|
Politics is intrinsically intertwined with SF/F, particularly SF. The whole premise is about "how else could the world be?", that means you have to consider economic, sociological, and political conditions. So yes, it does all play into it. You see it in about every work.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
General Battuta posted:I get why readers might be less interested, but honestly I think it's important to be aware of what authors believe - you can choose how much to separate a work from its author, but with so many cases of writers putting their politics or personal predilections into a work, I think it's a case of forewarned is forearmed. It's sneaky and lovely and making me pay to support their lifestyle of being an rear end in a top hat is something I just don't want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Piell posted:There are lots of non-racist/non-sexist authors out there who write good books, so I prefer to support them with my purchases over racist/sexist authors. This hand-wringing over GOING TOO FAR is just dumb. While I understand the urge to not give authors with lovely opinions money, I think setting up a blacklist of authors not to buy is a little extreme. Where do you draw the line between authors who occasionally say something kind of stupid and mostly harmless (the whole Resnick/Malzberg blowup last year), really stupid (Steven King and his calling a rape victim's story 'palpable bitchery') and authors who are actively malicious (Card and his militant homophobia)? There's different levels of stupidity that people can tolerate from an author before it becomes too much, and just creating a list of authors who said something awful removes a lot of nuance from the discussion. There are authors worth reading even though they may be behind the times on some issues. Creating a list that removes the nuance from their views discourages people from reading fiction that's worthwhile, even if their authors' views aren't. It's totally a personal decision on what level you can enjoy a story without the author's views ruining it. I think most people are better off just googling the author if they're that concerned about giving money to people you disagree with. Not trying to defend anyone in particular, I'm just stating my concern with creating a Bad Opinions Blacklist. systran posted:I feel like every few pages this thread becomes the, "Sociopolitical opinions of sci/fi fantasy authors" rather than "The sci/fi fantasy thread." I think most of it is a natural response to blow-ups that happen on the professional side of things. Unfortunately SF/F is still full of people who can't stand other people being treated like human beings, and get mad when called out on it. It's a big current issue, and I don't mind it coming up from time to time when it flares up. Really, the only times this thread is active is either when stuff like this happens or when someone wanders in and asks for recommendations. Occasionally the recommendation posts bring up something interesting, but after a while it's just the same recommendations getting rehashed. Actually, a few people asking for recommendations recently have noted that the OP was kind of lacking, so maybe it would be a good idea to figure out some fixes for it? For actual content, I've been reading Miyuke Miyabe's "Apparitions: Ghosts of Old Edo". I've only gotten a couple of stories in, but it's an interesting collection. The stories are a blend of period fiction, horror and fantasy. The stories are set in late 1800s/early 1900s Japan and incorporate traditional Japanese ghost stories within the framework of the Meiji-era industrialization. I almost get a Poe-ish vibe from some of the stories. They're really heavy in the romantic horror tradition of incipient insanity and familial degeneration. It's an interesting read, and once I read more of the book I'll definitely write a fuller summary if anyone's interested.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Personally I support forming an exploratory committee to look into awarding a Something Awful Forums Readers' Mondo Shitlord in SF/F Prize. We could nominate and award them yearly. God knows most of us have been hanging around this thread a few years anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:Personally I support forming an exploratory committee to look into awarding a Something Awful Forums Readers' Mondo Shitlord in SF/F Prize. We could nominate and award them yearly. God knows most of us have been hanging around this thread a few years anyway. John Ringo gets a lifetime achievement award
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:Personally I support forming an exploratory committee to look into awarding a Something Awful Forums Readers' Mondo Shitlord in SF/F Prize. We could nominate and award them yearly. God knows most of us have been hanging around this thread a few years anyway. A good companion to the Gay Abortions awards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Venusian Weasel posted:While I understand the urge to not give authors with lovely opinions money, I think setting up a blacklist of authors not to buy is a little extreme. Where do you draw the line between authors who occasionally say something kind of stupid and mostly harmless (the whole Resnick/Malzberg blowup last year), really stupid (Steven King and his calling a rape victim's story 'palpable bitchery') and authors who are actively malicious (Card and his militant homophobia)? There's different levels of stupidity that people can tolerate from an author before it becomes too much, and just creating a list of authors who said something awful removes a lot of nuance from the discussion. There are authors worth reading even though they may be behind the times on some issues. Creating a list that removes the nuance from their views discourages people from reading fiction that's worthwhile, even if their authors' views aren't. It's totally a personal decision on what level you can enjoy a story without the author's views ruining it. I think most people are better off just googling the author if they're that concerned about giving money to people you disagree with. Not trying to defend anyone in particular, I'm just stating my concern with creating a Bad Opinions Blacklist. I don't think it has to be a blacklist, but there is no harm in providing readers the opportunity to make informed purchasing decisions if that's what they want to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:I can never really understand people who say that you should just separate the author from the work, exactly because of that. There are some intentional exceptions, like Brave New World or 1984, but how many authors write their protagonists and think "everything this guy says is hateful nonsense and you should never believe it"? I didn't buy the book to be badgered into believing hateful nonsense and I feel used when I think about having paid that author money for the privilege of having them rant propaganda at me to believe their angry bile. You can just borrow it from the library/buy used so you don't have to worry about supporting an author with lovely opinions who happens to also write well. Easiest way, really! Srice fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Neurosis posted:People on this site in particular are very quick to assert an author's views make him or her unreadable. The changes to the moderation lately are diminishing that, but Jesus it often seems people are worried about thinking incorrectly. General Battuta particularity, you know what I ran into with Starship Troopers. People just couldn't get past the fact that a ruling military class was a dictatorship and that's undemocratic and not fair to our current ideals. The point was it worked and the ruling class doing their job as it should be done, but people just couldn't make the leap that this was a future society where corruption wasn't an issue. Hive mind has always been a hallmark of SA though, just because any other kind of moderation and you end up with 4chan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
fookolt posted:I don't think it has to be a blacklist, but there is no harm in providing readers the opportunity to make informed purchasing decisions if that's what they want to do. I don't have any problem with people making informed purchasing decisions, I'm just worried that if we do end up making a list people will just look at it, see an author on it, and not buy their work without doing any further research as to why they're on the list in the first place. Like I said, there's a huge amount of nuance on authors' bad opinions, and I'm kind of worried that people might not look into some of the more borderline cases even though it may be easy for people to separate those authors' politics from their writing in those cases.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
As long as the author keeps his or her horrible politics out of the books, I am cool with reading em, unless it turns out the author is a completely crazy shithead (OSC for instance) and then they go on a short list of "ain't buying crap from em". Political leanings of authors is about the same as actors. I don't give half a gently caress what the actor in a movie I like thinks, but if he or she gets on tv and starts spouting inane bullshit, that's the end of me bothering to have anything to do with em. There's way too many books in the world to justify having to put up with some crazy bastards political fanwank fiction, be it sci fi or historical or what. All these authors I see listed up on petitions and ending up in the blogs or SJW online ranting are authors I don't read anyway, so no loss there. I still can't see how most of these guys can write fiction about utopia based future society and still somehow keep their mental clocks set back in the 50s-60s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:Personally I support forming an exploratory committee to look into awarding a Something Awful Forums Readers' Mondo Shitlord in SF/F Prize. We could nominate and award them yearly. God knows most of us have been hanging around this thread a few years anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
If someone wants to start a "horrible authors you shouldn't read" thread, along the lines of the horrible cartoon thread in D&D, go for it. It could probably turn into a decent thread. It might turn into a horrible shitshow ("gently caress you! My Warhammer books are literature!") but we'll deal with that when it happens if it does. Awards might be premature before we get a decent body of nominations, though. Also might want to branch out past SF&F so we can include things like John Ringo, etc.(edit: Ken Follett) In the meanwhile though it's probably impossible to discuss a lot of SF&F without bringing the author into at least some of those discussions. I mean, Heinlein. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Srice posted:You can just borrow it from the library/buy used so you don't have to worry about supporting an author with lovely opinions who happens to also write well. Easiest way, really!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:General Battuta particularity, you know what I ran into with Starship Troopers. People just couldn't get past the fact that a ruling military class was a dictatorship and that's undemocratic and not fair to our current ideals. The point was it worked and the ruling class doing their job as it should be done, but people just couldn't make the leap that this was a future society where corruption wasn't an issue. I don't know if you're trying to call me out or just summoning past shared experience, but I think there's genuine grounds to criticize Starship Troopers for its politics. The fact that a work depicts an internally functional society doesn't immunize it from criticism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:I don't know if you're trying to call me out or just summoning past shared experience, but I think there's genuine grounds to criticize Starship Troopers for its politics. The fact that a work depicts an internally functional society doesn't immunize it from criticism. Just shared past experience, mate, I just thought it was a good example. Just one where applying today's logic to their ways of doing things is not acknowledging the fact we're talking about a different society of different people with different influences. It's fiction after all. It's like trying to explain why the Enterprise can't really do warp.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If someone wants to start a "horrible authors you shouldn't read" thread, along the lines of the horrible cartoon thread in D&D, go for it. It could probably turn into a decent thread. It might turn into a horrible shitshow ("gently caress you! My Warhammer books are literature!") but we'll deal with that when it happens if it does. Awards might be premature before we get a decent body of nominations, though. Also might want to branch out past SF&F so we can include things like John Ringo, etc. You could probably call it "genre.txt" and have that cover everything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:The rabid dogs discussion emerged from discussion of the petition. I've always liked CJ Cherryh myself, but I'm definitely disappointed she signed this thing (as well as Nancy Kress). Oh yes, of course, but I think the thing that's being missed by a lot of people is that it's two different sets of people involved in each half. More about making sure disgust is assigned corretly, since there's so much of it to go around. Someone who signed and said nothing more, doesn't appear to be a dick otherwise-- I dunno for me that's a solid "what the gently caress, person" moment but nothing more. But everyone's mileage has to vary on that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
neongrey posted:Someone who signed and said nothing more, doesn't appear to be a dick otherwise-- I dunno for me that's a solid "what the gently caress, person" moment but nothing more. But everyone's mileage has to vary on that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Venusian Weasel posted:While I understand the urge to not give authors with lovely opinions money, I think setting up a blacklist of authors not to buy is a little extreme. "Blacklist" implies there would be power or force involved and no alternative. Compiling a list on the Internet quoting authors with lovely opinions is a far cry from some sort of active campaign to ruin their lives. You don't seriously believe that consumers are somehow obligated to remain purposely ignorant do you? Should we just be "grateful" and throw money at content without considering the motivations and opinions of the people responsible for creating it? Venusian Weasel posted:Like I said, there's a huge amount of nuance on authors' bad opinions, and I'm kind of worried that people might not look into some of the more borderline cases even though it may be easy for people to separate those authors' politics from their writing in those cases. Oh yeah, those poor people who are only "borderline" bigots, why won't somebody please think of them! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Blacklist is such a strong word for what's basically a natural inclination of buying habits. You pick up a book, or open the Amazon page, or whatever, you look it over, you see the author's name, and you go "Oh, this is that guy who thinks babies should be strapped to puppies and then lit on fire" and you put the book down. Or you don't remember, and you don't. People ascribe a lot of formality to a process that mostly works off of remembering incidents at shopping time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:Given the choice I'd rather not read anything by people like that at all, because it still validates them, but I get your point. It just so easy to say "what do I care about political opinions" when none of the politics impact you personally. I'm gay, so every time I see someone recommend Orson Scott Card and say people shouldn't be so touchy, I know my chances of visiting whatever country that person came from and being treated decently are just that much lower. Yeah I get what you're saying, especially with OSC in particular where giving him money means you're indirectly supporting anti-gay groups. That's definitely a point where I draw the line for sure (though admittedly it's easy to say so when his works don't personally appeal to me) I think a lot of the examples that tend to spring to my mind in terms of stuff written by authors with lovely opinions that I'd consider still worth reading even when that stuff is in the book tend to be older stuff. Can't think of a SF/F example off the top of my head but I've currently been reading some Mishima and he is a fine writer even though his issues with women are practically bleeding off the pages. Everyone certainly has their limits though. And even though I think that it's good to read from a large variety of views, we're only human after all; we all have our own standards and I can certainly understand why terrible views can put someone off!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Xik posted:"Blacklist" implies there would be power or force involved and no alternative. Compiling a list on the Internet quoting authors with lovely opinions is a far cry from some sort of active campaign to ruin their lives. Thanks for turning my argument into a strawman! From the very same post that you quoted:Venusian Weasel posted:I don't have any problem with people making informed purchasing decisions. I'm not advocating that a person remain ignorant of an author's political views if they worry about things like that. I just fear that when people casually put together a list, they end up conflating absolutely horrible authors with authors having a grandpa moment. The two are definitely not the same, and you shouldn't treat them like such. Most lists done for this reason end up doing that anyway, so I'm against having a list for that reason. If you're shopping online and think an author is questionable, google it! Maybe blacklist is too strong a word for a list like this. My concern is this: a list is an organized attempt to ruin an author's life, because you're attempting a boycott that removes their source of income. For people who go out of their way to ruin other peoples' lives, like OSC or John Ringo, I'm okay with that. But there's a huge difference between authors like them and other authors like Mike Reznick and Barry Malzberg who say something stupid but ultimately benign in the bigger picture of things. Ultimately it rests on a reader's decision on what they will and won't tolerate, and it's different for everyone. I'm also kind of worried that producing a list will keep people from talking about interesting books by authors who end up saying something like Resnick and Malzberg (or judging from a few posts back, even C.J. Cherryh). From a couple pages back: spider bethlehem posted:I'm sort of loath to bring him up in this thread, in case it turns out he's also an unbearable twit, but has anyone else here read Iron Dragon's Daughter by Michael Swanwick? I completely understand why people would want a list, but I don't know if it would be all that good a thing to have. It has the potential to turn any discussion of authors whose views aren't really that bad into an incredibly toxic affair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Venusian Weasel posted:Thanks for turning my argument into a strawman! You're saying it's fine for consumers to look authors up on Google and judge them based on their views, but just don't compile a list that would make it too convenient? What is the functional difference between having to Google an author to hunt down their opinions and having it all conveniently compiled into a list? They are just ways of displaying information that the authors have already made public. Hell, why even draw the line at Google? That's too easy. Maybe they should have to go to the library, find out the authors website and do it that way? (Ok yeah, that's a strawman sorry) Venusian Weasel posted:My concern is this: a list is an organized attempt to ruin an author's life, because you're attempting a boycott that removes their source of income. You're right, if this hypothetical list become ridiculously popular and somehow publishers and consumers the world over took it at face value, then it would mean lots of people find out that some of the authors they like are sexist, homophobic or racist. It could probably damage their careers, but why is that a problem? Why are social consequences for saying lovely things a problem? Venusian Weasel posted:I completely understand why people would want a list, but I don't know if it would be all that good a thing to have. It has the potential to turn any discussion of authors whose views aren't really that bad into an incredibly toxic affair. Venusian Weasel posted:But there's a huge difference between authors like them and other authors like Mike Reznick and Barry Malzberg who say something stupid but ultimately benign in the bigger picture of things. I honestly don't think any sexist remarks made in a professional setting is "benign". How do objectionably state that what those particular authors said is "ultimately benign" or "really aren't that bad". Maybe you are tolerant of some old guy saying some casually sexist things, but not everyone is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
I believe there's already a place for that, the comments section of Requires Only That You Hate. Going to be as productive, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Piell posted:There are lots of non-racist/non-sexist authors out there who write good books, so I prefer to support them with my purchases over racist/sexist authors. This hand-wringing over GOING TOO FAR is just dumb. That's pretty much how I feel. I have tons of unread books on my shelf and more on my wishlist, skipping a book because the author acts like a dickwad in public is no big deal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
fookolt posted:You could probably call it "genre.txt" and have that cover everything. I dunno, I don't doubt for a second that literary and nongenre are full of ludicrous people. Authors as a class are convinced that what they have to say is worth paying to hear. It's in the job description.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Peel posted:I dunno, I don't doubt for a second that literary and nongenre are full of ludicrous people. Of course; I guess I'm just more interested in what to avoid in genre fiction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Venusian Weasel posted:Maybe blacklist is too strong a word for a list like this. My concern is this: a list is an organized attempt to ruin an author's life, because you're attempting a boycott that removes their source of income. For people who go out of their way to ruin other peoples' lives, like OSC or John Ringo, I'm okay with that. But there's a huge difference between authors like them and other authors like Mike Reznick and Barry Malzberg who say something stupid but ultimately benign in the bigger picture of things. Ultimately it rests on a reader's decision on what they will and won't tolerate, and it's different for everyone. I'm also kind of worried that producing a list will keep people from talking about interesting books by authors who end up saying something like Resnick and Malzberg (or judging from a few posts back, even C.J. Cherryh). From a couple pages back: How is this different from any boycott? I mean those lunch counters were the source of income for those owners in Alabama. Punishing someone for their beliefs is the entire point of conspicuous consumption EDIT: I mean, it's one thing to say "I don't think this level of behavior justifies this response" but the way you said it here it is like you are objecting to the fact it does what it says on the tin Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
SF and F should be about entertainment. If you want to be socially progressive/regressive, fine, but the point of all this is to entertain. I'm sick of SFWA arguments and crappy authors acting all noble about their "art" and furthering society through their visionary writing. We write schlock. Even when it's really good, it's still schlock. All this argument and these are the readership numbers: [Taken from Gardner Dozois] Asimov's Science Fiction circulation went up for the third year in a row. Circulation went up 10.8 percent from 2011, to 25,025. Analog Science Fiction and Fact circulation went up 4.9 percent, to 27,803. The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction circulation went down 20.4 percent, to 11,510. Maybe if schlock authors started writing better short stories and books that people actually like instead of pushing agendas, we'd see some actual numbers. Until then everyone's pissing in the same kiddypool every time an argument erupts. I was at a Worldcon and the YA panel turned into a bunch of hacks talking about how huge a market there was for transgendered YA. What an obvious crock.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
At risk of causing a huger derail, what did John Ringo do? I know he wrote some truly horrible (OH JOHN RINGO NO) fiction, but it sold like crazy and he said "Eh, gently caress it" and kept writing. I wasn't aware he was a shithead, for lack of a better term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
You can entertain without being racist/sexist though. You can write good novels without being bigoted, the two things are mostly unrelated!Stupid_Sexy_Flander posted:At risk of causing a huger derail, what did John Ringo do? Besides being a super right-winger, the main character in the Ghost series of novels is basically John Ringo turned up to 11, with similar lovely views. (see here and here). Quick highlights: John Ringo posted:[Referring to John Scalzi] As president instead of, oh, I dunno, working to get better generalized terms for new authors, ensuring contracts are upheld with publishers, maybe, someday, getting a loving health care insurer for all us authors who don't have health insurance, he'd been concentrating on IMPORTANT matters like making sure all characters were called s/he and women weren't being harassed at cons Piell fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
Megazver posted:I believe there's already a place for that, the comments section of Requires Only That You Hate. Going to be as productive, too. That place is still around? Anyway, can anyone recommend me something fun in fantasy that isn't totally stupid? It doesn't have to be brilliant, but something along the lines of the energy of the Gentlemen Bastards stories would be good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
anathenema posted:That place is still around? Always bears repeating: Have you read Bridge of Birds?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
anathenema posted:Anyway, can anyone recommend me something fun in fantasy that isn't totally stupid? It doesn't have to be brilliant, but something along the lines of the energy of the Gentlemen Bastards stories would be good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
If you happen to have not read china mieville's fantasy you should try that. I avoided perdido street station for a long time, mostly because it came out right when some people I knew in college were starting to glue plastic cogs spraypainted with fake brass to top hats and all I could think was ugh steampunk. Despite really enjoying his sci fi throughout the years I never picked up the bas lag books until relatively recently and I regret waiting so long, they're quite good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
anathenema posted:That place is still around? Try Robert VS Reddick's Chathrand Voyage series. It's fun, has a ton of awesome adventure, and it also has a large scope with world building and history that has a lot of impact on the greater story and plot. Megazver posted:I believe there's already a place for that, the comments section of Requires Only That You Hate. Going to be as productive, too. Yeah, I agree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:How is this different from any boycott? I mean those lunch counters were the source of income for those owners in Alabama. Punishing someone for their beliefs is the entire point of conspicuous consumption I'm not objecting to a boycott of certain authors (OSC or John Ringo are certainly never going to get my business), but I'm worried that a list of authors who have said objectionable things may end up on the a list that could be taken by a casual reader of the thread to be a boycott list, even if some of the authors on the list don't justify that level of response. I also kind of worry about having a list like that because people may not talk about certain authors' works if those authors are present on the list. Like I quoted in one of my earlier posts, we've already got people hesitant to talk about rarely mentioned authors because they might be taboo to the thread (or at least that's how I read it). If we're going to do that, then we'll end up not discussing Asimov (kind of a con creeper on occasion), Heinlein (a bad combination of sexism and free love), Delany (NAMBLA), or Ellison (general dickbag), even though these authors may have works that are considered classics for the genre. My main point is that any list that we produce needs to really provide some context to why the author is considered objectionable, because otherwise you'll end up with Card being compared to Resnick, even though their opinions aren't nearly on the same level of awfulness. You can criticize the opinions all you want (please do! Even casual sexism shouldn't have a place in the sci-fi community), but I think some of those opinions don't warrant a complete boycott of an authors' works. Each reader has their own level for tolerating an author's bullshit, and I think what can be learned with a google search gives a potential buyer more nuance of those opinions than a list could. Anyway, I think I'm going to be talking past some people at this point, so I don't see the point of continuing the derail. If anyone wants to talk some more about it, I will be more than happy to take it to PMs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
Back to book discussion again? I swear, half of this thread is just discussions about various authors and their (in some cases lovely) political opinions. Can't we have a separate thread for that? Also, expecting authors to not be colossal babies interested in self aggrandisement is probably doomed to failure, since it is a prerequisite for being an author. Neurosis posted:Is River of Gods the right place to start with Ian McDonald? A good start as any. They are independent of one another, with the exception of Cyderabad Days. Necroville, Brasyl, Dervish House were all good. I like Mcdonald since it is more how people/cultures adapt to new technology instead of doom and gloom apocalyptic futures. His writing is also quite accessible with a relatively fast moving story. savinhill posted:Try Robert VS Reddick's Chathrand Voyage series. It's fun, has a ton of awesome adventure, and it also has a large scope with world building and history that has a lot of impact on the greater story and plot. It is however a little bit of Harry Potter with very precocious children, who constantly have emotional tantrums. I like the series, since though since as you say, the world building is good, there are good characters. The story could have needed to be a little bit tighter, but nothing major. I liked the ending of the series, but I'm a sucker for tragic heroic endings. Cardiac fucked around with this message at 11:34 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 11:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
BananaNutkins posted:SF and F should be about entertainment. If you want to be socially progressive/regressive, fine, but the point of all this is to entertain. Why should it be about (a particular limited idea of) 'entertainment'? Some people want to write books that are thoughtful and interesting and other people want to read books that are thoughtful and interesting. Plenty of those books exist and are genre classics. Beyond that, having access to books about people like them or their friends, and which don't implicate the same in conspiracies to kill all Jews or whatever, helps make things entertaining for a lot of readers. quote:All this argument and these are the readership numbers: The collapse of short story magazines is mirrored across the collapse of print magazines in general, and you can see even in those numbers a reversal in two of them that have good electronic distribution methods. I'm not aware of any similar collapse in novel sales. And even if that wasn't the case, the SFWA failing to represent and serve its members would be a problem, one not solvable by 'write better (but still schlocky) books'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 12:28
|
|