Comments on: Kim Stanley Robinson asks why science fiction isn’t winning awards; I ask why we should care http://futurismic.com/2009/09/17/kim-stanley-robinson-asks-why-science-fiction-isnt-winning-awards-i-ask-why-we-should-care/ Presenting the fact and fiction of tomorrow since 2001 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:03:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Paul Raven http://futurismic.com/2009/09/17/kim-stanley-robinson-asks-why-science-fiction-isnt-winning-awards-i-ask-why-we-should-care/comment-page-1/#comment-46081 Paul Raven Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:34:19 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9017#comment-46081 Hi Sumit; I wasn't implying there was any explicit agenda at <em>NS</em>; my apologies if it seemed that way. My point was that recent <em>NS</em> content is coming closer to the sort of topics that are covered here on <em>Futurismic</em>, and on the blogs and sites of futurist/speculative thinkers... and (in case it's not clear) I think that's a good thing, though others might disagree. :) Hi Sumit; I wasn’t implying there was any explicit agenda at NS; my apologies if it seemed that way. My point was that recent NS content is coming closer to the sort of topics that are covered here on Futurismic, and on the blogs and sites of futurist/speculative thinkers… and (in case it’s not clear) I think that’s a good thing, though others might disagree. :)

]]> By: Sumit Paul-Choudhury http://futurismic.com/2009/09/17/kim-stanley-robinson-asks-why-science-fiction-isnt-winning-awards-i-ask-why-we-should-care/comment-page-1/#comment-46062 Sumit Paul-Choudhury Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:15:12 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9017#comment-46062 Hi Paul - Interesting that it seems to you as though New Scientist is "aligning itself with a science fictional/futurist mindset of late" - for the record, we have no explicit agenda to that effect. I also thought it worth pointing out that Stan's essay also includes this: "It [the lack of Booker recognition] is a minor injustice, which can be ameliorated by the readers of New Scientist: simply buy the book and read it. Be the jury yourself. Read like Woolf, widely and without preconceptions. Read science fiction, read historical fiction, make your own judgement, and then talk about it. Try this as a kind of experiment: read 30 writers new to you. It's a big project, but what a lot of good reading would come of it." Hi Paul – Interesting that it seems to you as though New Scientist is “aligning itself with a science fictional/futurist mindset of late” – for the record, we have no explicit agenda to that effect.

I also thought it worth pointing out that Stan’s essay also includes this: “It [the lack of Booker recognition] is a minor injustice, which can be ameliorated by the readers of New Scientist: simply buy the book and read it. Be the jury yourself. Read like Woolf, widely and without preconceptions. Read science fiction, read historical fiction, make your own judgement, and then talk about it. Try this as a kind of experiment: read 30 writers new to you. It’s a big project, but what a lot of good reading would come of it.”

]]> By: Nancy Jane Moore http://futurismic.com/2009/09/17/kim-stanley-robinson-asks-why-science-fiction-isnt-winning-awards-i-ask-why-we-should-care/comment-page-1/#comment-45856 Nancy Jane Moore Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:53:45 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9017#comment-45856 It seems to be only authors who openly acknowledge that they write science fiction who are ignored by both the large awards and big time reviews. I note that Margaret Atwood's latest book, <i>The Year of the Flood</i>, was <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/books/15kaku.html?ref=books" rel="nofollow">reviewed in the NY Times</a> by none other than their lead (though frequently annoying and rude) reviewer, Michiko Kakutani. Atwood is published by mainstream/literary publishers and is notorious for denying that she writes SF, but even a cursory scan of the review will tell you that <i>The Year of the Flood</i> is definite SF. Atwood is a fine writer and I don't begrudge her success, but there are many other writers publishing under SF imprints that are in her league but ignored. It seems to be only authors who openly acknowledge that they write science fiction who are ignored by both the large awards and big time reviews. I note that Margaret Atwood’s latest book, The Year of the Flood, was reviewed in the NY Times by none other than their lead (though frequently annoying and rude) reviewer, Michiko Kakutani. Atwood is published by mainstream/literary publishers and is notorious for denying that she writes SF, but even a cursory scan of the review will tell you that The Year of the Flood is definite SF.

Atwood is a fine writer and I don’t begrudge her success, but there are many other writers publishing under SF imprints that are in her league but ignored.

]]>