Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekecs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!tekecs!waltt From: waltt@tekecs.UUCP (Walt Tucker) Newsgroups: net.books Subject: Re: what do _you_ think of sf? Message-ID: <5344@tekecs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 21-May-85 17:09:17 EDT Article-I.D.: tekecs.5344 Posted: Tue May 21 17:09:17 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 23-May-85 03:17:21 EDT References: <335@osiris.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 117 > Has anyone taken a look at net.sf-lovers? There is a vast number of > postings, and a good number of them are ridiculous. One poster says > that he reads science fiction because most of the the great writers > active today are in the field. I read sf, but rarely find anything > more than bare entertainment. Any comments on different genres? > There are authors who break out of the mold occasionally--I like > Simenon, and a very few sf writers. Other suggestions, anyone? > > Rob St. Amant (this reply covers about four years; I'm not that voracious of a reader!) I tend to read a lot of different types of books. I primarily grew up on science fiction, and still have about three shelves full of the stuff. However, in the last few years I've moved more towards contemporary or "classical" fiction (I know that is a broad category). Some of the more recent authors (last 3 or 4 years) I've read have been Michener (five books worth), Tom Wolfe, John Updike, Edgar Allen Poe, Stephen Crane, George Orwell, Erskine Caldwell ("Tobacco Road" and "Gods Little Acre"). In a recent college class, I sampled Cheever, Steinbeck, Shirley Jackson, Conrad, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and a score of others. Tom Robbins (Even Cowgirls get the Blues), Nevill Shute (On the Beach), Steinbeck (Grapes of Wrath) are in the queue. I have currently just started "Megatrends" (John Naisbitt). On the sf side, I completed the "Riverworld" Series by Phillip Jose Farmer, "Icerigger" by Alan Dean Foster", three books of the "Cities in Flight" quadology (James Blish), "A Canticle for Leibowitz", "The X Factor" (Andre Norton), and "2010: Oddessy Two" (Arthur C. Clarke). I read "The X Factor" as a respite. I had just finished Michener's "The Covenant" (1250 Pages), and thought I would settle down with some pulp sf. That is exactly what I got. Reading Norton's "The X Factor" back to back with "The Covenant" brought home how bad some science fiction can be. The plot in TXF jumped around, the characters were mere cardboard, and the ending left much to be desired. From that one book, it appears Michener and Norton are on extreme ends of the literary spectrum (don't get me wrong -- there are other Norton books I've read that are much better, but Norton is still no comparison with Michener). The "Cities in Flight" quadology ranked down near the bottom of my literature list with TXF. Having heard a few good things about this series, and enjoying Blish's "Star Trek" adaptations in high school, I expected to really enjoy this. The first book was nothing but mediocre. By the second book, I knew I didn't really want to finish this series. But, not being a quitter, I jumped into the third book, hoping it got better. No luck. I finally filed the fourth book away unread, where it has been sitting for the last two years. In a nutshell, there was nothing in this series that enticed me to keep read. The four Blish books only comprised 600 pages. I find more motivation to finish a 1200 page Michener book than I did in this entire series. The "Riverworld" Series was better than "CIF". At least I finished all four books. However, the problems with this series were remeniscant (sp?) of "The X Factor". Farmer didn't jump off on imaginary technical tangents like Blish did, and I actually "got into" the books (as opposed to "wading through" them), but there was still no comparison to some of the other authors. The characters never really developed. Also, it seems that the plot wasn't well thought out over the entire series (each book was rather interesting). The entire series suffered from a "Oh no, here's a plot crisis. Let's invent a new character, new device, or new plot twist (inconsistant with the old) to solve the crisis." syndrome. This is probably what really happened, as the first and last book of the series were written ten years appart. If you read the first book in the series (which asks questions) and the last book in the series (which answers the questions), the entire flavor each book is different. Both Clarke (2010) and John Updike (Rabbit is Rich) wrote sequels to books published years earlier and captured more consistancy than Farmer did. I read "Canticle for Liebowitz" primarily because of the promotion on this net. It had great potential. After the first third of the book (when the bomb shelter was discovered), I expected great things and a great story. The book really had my interest. Alas, it sort of waned from there. The book presented many questions, without satisfactory answers (nothing wrong with this, as in 2001, but the plot moved through 1600 years with an unsucceeding attempt at resolution). Who was the hermit? Why was he there? What did the two headed being at the end represent? The book never satisfactorly answered my questions. I didn't really care to look on a symbolic level. I really wanted to be entertained. For me, CFL ranked slightly above mediocrety. I can think of better science fiction novels to make into a movie. "Icerigger" was good. I liked it. From this book, I can't say Foster is "one of the great writers around today", but I'll probably buy another one of his books. Now, the last one. Arthur C. Clarke is one of my all-time favorite writers. I think he ranks up there with the list of others I presented at the beginning of this article. I have about 20 of his books in my shelves. "2010" proved that he still has it. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It was excellent (read it!). Instead of making "Canticle for Leibowitz" into a movie, how about "Childhood's End". In closing, I don't want you to think I am totally down on science fiction. Arthur C. Clarke is one of my favorite writers. So is Robert Heinlein (I have about 30 of his books), but his more recent stuff is not on par with his older stuff. I also enjoy Asimov, and Bradbury is one of my favorite writers, too (although he borders on fantasy writing). H.G. Wells is excellent, too. But, to make the statement, > that he reads science fiction because most of the the great writers > active today are in the field. is slightly ridiculous, although there are some great writers (consider Vonnegut, which I haven't read). Consider expanding your horizons by venturing into another genre of book. Read some Michener, Updike, Robbins, Hunter Thompson, Caldwell or others. I'm glad I did. -- Walt Tucker Tektronix, Inc. P.S. -- I'll pose a counter-question I've been curious about for some time Why do people in technical fields tend towards "escapist" entertainment (not only science fiction, but role playing games, the SCA, etc) more than people in other fields? Is there something inherent in the work or the water?