Station Eleven

op I loved Station Eleven too, thought it was a beautiful read.

I hate the snobbery that is sometimes shown on these threads. The first comment by cote ( have you ever read any other books sci fi?) was patronising and rude. The same goes for dismissing entire genres as "not terribly clever". This sounds so incredibly pompous. I don't read books to prove that I'm "terribly clever", I read because I love to read.

I suppose my argument is that SF does not have to be scientifically accurate, as Ray Bradbury was not at all.

Ha, I knew I would be pulled up on that. I was just rambling really, I meant that it isn't about science, just about the future. Like Station 11.

"Ray Bradbury wrote about space a lot, but it isn't really science fiction, is it?"

Of course it is. What do you think SF is?

Homemeasurements - I loved it too, one of my favourite books from last year. I have one of her other books on my kindle waiting to be read, Last Night in Montreal., sounds good too.

I really liked this book! I am surprised it is a marmite book, I thought it was a great read. Wasn't bothered at all by how implausible it was. I liked the linking of all the characters. I didn't really think of it as SF though. It is a story. I wouldn't have thought toput it in for a science fiction prize. I mean, Ray Bradbury wrote about space a lot, but it isn't really science fiction, is it?

And I have read everything Arthur C Clarke ever wrote too. And Isaac Asimov. And Clifford D Simak etc etc.

I loved it for the quality of the writing, the ebb and flow of the stories, the atmospheres. For me that transcends the genre or what people think makes for true SciFi.

And the image that stayed with me the most... was the quarantined plane at Severn City Airport that landed far from the terminal, and that no-one ever left.

"if it's a study of how people behave in a world that has changed then the changes have to make sense"

Exactly.

"I don't read it as SF and this is entirely my prerogative"

As I said, "This book is non-fiction, it is about the life of that famous person but I don't read it as a biography, and that's entirely my prerogative"

It doesn't matter whether it's scifi or not, if it's a study of how people behave in a world that has changed then the changes have to make sense.

I don't read it as SF and this is entirely my prerogative. You can see that differently, that's yours.

It is sci-fi, though Just not one that makes much sense.

It's like someone says "This is not a great biography because..." and people reply "I don't think of it as a biography". How, when the book is the non-fiction story of a famous person's life?

I don't really think of if as SF and I don't think the author meant it as a discussion of the scientific and technological issues of a post-apocalytptic world. For me it is a look at how people are trying to keep their humanity and what is important to them beyond their immediate physical needs, e.g. literature and music in a world that has completely changed.

Of course the award isn't meant for whoever best imitates Arthur C Clarke. What a silly thing to say. I made a personal observation that Arthur C Clarke himself would be disappointed, that is all.

If you look at the list of its shortlists & winners, you will see that last year's list is quite different than any of the previous years'.

Anyway, I'm repeating myself now. Happy to move on.

Just because an award is named after Arthur C. Clarke doesn't mean it is an award for the sci-fi novel of the year that best imitates Clarke! SF has moved on a far bit with its depictions of race and gender since Clarke's time (to mention just one kind of development).

Ime people who say they loved "soft" SF like Station 11 and Never Let Me Go don't normally read SF and think these are brilliant books because they haven't read any other books that deal with the themes of global catastrophe or clones.

Um, if you know anything about some of the judges on last year's panel, they've spent decades reading SF. Their taste just differs from yours, cote!

Post-apocalyptic is a sub-genre of SF. It is "accessible", for sure, but that is because it is not terribly clever. It's chick-litty SF.

This patronising dismissal of an entire genre makes me , it's so over the top.

I don't have a problem with people not liking Station Eleven. It's the dogmatic, reductionist claims about what 'good' SF should and shouldn't be that I find absurd.

"If the current human population were reduced by 98% there's basically nothing to fight over."

Human population was a fraction of its current level several thousand years ago and there was a lot of fighting between tribes, not to mention inter-tribal violence from the strong towards the weak.

"Loads of land, food and water for everyone."

Finding enough food to keep going took up most of everyone's time. If one group of people had easy access to clean water, a stronger group came and pushed them away. Strong preyed on the weak. People were enslaved. It wasn't all pastoral heaven, as people taste the abundant fruits of Eden.

"That said, I wouldnt describe SE as Sci Fi. I'd describe it as post-apocalyptic accessible literary."

Post-apocalyptic is a sub-genre of SF. It is "accessible", for sure, but that is because it is not terribly clever. It's chick-litty SF.

Nothing wrong with enjoying a light read, but it really shouldn't be the best SF anyone has ever read. There really are many excellent books that explore a post-apocalyptic world.

Agreeing with Cote here.
Station Eleven was beautifully written but the more I thought about it the more ridiculous it was. Even if we accept that there was an epidemic that worked differently from all the other epidemics ever it was the 20 years without anyone having electricity that ruined it for me. What about solar panels ffs? Most people don't have the skills to rewire them but if you have travelling Shakespearean actors you would think there might be the odd travelling electrician.
And don't even get me started on why they're living in an airport in Michigan and somehow not freezing.
I like my scifi to be at least a bit plausible and I can cope with a bit of stretching of the science but it has to make sense behaviourally.

"Not all fans of sci-fi perceive being 'scientifically correct in every detail' as the primary goal of the genre. To each their own..."

I totally agree. People like different things.

My point was that Arthur C Clarke himself wrote credible sci-fi that is correct in every detail. When he talked about the astronaut sitting on Europa and watching a planet rise on one direction in his book 2010, for example, you can bet that he has actually made the calculations and that planet would indeed rise from that direction at that time. Imho Arthur C Clarke would be disappointed with not only last year's winner of his award but also the shortlist in general.

To each their own and that but I think it is not controversial to say that good SF is supposed to make sense as a bare minimum, even if every single scientific detail is not entirely correct. Bad SF often has ludicrous plot. Good SF has well-constructed, clever plot and credible detail.

Ime people who say they loved "soft" SF like Station 11 and Never Let Me Go don't normally read SF and think these are brilliant books because they haven't read any other books that deal with the themes of global catastrophe or clones.

Another one that I really enjoyed was The Strain Trilogy by Guillermo del Toro and Chuck Hogan. The tv series was rubbish but the books were real page turners and entertaining.

I didn't particularly love Station Eleven but I didn't really not like it either it. The travelling orchestra really irritated me - not sure why and it was all a bit convenient how they all ended up back at the airport but overall it was a good story and I completely get what so many people liked it and why it won the ACC award. I don't look for perfection in my books - I look to be entertained and sometimes enlightened. Different strokes I guess. I also really liked The Girl with All the Gifts. Stephen King is king thought when it comes to this genre I think and The Stand is up for a reread this year.

I read The Road and found it incredibly bleak and was quite glad to close the last page. The Passage however is well worth reading as is the second book in the trilogy, The Twelve. The final book The City of Mirrors is due out this summer and I am so looking forward to it .

I really enjoyed Station 11 - and actually enjoyed that it wasn't too much "and everybody dies"

Cote thanks for the recs for others in the genre. I'm listening to the passage at the moment and it's fantastic.

But is it that unrealistic? Stephen King makes exactly this point in The Stand. If the current human population were reduced by 98% there's basically nothing to fight over. Loads of land, food and water for everyone. Also, Station Eleven is set 20 years later, so things have essentially settled down. People are farming again. They can hunt and forage. There's been no environmental catastrophe so plenty of fertile land and clean water.

That said, I wouldnt describe SE as Sci Fi. It's hard to categorize. I'd describe it as post-apocalyptic accessible literary.

Not all fans of sci-fi perceive being 'scientifically correct in every detail' as the primary goal of the genre. To each their own...

You may well speak for one contingent of sci-fi readers, but not all!

Yes, Arthur C Clarke award has sadly gone a bit downhill. Its shortlist was surprisingly weak last year, with quite a few chick-litty & YA, and light first novels - e.g. The Girl With All The Gifts, The First 15 Lives Of Harry August, and Station Eleven of course.

Arthur C Clarke was a scientist who took great care to make sure his novels were scientifically correct in every detail. I have read and enjoyed nearly everything he has published. Imho, he would be disappointed with the books recently chosen under his name, that are so weak in science and credible detail.