Science Fiction

I'm really enjoying the Wool Trilogy my Hugh Howey. It's maybe more dystopia than sci-fi but in the same vein for sure.

Check out The Greg Mandel trilogy by Peter F. Hamilton. A lot of sci-fi, not focused on space travel.

I also love his large Commonwealth universe with several trilogies and novels in it that can be read independently, but these are definitely space based. I would start with the Void Trilogy. It is defined as a space opera. There are just so many cool sci-fi concepts though :)

https://lemmy.world/post/2368503

If you like grounded sci-fi that elicits a "it could happen in a few years" vibe firmly rooted on Earth, check out William Gibson. Most of his stuff is excellent, but "The Peripheral" and its followup "Agency" are recent highlights. From his older stuff I very much enjoyed "Virtual Light" the most. More than his acclaimed "Neuromancer" (he invented the word cyberspace in 1982 and popularized it in this 1984 novel) even.

Neal Stephenson - "Seveneves" One of my all time favorite sci-fi books. It is set mostly in space, but very realistic and never leaves the Earth's influence. Time setting is basically now or a few years from now.

Also by Stevenson: "Anathem" Marvellous alternate universe story with a few twists. It's on Earth, just ... different.

If you wanna go for the classics (1960 roughly), look into Stanislaw Lem. "Solaris", "Eden" and "Transfer" all left a lasting impression on me.

Clifford d Simak wow a lot of very relatable stories that feature interaction as well as the tech. Kind of like Stephen King in relation to horror.

Ann Lecke’s “Imperial Radch” does happen in multiple locations, but revolves primarily around people relationships and de-genders English language for a delightful effect.

Peter Watts will make you learn a lot of words and concepts, will have you read author notes at the end of his books, and will have you take a look at the list of scientific literature used in writing said books. Main overarching topic - consciousness might not be as central to intelligence as we default to thinking it to be.

Charles Stross’ books can take you into space, but are hardly about space or new worlds. Hell, the most space travel heavy book of his I read - Neptune's Brood - explores the ideas of money and debt.

Greg Egan’s everything, but there are two that I immediately remember when I think about his bibliography. “Diaspora” explores weird space times, consciousness bootstrapping, and problems of communication. “Orthogonal” trilogy is “math of spacetime: what could be” as a novel.

Cory Doctorow explores problems of identity and privacy. Start with “Little brother” (yes, it is a 1984 reference) and “Down and out in the Magic kingdom” and expand further.

John Meaney’s “Nulapeiron sequence” is an easy read that builds its world alongside shedding its main character ignorance.

Eon by Greg Bear. It’s a bit dated as it takes place during the cold war, but it’s an excellent read.

Lots of the classics aren't super space travel-y. Stranger in a Strange Land, Childhoods End, War of the Worlds, The Time Machine, Ender's Game.. Animorphs 😄

I just want to put this out here, to ponder...it's essentially a skill to be able to juggle and take in new jargon and stuff. It's something you learn. I learned it as a child, so it's second nature to me--but there was absolutely a time when I struggled!

So the question is: Do you want to develop that skill? (You don't have to answer me, I'm just proposing the question so you can ponder it.) I'm assuming here when you say the complexity is what puts you off, that this is accurate. And maybe it is. But there's a bit of a slog initially when reading SFF where you have to power through to gain the skill to follow these things--you're literally training your mind to take in new data in a way that doesn't much happen outside of SFF.

But also...what if the reason you bounced off the books listed is something else? What if it's not complexity, but the delivery? The style of narration or prose? A lot of the works you list MANY people bounce off, not due to complexity but due to the authors' voice and delivery.

I myself can't get into WoT or the book version of Game of Thrones or Foundation. I can't get into Tolkien either. Which is an abject sin in some circles!

But it's not because those books are complicated. Or because of the jargon. I'm fine with both in many other books, and disliking certain well-known behemoths of SFF doesn't negate that I read things like The Quantum Thief by Hannu Rajaniemi (which was pretty darn confusing and complicated) or Gideon the Ninth. Or all the stuff I read as a kid.

It's because the specific writing style turns me off. Asimov, for example, is kinda known for his cardboard characters. Tolkien world-builds like an academic, and a lot of his stuff is a huge slog like much dry research in academia. Wheel of Time likewise doesn't have that "something" in style or voice to make his worldbuilding engaging, nor does George R. R. Martin's Game of Thrones.

But I am a huge fan of authors who make big, complicated worlds who have a more interesting/engaging way of presenting what they have created. It's not the complexity or jargon that puts me off in those other books, it's the writing style.

Maybe it's the same with you?

Most of the rest of Asimov is a lot more self contained than foundation. I like the rest of his stuff but Foundation is too abstract for me.

isn't world building the whole point of sci-fi?

Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson

Philip k. Dick ' Do androids dream of electric sheep?' and 'Ubik'. He also made some great short novels.

Nathan Lowell's The Golden Age of the Solar Clipper series is great, it's a space opera following normal people trying to make a living in space. It's a nice break from the hard scifi where everything goes wrong and the hero fixes everything, it's just a nice entertaining stress free read.