Genuine thoughts on hard(ish) sci-fi like Arthur Charles

>>8914530
lol that faggot asimov died of aids because he was a homosexual

>>8914530
I liked Foundation.
I don't know how that's hard sci-fi though.

>>8914530
Childhood's end by clarke was excellent and that's really where he shines, but I hesitate to call it "hard" scifi. 2001: a Space odyssey was mostly just sagan's "pale blue dot" repackaged as a novel, and they get progressively worse with each installment. Rendezvous with rama was interesting but I never read past the first one.

Asimov I remember hearing somewhere was actually an engineer so may have a few more insights worthy of being called "hard" scifi but I only read the first "foundation" novel and all I remember was that since every chapter 50 years passed, you could never get attached to any characters and it lost my attention. Sorry I can't be more help.

>>8914540
lmaooooo

>>8914545
>>8914543
Foundation is my favorite book saga but it's not much of a sciency sci-fi. It's more of a fictional history book with some character thrown into the mix.

Is there any good hard sci-fi you know of?
What did you think about martian for example?

>>8914545
> Rendezvous with rama was interesting but I never read past the first one.
And you did right because there is only one.
The sequels are mostly gentry lee's work, and believe me when I say you don't want to read any of him.

>>8914530
Is Isaac Arthur illegitimate child of those two men?

>>8914530
I like Asimov's first book in the Foundation trilogy. The other are meh. This series is also more of a space opear than hard sci-fi.

>>8914543
Psychohistory = the emerging field of memetics.

Fite me

>>8914781
I always pictured it as sociology on crack.