Sci-fi
Having just finished Fahrenheit 451, and reflecting on Science Fiction in general, I've reached some conclusions of my own about Sci-Fi and "genre" fiction in general. Some people *cough snobs cough* view all genre fiction as trash. Hence the name "genre fiction". They ignore the fact that so-called "classics" are a genre of their own... at least in most bookstores and in many libraries. Others (actually most, as far as I can tell) think that all Sci-Fi books are the same. They are not. This is my opinion of what makes a good Sci-Fi book.
There's a distinction in the SF community between so-called "hard" SF and "soft" SF. Hard SF is fiction that makes an effort to scientifically justify the technological claims it makes, and its devotees often criticize "soft" SF for making wild claims and being closer to fantasy than Sci-Fi. Meanwhile, the devotees of soft SF claim that hard SF is mainly an excuse for poor writing.
Frankly speaking, this distinction is idiotic.
All Sci-Fi, be it hard or soft, makes guesses about what the future will be like. In that sense, it's all a subgenre of fantasy (although lots of SF fans disparage fantasy, ignoring that Star Wars and its inspiration Dune are both essentially fantasy stories). The real value of SF is as a literary device. Thus, to me what makes good SF is SF in which the author uses his/her assumptions about the very distant to further the story and explore issues that arise from these assumptions. Bad SF is fiction in which the author uses the SF as a crutch to avoid having to be bothered by such things as "quality". I think it's quite possible for both hard and soft SF to be good (eg. Ender's Game, Star Trek) or bad (I can't think of any examples because bad SF is not memorable - but believe me, it's out there and it's unfortunately the majority).
That being said, read Fahrenheit 451!
There's a distinction in the SF community between so-called "hard" SF and "soft" SF. Hard SF is fiction that makes an effort to scientifically justify the technological claims it makes, and its devotees often criticize "soft" SF for making wild claims and being closer to fantasy than Sci-Fi. Meanwhile, the devotees of soft SF claim that hard SF is mainly an excuse for poor writing.
Frankly speaking, this distinction is idiotic.
All Sci-Fi, be it hard or soft, makes guesses about what the future will be like. In that sense, it's all a subgenre of fantasy (although lots of SF fans disparage fantasy, ignoring that Star Wars and its inspiration Dune are both essentially fantasy stories). The real value of SF is as a literary device. Thus, to me what makes good SF is SF in which the author uses his/her assumptions about the very distant to further the story and explore issues that arise from these assumptions. Bad SF is fiction in which the author uses the SF as a crutch to avoid having to be bothered by such things as "quality". I think it's quite possible for both hard and soft SF to be good (eg. Ender's Game, Star Trek) or bad (I can't think of any examples because bad SF is not memorable - but believe me, it's out there and it's unfortunately the majority).
That being said, read Fahrenheit 451!