Comments on: Nostalgia does science fiction a disservice

By: Ender

Ender — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:52:24 +0000

If you think that was trolling you clearly are not familiar with the masters of the art, that was nothing more than mild disagreement from relatively rational people, who for some reason felt some ad hominems would make their point for them. They were wrong, as are you when you call them trolls. An ad hominem to match theirs.

By: Cliff Burns

Cliff Burns — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:25:02 +0000

It does seem rather odd to me that often when a reviewer or commentator pans a certain SF “masterwork”, the trolls come screaming out of the hills to launch a counter-attack. “Who’s Ian Sales?” “How DARE he say rotten things about Asimov/Heinlein/Smith”. I know one prominent SF critic who now only reviews books he knows he’ll like because too many gutless worm “fans” take it upon themselves to harass him when he takes exception to the latest horrific 10-book fantasy series being dumped on the literary word like a load of toxic sludge.

These type of “readers” are the most self-regarding, pompous arseholes imaginable–and they’re bullies, using the anonymity of the internet to safely spew their crap and bile.

Who’s Ian Sales? A helluva writer, a smart and erudite man. Someone with a whole lotta credibility in my eyes. You’re welcome to debate him, counter his reasoning with points of your own. If you can’t do that, go back to your troll holes and pick up the latest Kevin J. Anderson abomination: you deserve each other…

By: Tony Lee

Tony Lee — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:01:19 +0000

As a kid, I read E.E. ‘Doc’ Smith’s Lensmen series. I loved the wild imagination and galactic-scale of those books. That was back in the *iron age* before Star Wars. Today, perhaps they are best only recommended to children who might be interested in one of the sources that Lucas borrwed from? My favourite teenage reading was Clarke and Bradbury (short stories, especially). I remember all the excitement that came along with cyberpunk movement, but it’s always worth noting that such ‘fun’ didn’t last long. Everything that’s ‘branded’ new eventually loses its polish. I strongly agree with the point that SF writers *must* be aware of What Has Gone Before, even if their readers lack such knowledge. Too many young writers get into SF just thinking that it’s a ‘happening’ field of publishing, which they can exploit by copying ideas from recent genre movies, but their stories are often shoddily written and quite painfully derivative. (“Write what you know” should apply to genre themes, as well!)

My current recommendations (with a glance at my bookshelf) would be Charles Stross, Greg Egan, Adam Roberts, Ken MacLeod, Robert Reed, Tony Ballantyne, Tricia Sullivan, Jeff Noon, Roger Levy, Steve Aylett…

By: Paolo

Paolo — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:42:54 +0000

Jack: I agree with the last 20% of your post. You are definitely above average

By: Jack Deighton

Jack Deighton — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:20:21 +0000

Paolo (no 16) inadvertently makes a point different to the one I think he is trying to make.
Music can be as derivative as it likes and still find an accepting audience, even an admiring one. Oasis, anyone?
With SF there can still be a thirst for novelty, the privileging of the new, the new idea especially, over something less novel but about which there may be yet be lots to say and which may perhaps be said in a more demanding way.

Separate point. Not all old SF is crap. Not all new SF is crap. 90% of anything is, though, remember.