Quote from: S'mon;970477Also Arthur C Clarke, who turned out to be a bit of a homosexual paedophile, but did very little to push that in his fiction.

Maybe it helped that he was living the dream in Ceylon. He didn't need to to use his books as an outlet for his proclivities like Piers Anthony.

Quote from: kosmos1214;970518Personally I find that the whole "new sci-fi is bad" shtick to be over blown drivel.

Fiction from the past is always better because time has filtered out the dross. I've read a lot of actual sci-fi magazines and collections from the 40s and 50s, and there is a lot of crap there alongside those gems that everyone remembers.

It's also just that as one gets older, it gets harder to find things as mindblowing as you once did. No story published this year is going to melt my brain like reading Neuromancer when I was 14, or discovering Jack Vance and Philip K. Dick a couple of years later. I still like sci-fi, but I get the impression some people expect it to give them the same rush forever, and that isn't going to happen.

Lots of great scifi in the 80s. That cut off point excludes the best work of Gregory Benford, Gene Wolfe, Thomas Disch and Paul Park, some of the best literary sf writers the genre has ever had in English. And I assume we're distinguishing between fantasy and sf here as Vance wrote his best novel, Lyonesse in the 80s, not to mention all the great fantasy novels by McKinely, Tepper and others.

Quote from: Voros;970531Lots of great scifi in the 80s. That cut off point excludes the best work of Gregory Benford, Gene Wolfe, Thomas Disch and Paul Park, some of the best literary sf writers the genre has ever had in English. And I assume we're distinguishing between fantasy and sf here as Vance wrote his best novel, Lyonesse in the 80s, not to mention all the great fantasy novels by McKinely, Tepper and others.

My point was that as a teen I was reading the books of the '80s (Benford, Wolfe and Disch, but Paul Park passed me by) at the same time I was exploring back into earlier decades. It means that everything from the '80s and before had a level of novelty to it because it was all new. "Scanners Live in Vain" by Cordwainer Smith from 1945 was as exciting and new as Across the Sea of Suns by Benford. And reading "The Sentinel" by Clarke was exciting as I saw the clear influence it had on Benford. They were all part of my honeymoon period with sci-fi. So when I spoke of Vance, I was referring to his sci-fi, but looking backwards. I believe the first Vance story I ever read was "The New Prime".

I'd forgotten about about Tepper. She could be a bit heavy-handed, but she was a good enough writer that I didn't mind.

Tepper's sf is heavy handed, her early fantasy has many of hte same concerns but deals with them much better I think.

And I certainly do know what you mean, as they say 'the golden age of sf is 12.' I actually didn't really get into the genre heavily until my early 20s when I discovered the New Wave writers of the 60s, before then I was a haphazard reader of 'serious' literature, spy novels, horror, sf and a bit of fantasy.

Quote from: Voros;970542Tepper's sf is heavy handed, her early fantasy has many of hte same concerns but deals with them much better I think.

And I certainly do know what you mean, as they say 'the golden age of sf is 12.' I actually didn't really get into the genre heavily until my early 20s when I discovered the New Wave writers of the 60s, before then I was a haphazard reader of 'serious' literature, spy novels, horror, sf and a bit of fantasy.

I mostly read science-fiction as a teen. I started strong with fantasy, going from Blyton to Lewis to Tolkien to Moorcock, but then I entered I hit a phase of Dragonlance and Shannara books and the like. I enjoyed them, but I began to feel fantasy was a bit samey. Science-fiction seems to have more variety, so I concentrated my attention there. I never turned my back on fantasy, but I was wary of anything in a trilogy.

With horror, I started mostly with King, Straub, Barker and then, being a gamer, I moved to Lovecraft. Eventually, Lovecraft led me to Lord Dunsany and Clark Ashton Smith, and I realized that maybe there was a lot more interesting fantasy out there than I had realized. Around that time, I started picking those Years Best Fantasy and Horror volumes that Datlow and Windling did.

I got into crime and spy novels starting in my 20s with Red Harvest by Dashiell Hammett, which remains one of my favorites.

Straub's best work, Julia, Koko and Shadowland from what I've read, is top drawer stuff. His reputation should be much higher than it is I think.

Like Wolfe he is a major writer who doesn't get the attention he deserves, I believe because he has been pigeonholed as a genre writer. Supposedly the literary mainstream is above such genre ghettos but they're very random about who they let in the clubhouse and who is kept outside (King is now okay, but not Straub? Philip K Dick went from underrated and cult to mainstream and overrated but Wolf and Disch are still relatively unknown).

Got to love that Continental Op.

Quote from: Baulderstone;970528Maybe it helped that he was living the dream in Ceylon. He didn't need to to use his books as an outlet for his proclivities like Piers Anthony.



Fiction from the past is always better because time has filtered out the dross. I've read a lot of actual sci-fi magazines and collections from the 40s and 50s, and there is a lot of crap there alongside those gems that everyone remembers.

It's also just that as one gets older, it gets harder to find things as mindblowing as you once did. No story published this year is going to melt my brain like reading Neuromancer when I was 14, or discovering Jack Vance and Philip K. Dick a couple of years later. I still like sci-fi, but I get the impression some people expect it to give them the same rush forever, and that isn't going to happen.

Exactly thank you.
For me I grew up with sci-fi and fantasy all around me from the start and it has effected my view point on them heavily.  Hence I tend to look at A book or video game / what have you independently rather then getting caught up in who wrote it or when it was made. Though I do point out when certain styles of things where popular that I enjoy.

Quote from: Voros;970527Stranger in a Strange Land. Great premise, mediocre book. Like Starship Troopers it had a huge cult following, particularly with the hippies in the 60s/70s. I much prefer Heinlein's novellas and juveniles: The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag, Universe, By His Bootstraps, Red Planet, Time for the Stars, Farmer in the Sky and Starman Jones are all excellent (you almost can't go wrong with any of his juvenile novels).

Ah okay I read that in high school my take away was A little different on the premise (I felt it was more A look at the idea of what is religion) though I do agree that it was under done I distinctly remember thinking that while I did enjoy the book I wasn't sure I'd call it A good book

Quote from: Dumarest;970554Got to love that Continental Op.

That I do. I have a battered copy of the The Big Knockover that gets reread on a regular basis as well.

Quote from: Voros;970552Straub's best work, Julia, Koko and Shadowland from what I've read, is top drawer stuff. His reputation should be much higher than it is I think.

I feel the same. King's books are more flat-out entertaining, but Straub's best stuff was more haunting and stayed with me. I'd put him in the same category as Algernon Blackwood.

QuoteLike Wolfe he is a major writer who doesn't get the attention he deserves, I believe because he has been pigeonholed as a genre writer. Supposedly the literary mainstream is above such genre ghettos but they're very random about who they let in the clubhouse and who is kept outside (King is now okay, but not Straub? Philip K Dick went from underrated and cult to mainstream and overrated but Wolf and Disch are still relatively unknown).

Wolfe is a writer who is never going to be popular. He makes you work hard, and for me, that is part of the pleasure. He really does deserve a place in literature and think he actually will get it in time. Wolfe lends itself to analysis in a way that is very appealing to academics.

Quote from: kosmos1214;970558Exactly thank you.
For me I grew up with sci-fi and fantasy all around me from the start and it has effected my view point on them heavily.  Hence I tend to look at A book or video game / what have you independently rather then getting caught up in who wrote it or when it was made. Though I do point out when certain styles of things where popular that I enjoy.

It is good to just take a story at face value when you first read. I still like to get into the context in which a story was written. Back when I was first getting into sci-fi and fantasy, finding the next truly good story and using one good story to find another was part of the game. Obviously, you could look at other stories by the same author, but I'd also like to find out what writers were part of their circle, and who their literary heroes were.

One of the more interesting paths was discovering that Vance's favorite writers were Clark Ashton Smith, Dashiell Hammett, and P.G. Woodhouse. It's an unlikely combination, but having read all three, their presence in Vance is obvious.

QuoteAh okay I read that in high school my take away was A little different on the premise (I felt it was more A look at the idea of what is religion) though I do agree that it was under done I distinctly remember thinking that while I did enjoy the book I wasn't sure I'd call it A good book

I haven't read that since the '80s. I remember it having a great beginning and then just falling apart halfway through.

Quote from: kosmos1214;970558Exactly thank you.
For me I grew up with sci-fi and fantasy all around me from the start and it has effected my view point on them heavily.  Hence I tend to look at A book or video game / what have you independently rather then getting caught up in who wrote it or when it was made. Though I do point out when certain styles of things where popular that I enjoy.

Ah okay I read that in high school my take away was A little different on the premise (I felt it was more A look at the idea of what is religion) though I do agree that it was under done I distinctly remember thinking that while I did enjoy the book I wasn't sure I'd call it A good book

BTW the Martians in Stranger in a Strange Land make their first appearance in Red Planet, which is just about a note perfect adventure story, until Heinlein went back years later and restored OT rants about gun rights and women. They're short enough that they don't spoil the book though. I was pretty stoked to find a hardcover first edition from the 50s that was a library remainder with that nonsense cut out and the excellent illustrations.

It kinda breaks my heart to checkout the sf section in most stores and find his later uneven 'adult' books like Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land there instead of Farmer in the Sky or Starman Jones. Imagine if you could only find Kipling's adult novels and not The Jungle Book?

Quote from: Voros;970531Lots of great scifi in the 80s. That cut off point excludes the best work of Gregory Benford, Gene Wolfe, Thomas Disch and Paul Park, some of the best literary sf writers the genre has ever had in English. And I assume we're distinguishing between fantasy and sf here as Vance wrote his best novel, Lyonesse in the 80s, not to mention all the great fantasy novels by McKinely, Tepper and others.

Yeah, I would agree - looking back over the book reviews section in '80s White Dwarf, tons of good stuff was still coming out regularly.
But I do think the beginning of first wave Political Correctness in 1990 marked a phase shift, and that there is a problem with what gets marketed as sf now. Or if not a problem, at least a shift in the target audience - it used to be primarily a men's genre. Now what I've seen (& I've not read much recently) seems more books for women/girls, with a light sf patina.
I did enjoy the Hunger Games trilogy though - great for bed time reading to my son. A female friend mocked me for enjoying a trilogy about "a young girl's sexual awakening" though!

Quote from: Baulderstone;970568I feel the same. King's books are more flat-out entertaining, but Straub's best stuff was more haunting and stayed with me. I'd put him in the same category as Algernon Blackwood.



Wolfe is a writer who is never going to be popular. He makes you work hard, and for me, that is part of the pleasure. He really does deserve a place in literature and think he actually will get it in time. Wolfe lends itself to analysis in a way that is very appealing to academics.



It is good to just take a story at face value when you first read. I still like to get into the context in which a story was written. Back when I was first getting into sci-fi and fantasy, finding the next truly good story and using one good story to find another was part of the game. Obviously, you could look at other stories by the same author, but I'd also like to find out what writers were part of their circle, and who their literary heroes were.

One of the more interesting paths was discovering that Vance's favorite writers were Clark Ashton Smith, Dashiell Hammett, and P.G. Woodhouse. It's an unlikely combination, but having read all three, their presence in Vance is obvious.



I haven't read that since the '80s. I remember it having a great beginning and then just falling apart halfway through.

Hmm I think it depends A little I'd say its more 2/3rds ish of the way not because it stops being entertaining but because it starts to drag on A bit to much.
Personally I think he books biggest problem was that the main character could have been more interesting I found him to be A bit to dissident and hard to understand and relate to as A person hence I barely remember him. On the other hand I remember most of the supporting cast quite well and in no small detail. Particularly Jubal E. Harshaw (and I just found 3 books I need to read looking up how to spell that).
Also I do agree learning about who A writer was influenced by and what the back round that effected the book in question can very much be A journey unto it self. And it is nice to know i'm not the only one who enjoys working when I read. I read Beowulf at 13 or so in the old English though the fact I had to work so hard to read it did take its toll as I dont remember the book very well.  Thats likely A large part of the reason I keep telling my self I need to reread it.
by the way I found in interesting excerpt from Wikipedia on stranger.

QuoteHeinlein got the idea for the novel when he and his wife Virginia were brainstorming one evening in 1948. She suggested a new version of Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book (1894), but with a child raised by Martians instead of wolves. He decided to go further with the idea and worked on the story on and off for more than a decade.[13] His editors at Putnam then required him to cut its 220,000-word length down to 160,067 words before publication. In 1962, it received the Hugo Award for Best Novel.[14]

Stranger in a Strange Land was written in part as a deliberate attempt to challenge social mores. In the course of the story, Heinlein uses Smith's open-mindedness to reevaluate such institutions as religion, money, monogamy, and the fear of death. Heinlein completed writing it ten years after he had plotted it out in detail. He later wrote, "I had been in no hurry to finish it, as that story could not be published commercially until the public mores changed. I could see them changing and it turned out that I had timed it right."[15]

The book was dedicated in part to science fiction author Philip José Farmer, who had explored sexual themes in science fictional works such as The Lovers (1952). It was also influenced by the satiric fantasies of James Branch Cabell.

Heinlein was surprised that some readers thought the book described how he believed society should be organized, explaining: "I was not giving answers. I was trying to shake the reader loose from some preconceptions and induce him to think for himself, along new and fresh lines. In consequence, each reader gets something different out of that book because he himself supplies the answers ... It is an invitation to think – not to believe."[7]
Influence

Quote from: Voros;970590BTW the Martians in Stranger in a Strange Land make their first appearance in Red Planet, which is just about a note perfect adventure story, until Heinlein went back years later and restored OT rants about gun rights and women. They're short enough that they don't spoil the book though. I was pretty stoked to find a hardcover first edition from the 50s that was a library remainder with that nonsense cut out and the excellent illustrations.

It kinda breaks my heart to checkout the sf section in most stores and find his later uneven 'adult' books like Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land there instead of Farmer in the Sky or Starman Jones. Imagine if you could only find Kipling's adult novels and not The Jungle Book?

I was Unaware of that I'm frankly not to familiar with his work as my mother was defiantly not A fan of his.
I do agree with you though that there are A large number of books that are unfairly hard to find while I am only vaguely familiar with Kipling. Though I will say with the advent of the internet it has actually gotten easier to find meany of the older under printed books one may want.

Quote from: Voros;970590It kinda breaks my heart to checkout the sf section in most stores and find his later uneven 'adult' books like Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land there instead of Farmer in the Sky or Starman Jones. Imagine if you could only find Kipling's adult novels and not The Jungle Book?

At least ebooks are getting around that problem. All of Heinlein's juveniles are available on Amazon as ebooks.

Quote from: kosmos1214;970780Hmm I think it depends A little I'd say its more 2/3rds ish of the way not because it stops being entertaining but because it starts to drag on A bit to much.

It has been 30 years since I read it, so my "half" comment is a very rough estimate of when the book goes bad. It could easily be 2/3.

QuoteAlso I do agree learning about who A writer was influenced by and what the back round that effected the book in question can very much be A journey unto it self. And it is nice to know i'm not the only one who enjoys working when I read. I read Beowulf at 13 or so in the old English though the fact I had to work so hard to read it did take its toll as I dont remember the book very well.  Thats likely A large part of the reason I keep telling my self I need to reread it.

Working through a book like that is satisfying, but I definitely recommend a reread. I read Lord of the Rings when I was in 4th grade. It was the summer I moved to Kuwait. I didn't know anyone, and it was too fucking hot to go outside, so I read the whole damn thing. I did get the gist of it, but a lot was lost on me, and like you with Beowulf, I didn't remember much. For years though, I was convinced it was a book I had already read and didn't need to revisit.

Then in my mid-20, the Middle Earth CCG came out, and a friend of mine picked it up. I was looking through the cards and was largely clueless about most of the people, places and artifacts on these cards. I went home, pulled my copy off the shelf and actually read the thing as an adult and realized how much I missed.

I'd take anything you read about Heinlein on Wikipedia with a boatload of salt. His entry is guarded by a group of true believers who are fantatical about excluding facts about their hero they don't like.