Man despite that I really, obviously, didn't. Shaw's writing is so good it deserves to have it's following.
Anyhow, thank you for commenting.
I'm a little under the weather.... I am going to make warm mash potatoes with salt and cover it with chicken noodle soup!
Sounds delicious. And that is what GZM could have been if we had some salt and chicken soup: Or maybe information/a subplot about nuclear programs world wide or something...