Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I feel tricked (read this statement as tongue in cheek)

(view spoiler)[ I feel like I just read a mental health novel, but since it was set on an alien planet, it is considered sci fi. The first 95% of the book I did not really like. While I admit, the writing that showed what a person experiencing PTSD might look like was amazing, However, I wanted a sci fi novel. The last 5% were interesting, but ended with a cliff hanger and no explanation.

Overall, very well written with good visual descriptions. The characters could have been deeper. Everyone was somewhat two dimensional. (hide spoiler)]

Sorry bud, can't join ya! Yeah, it was a character study, and I got more than a little squeamish delving into the (view spoiler)[hoarding (hide spoiler)] as triggered from underlying somewhat-more-than-normal anxiety by (view spoiler)[murder of colonists by her friend. (hide spoiler)] But that's as much on the table as the vast trends of psychohistory in Foundation, or the robot psychology stories of I, Robot and its followups. Or for that matter Anakin Skywalker's hangups making him susceptible to the intrusion of the Vader personality.

In a sense this is Literary SF, which you may like or may not, or you could view it as a straight rip (view spoiler)[of 2001, the death / destruction of the crew on the way to the single successful ascension of Dave Bowman, just like Rey did. (hide spoiler)] But either way, it's SF. Different planet, colony, freaky science stuff going on, it's not just the (view spoiler)[diary of a mad(wo)man. (hide spoiler)]

Can't agree with OP. This is definitely Sci Fi. It can also be in the weird genre, as it reminds me (just a little) of Annihilation. I love the tech and the attitude toward how they built their community. I'm not quite done with the book yet as I have about three hours to go in the audiobook, but it's very definitely sci fi, as well as fitting in the weird genre.

Can I show you photos of my dogs?

I know a lot of modern sci-fi can hard sci-fi, or even space opera where thing like world building and plot tend to be more important then themes or character development. But this almost has the feel of more old school 60's and 70's sci-fi book like PKD. And I have to admit, I appreciated it*. But I could totally see where it might not be your thing.

*I almost said like, but that didn't sound quite right since like the other John, the character of Ren hit a little close to home for me, and made me feel a bit squirmish.

It's no Pandora's Star.

John (Taloni) wrote: "...Or for that matter Anakin Skywalker's hangups making him susceptible to the intrusion of the Vader personality...."

Whiny-kin ;)

Tamahome wrote: "It's no Pandora's Star."

This is why we need a like button

I kindly disagree with the responses to my original post. In my humble opinion, if there is no science/tech, be it future, past or present tech that is used or needed to move the plot, it is just a story. A bunch of kids marooned on an island is still 'Lord of the Flies' whether they arrived there from an airplane crash or spaceship crash.
The bulk of this story is centered around the main character's PTSD. There is a sprinkling of a weird biologic alien city looming, but it does not really come in to play until the very end.

There is some stuff about 3d printers and brain chips, but maybe it's not enough of the tech for some people.

I don't think I would have minded as much if we had a little more exposition about the SF/Colony stuff at the outset, because this is a really good character study it's just waaaay out of place.

I liked how cerebral the book was, but the mental health aspect kind of just consumed the plot and really let the air out of the tire as far as the space/SF/colony portion of the story was concerned.

Gregory wrote: "I kindly disagree with the responses to my original post. In my humble opinion, if there is no science/tech, be it future, past or present tech that is used or needed to move the plot, it is just a story."

That is kind of a narrow definition of sci-fi, basically limiting it mostly to Hard Science Fiction. (Depending on whether you’re including the so-called “soft sciences� like psychology and sociology in your definition, which it kind of sounds like you don’t.) Almost no modern SF uses tech to drive the plot, mostly because the gaps in known science and technology have become so narrow that there’s little room for blue sky extrapolation, plus there are so many variations of every story that it’s hard to find new ways to talk about the subject.

There’s no denying that this book features technology that is far beyond anything we currently employ, from interplanetary travel to advanced 3D printing. But like many stories, the plot of Planetfall is not what the story is about; similarly, the tech is not what the story is about. The plot and tech are just means to reveal character.

In that regard, the tech absolutely serves the tale.

Laith wrote: "I liked how cerebral the book was, but the mental health aspect kind of just consumed the plot and really let the air out of the tire as far as the space/SF/colony portion of the story was concerned."

I think this aspect goes to expectations. I personally didn’t have any expectations that the story would be like Tunnel in the Sky or The Legacy of Heorot where it’s primarily about establishing a colony and the colonists struggling to overcome adversity. So that might be the disconnect for you there, which is valid. Maybe it’s because I read this when it was released, so there weren’t many reviews yet, so I had zero preconceived notions about the story.

The book fits for me as sci-fi, even if it wasn’t tech heavy. A character's response to trauma/stress/conflict was what this struck me as, the setting made it sci-fi, the story could have been in many different settings. I didn’t care for the book, but this group has caused me to expand what I would read which is a good goal, even if certain books don’t always hit the mark.

Eh... I don't know if the setting alone makes it SF in more than a surface fashion. Same thing for advanced printers. Sure, technically it does but I think it's more compelling if the story being told relies on the SF elements in some significant way. If the story can be told with out the SF trappings and doesn't change or only changes in very minor ways... is it really an SF story?

You all are going to make me re-read this, aren't you?

Ugh. Defining a story as sci fi because it relies on future tech gave rise to meandering, pointless novels that were solely based on exploring the latest science. Like Greg Bear’s Eon (let’s talk about string theory means, we don’t need more than a rudimentary plot!) or Benford’s The Way series. Let’s not go back to that. It would eliminate classics such as Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land (really just a story about a cult figure) and Le Guinn’s The Left Hand of Darkness (an exploration of the impact of sex and gender on culture.)

One of the authors that really cemented my love for Sci FI, even though I was deep into it before finding him, is PK Dick. And while I think most consider him very much a sci-fi author, I'd argue most of his most famous novels don't actually revolve around the tech, even when they do. I should really reread "Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep" again. But based on memory, I'd say it revolves as much around the emotional state of the protagonist as this story did, even though there was a ton of tech in the story.

Sigh. I'm not sure why I bother here. First, tech and science are not the same thing. And second, there's no reason that an interesting, complex science setting has to sacrifice plot, characterization or writing quality.

Two off the top of my head examples - Ancillary Justice and The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet. Both are obviously SF and I don't think either story could be told without their setting.

I mean, if you want to keep knocking down strawmen feel free, but it's not all that interesting to discuss them. Come on, folks, it's not black and white - the interesting bits are in between. Are the SFnal elements to this book? Sure. Are they critical to the story?

A lot of the best SF writing is externalises internal conflict.

This argument could be used on any SF that does not concentrate on the "science". From Frankenstein onwards the setting has been used to help tell the story and is not the point of the story. If you want hard SF go read Greg Egan.

The cliff hanger is a reflection of 2001 which has the same structure (strange plant = monolith right through to space baby).

As for uncertainty that is an integral part of all good science.

Rick wrote: "there's no reason that an interesting, complex science setting has to sacrifice plot, characterization or writing quality."

They need to add likes to the goodreads boards something fierce, I totally agree with this sentiment. I really liked LWSAP, and recently I read House of Suns, a perfect example of a story where the SF elements are integral to every plot element (granted that book is much much harder SF).

The vibe Planetfall gave me was that the story could have been told on Earth and it would have been better for it, I can picture the Colleen Hoover cover already. That said, the SF setting definitely made it more accessible. I could see myself adding this to my reading list organically whereas I would probably skip past the same story set on earth with a title like "Memories of Her" or something.

To Trike's comment, I think what really got me wasn't expectation so much as how divorced the meat of the core conflict was from the setting/premise, It would have made a lot of sense to have her issues mirrored onto the colony's issues. I think that the divorce between the narrative and premise is how we got sucked into an "is it SF" discussion to begin with.

Rick wrote: "Eh... I don't know if the setting alone makes it SF in more than a surface fashion. Same thing for advanced printers."

Neither you nor I make the rules, so too bad. People call Star Trek and Star Wars Science Fiction when they’re clearly Fantasy, but the props and furniture are what most people focus on despite those things having nothing to do with most of the stories. You could rewrite every single Star Trek episode as a Western and set it in Dodge City with Marshal Dillon and the stories would be the same. I rewrote Star Wars as a Fantasy and posted it on Usenet 20+ years ago, so anyone can go find it and see how effortlessly it translated.


Rick wrote: "Sigh. I'm not sure why I bother here. First, tech and science are not the same thing."

No shit, Sherlock. No need to be a douche about it. But imaginary tech and extreme extrapolation of tech have long been included in sci-fi, so there it is. See “not making the rules� above. Also, you can’t have technology without underlying science, so it’s pretty much a given.

The Hunt for Red October is Science Fiction. It is, in fact, more Science Fictional than either Stars Trek or Wars because it doesn’t violate known science. It’s even Hard Science Fiction to boot. We can say this because the tech Clancy proposed was based on a theoretical paper some physicists wrote, and a Japanese company later built a submarine called the Yamato based on the theoretical propulsion system Clancy used to power the Red October. That’s definitely a case where it was all tech all the time, but you don’t get there without the science, even though the science didn’t feature in the story and the tech did.

Well, this thread became interesting pretty quick! I edited my OP to compensate for my poor writing skills. Just remember, my views (and everyone else's) are opinions, and therefore are not to be considered correct or incorrect. They are, simply, an opinion.

Yes, I prefer my science fiction with a heavy flavoring of science, tech, and maybe a few aliens. That is not everyone's preference, and that is fine. Novels are typically a hero's journey, and need some human stuff in it, so us humans can relate.

For what it is worth, I did enjoy the writing and story. I just prefer to take my coffee with a little more science....

For me, a central theme in the book was about what life on other planets means for us, and if they are higher beings, does this make them gods? That seems pretty solid sci -fi stuff to me. I’m sure others will disagree, but that’s okay.

Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth wrote: "For me, a central theme in the book was about what life on other planets means for us, and if they are higher beings, does this make them gods? That seems pretty solid sci -fi stuff to me. I’m sure..."

This is where I come down on the book. The plot is very much an exploration of internal neuroses, however because those neuroses are triggered by the future environment then the technology does play a crucial role in the story. It's just a background and not foreground player.