What I hate about modern science fiction (and what I miss)

What I hate about modern science fiction (and what I miss)

The short version: imagination and rigour used to be rewarded; today the scroll is in charge.

I write to get that spirit back.

I'm going to say plainly what grates on me about a lot of current science fiction, and why I keep going back to the classics of popular culture. Not to hand out membership cards, but to explain the approach that guides my stories and what I am trying to contribute as an author.

Then: imagination + rigour = a credible future

For decades, science fiction played seriously by its own rules. It wasn't enough to drop a technical term and press on: there was research, internal consistency and speculative ambition. Characters mattered, of course — with conflicts, arcs and dilemmas — but they were in the service of a powerful idea that explored real, or at least plausible, possibilities.

A few examples of that homework being done:
Arthur C. Clarke took engineering and astronomy seriously enough to hold up wonders like 2001 or Rendezvous with Rama: orbits, artificial rotation, signals and silence… all of it logical.
Isaac Asimov turned an improbable hypothesis (psychohistory) into a consistent narrative tool: if it exists, what are its limits? Who controls it? What is the moral cost?
Ursula K. Le Guin did speculative anthropology: she changed one social or biological variable and let the world breathe, without underestimating the reader.
Stanislaw Lem used science to ask better questions, not to “explain” with holograms: Solaris is physics, yes, but above all it is epistemology.

Contemporary work that honours that legacy exists too:
The Martian (the novel): engineering as human adventure.
Interstellar: first-rate scientific advice used to tell a story about love, time and gravity.
The Expanse: politics + economics + delta-v, with characters who bleed and decide.

The pattern isn't “being difficult”. It is respecting the intelligence of the person reading.

Now: the idea as an excuse (and the scroll as a soundtrack)

Not all of it, but far too often contemporary science fiction treats science as set dressing. Techie terms are used as props, the rules change whenever it suits, and consistency is sacrificed to fit in yet another chase. What you are left with is a promising concept that never gets beyond an extended trailer.

Why does it happen?

1. The attention economy: we consume with a phone in our hand. If the story can't survive the memes in the background, it gets simplified until it can.

2. Eternal franchises: nostalgia is profitable, innovation is risky. The result is rehashes, carbon-copy “reimaginings” and permanent déjà vu.

3. Fear of losing the reader or viewer: clarity gets confused with simplism. The first is a virtue; the second is a surrender.

The result is that freshness is scarce. The exceptions stand out because they are exceptions. And yes, there are rare birds still sweating for rigour, but they are not the majority.

What I do (and why)

My stories take another road, even if it is less mainstream. I would rather write for people who enjoy thinking at the same time as they feel. Some rules I impose on myself:
The scientific idea comes first. What interesting question does it open? What real consequences would it have?
Honest research. If I don't know, I find out. If real science doesn't reach, I speculate within clear limits.
Characters with agency. They are not puppets of the plot: they take hard decisions and pay the price.
Consistency over the trick. Once the rules are set, they are kept. Cheating breaks the pact with the reader.
Clear language. Complex is not the same as confusing. I prefer precision to empty jargon.

That approach is already in my work, such as The Loop, where time resets every twenty-four hours and everyone remembers every iteration. The game isn't there for its own sake: I explore the social, ethical and emotional consequences of a world that doesn't move forward… except in memory. If you fancy finding out, you'll find it on Amazon.

Can you entertain without lowering the bar? Yes

Entertainment and thought are not enemies. In fact, the best science fiction entertains precisely because it makes you a participant: you fill gaps, connect clues, get ahead of the twist, argue with the mental model. The fun is in playing seriously.

If the genre wants to go on being culture's laboratory of ideas, we need to:
Reward originality: fewer sequels, more risk.
Look after consistency: suspension of disbelief is a finite line of credit.
Go back to speculation: the premise should be the engine, not the decoration.

Recommendations for getting the flavour back (classic and contemporary)

For engineering awe: Clarke (Rendezvous with Rama), The Expanse.
For thinking about society and language: Le Guin (The Left Hand of Darkness).
For science on the front line: The Martian, Interstellar (yes, popular and demanding).
For philosophy disguised as science: Lem (Solaris).

I'll close with a promise.

I am going to carry on writing stories that respect your curiosity. Stories that entertain without infantilising, that take risks, that leave you thinking when you close the book. It may be a niche; that suits me. Niches are full of intense, loyal readers. Of people like you.

You don't need to subscribe to the blog, but do subscribe to my mailing list if you want to keep up with my work.

© 2026. All rights reserved