What separates good science fiction from bad science fiction? What is bad science fiction?

Good sci-fi is thoroughly grounded in scientific fact with some speculation on what is unproven. It always has a "what if" component. Asimov wrote about robots a lot. He created the Robotic Laws that have become de rigor in the sci-fi community. Good sci-fi does not seek to alarm, except in the area of nuclear war, but to explore possibilities. Asimov, along with others, sets The story in the far future rather than the near future. Most near future is now explored in thrillers like James Bond and Matt Helm.

That sounds like a good definition of good and bad cheerleading (or marketing copy), but it's use addressing literature/fiction is dubious at best. Some of our best science fiction offers cautions about potential futures (Bradbury's "Farenheit 451," Huxley's "Brave New World," "Alas Babylon," etc.) For me to consider a work as "good" the following questions would need to be answered affirmatively (in addition to being grammatically correct, interesting, entertaining, etc.): Is the science in the book plausible with our current understanding of the laws of physics, nature, etc. or can we extrapolate the depicted future from present conditions? (if not, it's probably fantasy.) Is the fictional world logically consistent? Is the science in the story central to the tale? (If not, it's probably an adventure or western dressing up in science fiction clothing..."Star Wars.") To be "great" the work would need to not only examine technical/science issues, but would also explore their impact on human beings and their relationships (all great literature is about people and/or their relationships). Sorry, no suggested readings.

This is an excellent question. I think there is some credence to the Beauty for the Beholder concept. I often find myself reading a sci-fi book and the concept just clicking with me. When that happens I tend to gloss over poor story and human interactions. The concept of the sci-fi book tends to be the most important and the story and plot secondary. I know friends who find the story much more engrossing and don't accept the concept unless there is a real human interaction behind it. While I agree with your inference that there is a high level definition of bad science fiction that creates an irrational lack of acceptance of upcoming inventions, I also feel that even within the realm of sci-fi there are concepts that appeal to different people and good or bad are decided on an individual basis. I loved the psychohistory concept in the Asimov series. You can get the whole series for about $30 from http://www.ugenie.com/displayBundle.jsp?bundleId=26934 or one of the shopping portals. Asimov was definitely a 5 stars in my book. I liked the Dune series, but not to the same extent. For me, there was no single large science or math concept to identify with. Your point about irrational fear is underscored in the way Asimov handles robots for example. He portrays them as guardians and sows enough seeds of doubt to lead us away from the Terminator series way of thinking that they are out to get us.

I have read H G Wells, Arthur Clarke, Isaac Asimov, and Ray Bradbury, and other than Wells, I found most of their writings boring. Why? I think what separates good sci-fi from bad is a writer who is capable of imagining a society that is totally different from the way our society is now...that's why I liked Wells and the War of the Worlds...on the other hand most of the other "great" male sci-fi writers wrote novels who's social norms or society sounded very similiar to the way our society is now. If a writer's "world" is made up of aliens but is still sexist, racist, homophobic, and/ or classist like ours is now, with no other view presented, I find the book just a rerun of our society, just with aliens added. My favorite sci-fi author is Octavia Butler, since each of her works presented a totally different society, that I had to figure out, since it was different from the way ours works now. I also enjoyed Elizabeth Lynn's sci-fi novels for the same reason. It's rare for me to find a sci-fi novel that doesn't bore me to death...

Personally, I can deal with almost any unbelievable occurence if it is written well. However, you will occasionally come across a book in which the author is constantly adding information and contradictions to allow them to advance the plot in a certain way, showing sloppy organization. (Kind of like Pirates of the Carribean)

For me, good science fiction speaks of probability and possibility with believability.