Bafflingly unable to read
James Nicoll
fictions feels too much like homework. Gene Wolfe is probably the
poster child for this set.
There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
Obligatory disclaimer: this is clearly a flaw in me, not them.
Melissa Scott would be in the second group for me.
Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
love but don't, for some reason?
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Anthony Nance
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> There's a class of authors I don't read because reading their
>fictions feels too much like homework. Gene Wolfe is probably the
>poster child for this set.
>
> There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
>on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
>out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
>
> Obligatory disclaimer: this is clearly a flaw in me, not them.
>
> Melissa Scott would be in the second group for me.
>
> Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
>love but don't, for some reason?
Unfortunately belonging squarely in set two is Steven Brust.
It _is_ completely baffling that I don't love his stuff.
I first read _To Reign in Hell_, which is apparently not the
best place to start from what I've gleanned here. I've started
_Cowboy Feng's..._ I don't know how many times. Things I picked
up from the Vlad Taltos discussions here make it highly unlikely
I'd try those.
I started _Brokedown Palace_ once, but that was a long time ago.
Perhaps I'll try it again. Or maybe I'll try _The Phoenix Guards_.
Then again, life is short and the TBR pile is large, so perhaps
I'll just resign myself to missing the Brust boat.
Mystifying,
Tony
Jaimie Vandenbergh
wrote:
>In article <eja4qb$dkr$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
>>love but don't, for some reason?
>
>Unfortunately belonging squarely in set two is Steven Brust.
>It _is_ completely baffling that I don't love his stuff.
Given your choice of books, I'm honestly not surprised. I love the
Vlad and Paarfi books, but:
>I first read _To Reign in Hell_, which is apparently not the
>best place to start from what I've gleanned here.
>_Cowboy Feng's..._ I don't know how many times.
>I started _Brokedown Palace_ once, but that was a long time ago.
I've started TRiH, three times. Never got past the first few pages
before getting distracted by something else.
CFSBaG is an odd book, but I didn't have any trouble getting into it.
It doesn't read much like a Brust book, though - more like a
semi-lucid Brust dream transcribed!
I've started BP, three times. Same thing as TRiH.
>Things I picked
>up from the Vlad Taltos discussions here make it highly unlikely
>I'd try those.
Since they're the bulk of Brust's output, and cover a wide spread of
themes and moods, that's quite odd. Are you sure that you ought to
like Brust?
If you are sure, just make sure you don't start with Teckla. I'd
recommend skipping it entirely, ask here for a three line summary if
you get to a point where you need it.
>Perhaps I'll try it again. Or maybe I'll try _The Phoenix Guards_.
The Paarfi books are delightful, so I'd very much recommend doing so.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
b3ta: the only place where you can be second creating an image of a stick
figure ninja and a 100-foot banana with a cowboy hat and platform shoes
being chased by an escaped box of cornflakes (www.b3ta.com/board/3390965)
Remus Shepherd
> There's a class of authors I don't read because reading their
> fictions feels too much like homework. Gene Wolfe is probably the
> poster child for this set.
> There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
> on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
> out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
> Obligatory disclaimer: this is clearly a flaw in me, not them.
> Melissa Scott would be in the second group for me.
> Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
> love but don't, for some reason?
I'm still unclear on your concept of 'should love'. I can't tell what
fiction I'm going to love until after I've read it. :)
My friends keep recommending Iain M. Banks to me, but I absolutely detest
his work. Wild ideas and freaky tricks with language are not substitutes for
compelling characters and a plot.
My father (!) kept trying to push the Dune books on me, but I never got
into Herbert's writing. I suppose that one is puzzling, as I love most of
the SF grand masters' stuff.
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Indefensible Positions -- a story of superheroic philosophy.
http://indepos.comicgenesis.com/
James Nicoll
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> There's a class of authors I don't read because reading their
>> fictions feels too much like homework. Gene Wolfe is probably the
>> poster child for this set.
>
>> There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
>> on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
>> out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
>
>> Obligatory disclaimer: this is clearly a flaw in me, not them.
>
>> Melissa Scott would be in the second group for me.
>
>> Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
>> love but don't, for some reason?
>
> I'm still unclear on your concept of 'should love'. I can't tell what
>fiction I'm going to love until after I've read it. :)
>
work seems to be like other material I couldn't get enough of and yet I
rarely finish one of her books when I try them. I can't see why.
James Nicoll
>his work. Wild ideas and freaky tricks with language are not substitutes for
>compelling characters and a plot.
>
AIR (aside from ones I am paid to finish) but I couldn't say why.
His comments about money are able as silly as me disparaging
the lever as being a symptom of ALS but SF is filled with wacky economics*
and only freaks and former economists -- but I repeat myself -- would care.
* Like the rampant Norbertism Poul Anderson shows in some of his fiction.
art...@yahoo.com
James Nicoll wrote:
> There's a class of authors I don't read because reading their
> fictions feels too much like homework. Gene Wolfe is probably the
> poster child for this set.
>
> There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
> on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
> out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
>
> Obligatory disclaimer: this is clearly a flaw in me, not them.
>
> Melissa Scott would be in the second group for me.
>
> Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
> love but don't, for some reason?
While I love TIm Power and Sean Stewart I could not finish
The NiIght Watch (I tried twice)
The Stress of Her Regard
I am not sure why
I couldn't finish one of Melissa's Scott books either, I never tried
another.
Mark
> >
> To the extent I am aware of what appeals to me in fiction, Scott's
> work seems to be like other material I couldn't get enough of and yet I
> rarely finish one of her books when I try them. I can't see why.
>
Taste is something utterly unquantifiable except in its grossest form.
For instance, I absolutely loathe, detest, and despise Rod Stewart--not
what he sings, but THAT he sings. Yet I really enjoy Kim Carnes, who
is, for all intents and purposes, a female version of that Rod Stewart
non-voice. Go figure.
As for authors I probably ought to like but just can't manage to get
into...
this is dicey, as some are colleagues, so I'll stick to the DWC (Dead
Writers Club).
Never could quite get into Edmond Hamilton. Never really cared for
John W. Campbell's stuff, either. And Fritz Leiber, whom I suspect I
ought to like because I like Gene Wolfe, I can't get past page one most
times. In his case, I suspect the comparison is, musically speaking,
that Leiber's work is quite "operatic" in tone and while I respect
opera as a form I just can't listen to it.
Mark
author of:
THE SECANTIS SEQUENCE
REMAINS
www.marktiedemann.com
David Tate
>
> There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
> on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
> out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
>
> love but don't, for some reason?
Great question, James.
So far, M. John Harrison seems like my closest match. I finished the
first Viriconium novel (or novelet?), thinking all the while that I
should have been enjoying it more than I actually did. I started the
second, and never quite got around to finishing it.
Based on trusted recommendations and general type, I ought to love P.C.
Hodgell's books, but I bogged down in the middle of the series and
don't expect to get back to it.
David Tate
James Nicoll
Mark <mtied...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Taste is something utterly unquantifiable except in its grossest form.
>For instance, I absolutely loathe, detest, and despise Rod Stewart--not
>what he sings, but THAT he sings. Yet I really enjoy Kim Carnes, who
>is, for all intents and purposes, a female version of that Rod Stewart
>non-voice. Go figure.
>
I love his voice. I hate his taste in music. As a result, I own a
bunch of RO CDs but I skip over a lot of the songs.
James Nicoll
the SFBC's designated canary and I am happy to say I am not on the
bottom of my cage, feet up.
Joe Pfeiffer
> Unfortunately belonging squarely in set two is Steven Brust.
> It _is_ completely baffling that I don't love his stuff.
>
> I first read _To Reign in Hell_, which is apparently not the
> best place to start from what I've gleanned here. I've started
> _Cowboy Feng's..._ I don't know how many times. Things I picked
> up from the Vlad Taltos discussions here make it highly unlikely
> I'd try those.
Hmmm... I found _Hell_ unreadable; that's the only Brust I've read
(well, tried to read) that I haven't liked. He once posted in this
newsgroup that he wasn't a big fan of _Cowboy_Feng_, so if you don't
like it then you agree with the author (but not with me -- I liked it
a lot).
> I started _Brokedown Palace_ once, but that was a long time ago.
> Perhaps I'll try it again. Or maybe I'll try _The Phoenix Guards_.
_Brokedown_Palace_ is a little odd... I liked it, but I could
understand somebody who didn't.
But the point of all this is you haven't read anything that's in the
majority of his output. The Taltos series and the Phoenix Guards
series are very different from anything you mentioned trying, and very
different from each other (in spite of being set in the same world).
Taltos is just plain good; Guards is good with the caveat that you
either go along with and enjoy the faux-Dumas style, or you hate
them.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
Mike Schilling
"Anthony Nance" <na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:eja6n9$k1j$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>
> Unfortunately belonging squarely in set two is Steven Brust.
> It _is_ completely baffling that I don't love his stuff.
>
> I first read _To Reign in Hell_, which is apparently not the
> best place to start from what I've gleanned here. I've started
> _Cowboy Feng's..._ I don't know how many times.
Again, not a place I'd start.
> Things I picked
> up from the Vlad Taltos discussions here make it highly unlikely
> I'd try those.
Which things are those, I wonder. By the way, if you don't like the Vlad
books, you won't like Brust, period. (You could substitute Miles and Bujold
into that sentence and it would be roughly as true.)
>
> I started _Brokedown Palace_ once, but that was a long time ago.
> Perhaps I'll try it again.
Again, not where I'd start.
> Or maybe I'll try _The Phoenix Guards_.
Now, you're getting somewhere. _TPG_ is a complete success at what it
tries to do, which is simultaneously parody and embrace Dumas. If that's
the kind of thing you like, you'll love it.
Mike Schilling
<art...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163438935....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> While I love TIm Power and Sean Stewart I could not finish
> The NiIght Watch (I tried twice)
> The Stress of Her Regard
I did finish TSoHR. Even re-read it, to try to figure out why I didn't care
for it the first time. No go, it still seems pointless and overwrought, and
invokes the eight deadly words.
Mike Schilling
"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:eja4qb$dkr$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> There's a class of authors I don't read because reading their
> fictions feels too much like homework. Gene Wolfe is probably the
> poster child for this set.
>
> There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
> on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
> out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
>
> Obligatory disclaimer: this is clearly a flaw in me, not them.
>
> Melissa Scott would be in the second group for me.
>
> Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
> love but don't, for some reason?
DeCamp. I like golden age SF, I like humor, I enjoy erudition, but his books
leave me totally flat.
To some extent, Fritz Leiber. I lovingly collected all of the F&GM books,
started at the beginning, and stalled out in volume three. "Ill Met" is a
terrific story, as is "Lean Times", and "Bazaar of the Bizarre" is good too,
but there's so much dross.
Gene Ward Smith
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> > I first read _To Reign in Hell_, which is apparently not the
> > best place to start from what I've gleanned here. I've started
> > _Cowboy Feng's..._ I don't know how many times. Things I picked
> > up from the Vlad Taltos discussions here make it highly unlikely
> > I'd try those.
>
> Hmmm... I found _Hell_ unreadable; that's the only Brust I've read
> (well, tried to read) that I haven't liked.
Hmmm. I've recommended it as a good place to start, myself.
Remus Shepherd
> Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
> > My friends keep recommending Iain M. Banks to me, but I absolutely detest
> >his work. Wild ideas and freaky tricks with language are not substitutes for
> >compelling characters and a plot.
> >
> I stopped being able to finish his books somewhere around DEAD
> AIR (aside from ones I am paid to finish) but I couldn't say why.
I began trying Banks on the wrong story -- Against a Dark Background,
which is just dismal. I've since attempted three more of his books and all
have either infuriated or bored me.
> His comments about money are able as silly as me disparaging
> the lever as being a symptom of ALS but SF is filled with wacky economics*
> and only freaks and former economists -- but I repeat myself -- would care.
Not knowing much about economics myself, I'm willing to let that slide.
I'm willing to let a lot slide as long as the story sweeps me along. What
really turns me off is how some authors -- Robert Forward comes to mind --
get all the details right but can't make me care about the characters or
story.
Dorothy J Heydt
Anthony Nance <na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>Unfortunately belonging squarely in set two is Steven Brust.
>It _is_ completely baffling that I don't love his stuff.
>
>I first read _To Reign in Hell_, which is apparently not the
>best place to start from what I've gleanned here. I've started
>_Cowboy Feng's..._ I don't know how many times. Things I picked
>up from the Vlad Taltos discussions here make it highly unlikely
>I'd try those.
I couldn't get into _TRiH_ either; read _CF_ once and hated it;
bounced off most of his non-Dragaeran works.
>
>I started _Brokedown Palace_ once, but that was a long time ago.
>Perhaps I'll try it again. Or maybe I'll try _The Phoenix Guards_.
Rather than either -- because _BP_ is not among his best work*
and _TPG_ is written in a rather unusual style** -- try one of
the Vlad novels. Try _Jhereg_, which is the first and doesn't
even vaguely expect you to have read any of the others. The
Vlads are short, too.
*It's an attempt to write an allegory. A Marxist allegory, no
less. Allegory is hard to write, and if the basic premises of
what the allegory is about are flawed -- which for my money they
are -- it's going to be more than difficult, it's going to be
impossible to make the story make sense.
**The Paarfi books, of which _TPG_ is the first, is written in
the style, not merely of Alexandre Dumas (who was paid by the
line), but of a particular 19th-century translator of Dumas into
English. Some love this style; Brust does, e.g. Some loathe it.
I couldn't predict which camp you'd fall into. Try Vlad first.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
David Goldfarb
I finished it once, but doubt I will ever do so again. Powers is
very good, but he put out one clunker -- nobody's perfect.
In terms of the larger thread, I've posted about this one before: Cherryh.
Lots of people whom I greatly respect adore Cherryh but I can't read
her work at all.
Something about the way she writes prose just runs counter to the way
I read. You know how some people write prose that hooks you and
pulls you forward through the story? Heinlein had that knack; Brust
and Duane have it; Niven used to but then he lost it. It's a rare
and valuable talent (and of course is a place where mileage can
strongly vary). Cherryh has the opposite: her prose actively impedes
my reading so that getting through the story is a slog.
The above is untrue of enough people that she's won Hugo awards, but
I know that I'm not alone. (Pat Wrede has written articulately about
the phenomenon on rec.arts.sf.composition, for instance.)
--
David Goldfarb |"I'll distract them."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | "What are you going to do?"
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |"I'm going to kill them all. That ought to
|distract them." -- Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Andrew Plotkin
> In article <Ov26h.9191$yl4....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> ><art...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1163438935....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>
> >> While I love TIm Power and Sean Stewart I could not finish
> >> The NiIght Watch (I tried twice)
> >> The Stress of Her Regard
> >
> >I did finish TSoHR. Even re-read it, to try to figure out why I didn't care
> >for it the first time. No go, it still seems pointless and overwrought, and
> >invokes the eight deadly words.
>
> I finished it once, but doubt I will ever do so again. Powers is
> very good, but he put out one clunker --
-- which was _Expiration Date_, and also _Earthquake Weather_.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
If the Bush administration hasn't shipped you to Syria for interrogation, it's
for one reason: they don't feel like it. Not because you're innocent.
Pete Granzeau
wrote:
>In article <eja4qb$dkr$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> There's a class of authors I don't read because reading their
>>fictions feels too much like homework. Gene Wolfe is probably the
>>poster child for this set.
>>
>> There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
>>on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
>>out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
>>
>> Obligatory disclaimer: this is clearly a flaw in me, not them.
>>
>> Melissa Scott would be in the second group for me.
>>
>> Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
>>love but don't, for some reason?
>
>Unfortunately belonging squarely in set two is Steven Brust.
>It _is_ completely baffling that I don't love his stuff.
>
>I first read _To Reign in Hell_, which is apparently not the
>best place to start from what I've gleanned here. I've started
>_Cowboy Feng's..._ I don't know how many times. Things I picked
>up from the Vlad Taltos discussions here make it highly unlikely
>I'd try those.
I was unable to finish _To Reign in Hell_. I have, however, read and
liked everything else Brust has written. The Vlad Taltos novels were
written by him as, essentially, a neat story that he thought he would
like to read himself. The first couple of books (Jhereg, Yendi) were
written in that vein, and then the author's personal life got
involved.
>I started _Brokedown Palace_ once, but that was a long time ago.
>Perhaps I'll try it again. Or maybe I'll try _The Phoenix Guards_.
Only try _The Phoenix Guards_ if you think that something written as a
pastiche of _The Three Musketeers_ might be enjoyable.
>Then again, life is short and the TBR pile is large, so perhaps
>I'll just resign myself to missing the Brust boat.
There are very popular authors I don't enjoy, too. For some reason, I
have never thought I would like anything by Dan Simmons, for instance
(but hasn't he won Hugos?).
I found some of the Wolfe books difficult to read, but found myself
enjoying, oh, say, _There Are Doors_, _Free Live Free_, and the recent
fantasy pair. The New Sun and Long Sun books, however, are completely
opaque to me.
Brust, however, is one of my "buy and read immediately"
books--although the latest, _Dzur_, was rather slim and (except for
the dinner at Valabar's which served as background for the rest of the
story) meatless.
How about Bujold?
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
> And Fritz Leiber, whom I suspect I
>ought to like because I like Gene Wolfe, I can't get past page one most
>times. In his case, I suspect the comparison is, musically speaking,
>that Leiber's work is quite "operatic" in tone and while I respect
>opera as a form I just can't listen to it.
I would never have linked Leiber and Wolfe.
I love most of Leiber's work. There are a few stories that just don't
work for me at all, but every time I remember, say, "A Pail of Air" or
_Gather, Darkness!_ I want to go out and grab strangers and tell them,
"Here, read this, it's wonderful!"
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
The second issue of Helix is at http://www.helixsf.com
A new Ethshar novel is being serialized at http://www.ethshar.com/thevondishambassador1.html
Mike Schilling
"David Goldfarb" <gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:ejae67$16eo$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> In article <Ov26h.9191$yl4....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>><art...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1163438935....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>
>>> While I love TIm Power and Sean Stewart I could not finish
>>> The NiIght Watch (I tried twice)
>>> The Stress of Her Regard
>>
>>I did finish TSoHR. Even re-read it, to try to figure out why I didn't
>>care
>>for it the first time. No go, it still seems pointless and overwrought,
>>and
>>invokes the eight deadly words.
>
> I finished it once, but doubt I will ever do so again. Powers is
> very good, but he put out one clunker -- nobody's perfect.
Agreed about Powers. The thing is, I've seen TSoHR praised a lot, so while
I agree with you about it, I think we're in the minority. (I also didn't
much care for whichever of ED and EW came out first, and have never read the
other one.)
sienamystic
David Tate wrote:
> So far, M. John Harrison seems like my closest match. I finished the
> first Viriconium novel (or novelet?), thinking all the while that I
> should have been enjoying it more than I actually did. I started the
> second, and never quite got around to finishing it.
>
> Based on trusted recommendations and general type, I ought to love P.C.
> Hodgell's books, but I bogged down in the middle of the series and
> don't expect to get back to it.
With the whomping exception of _Ash_, I can't read any of Mary Gentle's
books, despite the fact that they strongly resemble the type of book
I'd devour in a heartbeat. But they just stymie me.
Genevieve
art...@yahoo.com
Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> Here, David Goldfarb <gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > In article <Ov26h.9191$yl4....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
> > Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > ><art...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:1163438935....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >>
> > >> While I love TIm Power and Sean Stewart I could not finish
> > >> The NiIght Watch (I tried twice)
> > >> The Stress of Her Regard
> > >
> > >I did finish TSoHR. Even re-read it, to try to figure out why I didn't care
> > >for it the first time. No go, it still seems pointless and overwrought, and
> > >invokes the eight deadly words.
> >
> > I finished it once, but doubt I will ever do so again. Powers is
> > very good, but he put out one clunker --
>
> -- which was _Expiration Date_, and also _Earthquake Weather_.
>
> --Z
>
problem with Earthquake Weather is that it had been too long since I
had read Last Call (and Expiration) Date) to remember the essential
details.
Nancy Lebovitz
>fictions feels too much like homework. Gene Wolfe is probably the
>poster child for this set.
>
> There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
>on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
>out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
>
> Obligatory disclaimer: this is clearly a flaw in me, not them.
>
> Melissa Scott would be in the second group for me.
>
> Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
>love but don't, for some reason?
H. Beam Piper, except for _Little Fuzzy_. He's the sort of golden age
writer I should have at least liked, but there was a complete failure
to click.
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
http://nancylebov.livejournal.com
My two favorite colors are "Oooooh" and "SHINY!".
Matt Hughes
Mike Schilling wrote:
> DeCamp. I like golden age SF, I like humor, I enjoy erudition, but his books
> leave me totally flat.
Have you tried his historicals -- "An Elephant for Aristotle," "The
Dragon of the Ishtar Gate,""The Arrows of Hercules," et alia? Some
good adventuresome storytelling, in societies much different from ours
yet convincingly rendered, and without the lapses into facetiousness
that seemed to proliferate in his later books.
BTW, re James's original post, some people just can't get into my
stuff. Mostly it's the style.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com/majestrum
rbm...@library.syr.edu
James Nicoll wrote:
> There's a class of authors I don't read because reading their
> fictions feels too much like homework. Gene Wolfe is probably the
> poster child for this set.
>
> There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
> on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
> out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
>
> Obligatory disclaimer: this is clearly a flaw in me, not them.
>
> Melissa Scott would be in the second group for me.
>
> Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
> love but don't, for some reason?
Theodore Sturgeon. I like stylish writers and I really like some of the
stories I've read by him, but enough others have slogged on that I
don't feel the need to dive into his collected works and read them all.
The Retif (sp?) stories by Panshin were ... okay. I know others enjoy
them, but one book was enough.
Outside s.f., Ian Fleming. _Goldfinger_ was good, as were portions of
_Dr. No_ and _Casino Royale_, but not enough to keep me reading the
series.
Robert Parker. Gaging my reactions to old private eye novels, movies
and TV shows, I should have read all of the Spensers, but one was
enough. (David Tate has mentioned a couple that might jump start my
interest, so maybe I'll give Parker another try one of these days.)
Randy M.
Mike Schilling
"Matt Hughes" <mhu...@mars.ark.com> wrote in message
news:1163449193....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>
>> DeCamp. I like golden age SF, I like humor, I enjoy erudition, but his
>> books
>> leave me totally flat.
>
> Have you tried his historicals -- "An Elephant for Aristotle," "The
> Dragon of the Ishtar Gate,""The Arrows of Hercules," et alia? Some
> good adventuresome storytelling, in societies much different from ours
> yet convincingly rendered, and without the lapses into facetiousness
> that seemed to proliferate in his later books.
I'll keep an eye out for them.
Oh, I left out the one exception: "Judgment Day" is brilliant. I've read
that the description of a lonely, bookish childhood is autobiographical. It
shows.
James Nicoll
<rbm...@library.syr.edu> wrote:
>
>James Nicoll wrote:
>> There's a class of authors I don't read because reading their
>> fictions feels too much like homework. Gene Wolfe is probably the
>> poster child for this set.
>>
>> There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
>> on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
>> out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
>>
>> Obligatory disclaimer: this is clearly a flaw in me, not them.
>>
>> Melissa Scott would be in the second group for me.
>>
>> Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
>> love but don't, for some reason?
>> --
>
>Theodore Sturgeon. I like stylish writers and I really like some of the
>stories I've read by him, but enough others have slogged on that I
>don't feel the need to dive into his collected works and read them all.
>
>The Retif (sp?) stories by Panshin were ... okay. I know others enjoy
>them, but one book was enough.
>
mark...@earthlink.net
> Taste is something utterly unquantifiable except in its grossest form.
> For instance, I absolutely loathe, detest, and despise Rod Stewart--not
> what he sings, but THAT he sings. Yet I really enjoy Kim Carnes, who
> is, for all intents and purposes, a female version of that Rod Stewart
> non-voice. Go figure.
It may or may not be amusing to you that back when I was in college
1979-1983, the student filmboard, of which I was a small part, decided
to show a Rod Stewart concert film. It may have been Rod Stewart & The
Faces which is the only one I can find, or maybe not.
That's not the amusing part. The amusing part is that all of one
person showed up and paid to see it any of at least two showings, and
this was not a small university.
After that and some other debacles, the manner in which films were
selected was changed.
mark...@earthlink.net
> DeCamp. I like golden age SF, I like humor, I enjoy erudition, but his books
> leave me totally flat.
Even Lest Darkness Fall?
Walter Bushell
nan...@panix.com (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
> In article <eja4qb$dkr$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> > There's a class of authors I don't read because reading their
> >fictions feels too much like homework. Gene Wolfe is probably the
> >poster child for this set.
> >
> > There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
> >on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
> >out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
> >
> > Obligatory disclaimer: this is clearly a flaw in me, not them.
> >
> > Melissa Scott would be in the second group for me.
> >
> > Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
> >love but don't, for some reason?
>
> H. Beam Piper, except for _Little Fuzzy_. He's the sort of golden age
> writer I should have at least liked, but there was a complete failure
> to click.
One of my favorite authors, except for his misuse of sentient to mean
sapient. Sentient means having senses. A cockroach is sentient, though
hardly sapient. This is a distinction well worth preserving, and a major
flaw in a work that hinges on determination of sapience.
Also Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, in _The Mote in God's Eye_ and _
The Gripping Hand_ make the same unsentient mistake.
Thus endth the sermon for today.
--
Divided we stand!
Gene Ward Smith
Remus Shepherd wrote:
> What really turns me off is how some authors -- Robert Forward comes to mind --
> get all the details right but can't make me care about the characters or
> story.
Eh? Forward does not, repeat NOT, get all the details right. What he
does is get it enough right that a lot of people can accept it as
right, which is all you really need, and one of the great tricks of
science fiction writing. It's also valuable in techno-thrillers; Tom
Clancy was a master of the craft of convincing you that he'd gotten it
all right.
Michael Grosberg
James Nicoll wrote:
> There's a class of authors I don't read because reading their
> fictions feels too much like homework. Gene Wolfe is probably the
> poster child for this set.
> There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
> on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
> out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
> Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
> love but don't, for some reason?
Greg Egan.
I love SF with a transhumanist theme. Vinge, Sterling, Varley, Greg
Bear, I read 'em all. But when it comes to Greg Egan, I've yet to read
any of his books - I did read some of his shorter works and liked none
of it.
Mike Schilling
<mark...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1163451945....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I'd have to ask my 25-years-ago self why, but yes. (Actually, that might
have been more of an "I've heard so much about this book for so long, how
disappointing that it's merely pretty good.")
Dorothy J Heydt
O-o-o-o-kay, I can go along with that. But if (vide infra) he
can't get you to care, he merits the Eight Deadly Words and an
introduction to the wall.
(Or the usedbookstore. I find it exceedingly difficult to just
throw books away, no matter how bad. I've put a few in the paper
recycling bin, though, over the years, ones that I didn't think
ANYbody should have the misfortune of reading. The last one was
called "Three Black Skirts" and propounded the thesis that a
woman's wardrobe should have at its core three black skirts: a
long one for formal dress, a knee-length for work, and an
ultramini for when you're looking to get laid. Ms. Book met Ms.
Bin.)
rbm...@library.syr.edu
James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <1163450495.8...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <rbm...@library.syr.edu> wrote:
> >
> >James Nicoll wrote:
> >> There's a class of authors I don't read because reading their
> >> fictions feels too much like homework. Gene Wolfe is probably the
> >> poster child for this set.
> >>
> >> There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
> >> on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
> >> out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
[...]
> >The Retif (sp?) stories by Panshin were ... okay. I know others enjoy
> >them, but one book was enough.
> >
> You might mean Retief by Laumer or Villiers by Panshin.
D'oh!
Well, now I think, my sentiment applies to both. By description, I
should have liked them. But in the reading, they did very little for
me.
Randy M.
Mike Schilling
<rbm...@library.syr.edu> wrote in message
news:1163454643.0...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
As far as the Panshin goes, me too. I'd been looking for them for years,
and finally got the collection as an e-book. Eh. The narration *is*
intrusive, if only it were amusing too.
Ahasuerus
> James Nicoll wrote: [snip]
> > You might mean Retief by Laumer or Villiers by Panshin.
>
> D'oh!
>
> Well, now I think, my sentiment applies to both. By description, I
> should have liked them. But in the reading, they did very little for me.
The Villers books are more or less homogeneous, so if you didn't like
the first one, then you are not very likely to enjoy the other two.
OTOH, Retief books were written and rewritten over a period of 3
decades. If you happened to be unlucky that day and picked up one of
the post-stroke installments, then it may not have been representative
of the early, better, stories and you may still like some or all of the
first 7 volumes in the series
(http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?1478). On the third hand, if you
liked the idea but were not impressed with Panshin's and (pre-stroke)
Laumer's execution, you may want to try Walter Jon Williams'
_Maijstral_ books (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?261).
--
Ahasuerus
David Johnston
<re...@panix.com> wrote:
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> There's a class of authors I don't read because reading their
>> fictions feels too much like homework. Gene Wolfe is probably the
>> poster child for this set.
>
>> There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
>> on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
>> out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
>
>> Obligatory disclaimer: this is clearly a flaw in me, not them.
>
>> Melissa Scott would be in the second group for me.
>
>> Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
>> love but don't, for some reason?
>
> I'm still unclear on your concept of 'should love'. I can't tell what
>fiction I'm going to love until after I've read it. :)
>
When I read my first book by CJ. Cherryh, I said, "I don't like this
book, but it seems like the author is likely to write something I
would like. So I read another. No dice. But once again, I thought
it was something close to something I would like. I tried a third and
it was about then I realised that she was never going to write
something I would actually like in practice instead of theory.
David Tate
>
> By the way, if you don't like the Vlad
> books, you won't like Brust, period. (You could substitute Miles and Bujold
> into that sentence and it would be roughly as true.)
You think?
I hope you're wrong -- I suspect that my brother would really, really
like the Chalion books, but I know for a fact that he loathes Miles.
It's the *character* Miles he loathes, though -- he simply doesn't want
to be around him, at all.
I can imagine someone not caring at all for Vlad, especially Company
Man Vlad, but loving Khaavren.
David Tate
David Tate
>
> Taste is something utterly unquantifiable except in its grossest form.
> For instance, I absolutely loathe, detest, and despise Rod Stewart--not
> what he sings, but THAT he sings.
Oh, well put. IIRC correctly, my D&D-playing friends cited Stewart as
the best real-life instance of the hypothetical class "Antibard".
David Tate
David Tate
> "David Goldfarb" <gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
> news:ejae67$16eo$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> >
> > very good, but he put out one clunker -- nobody's perfect.
>
> Agreed about Powers. The thing is, I've seen TSoHR praised a lot, so while
> I agree with you about it, I think we're in the minority.
I'll chime in on your side. I really liked _The Anubis Gates_ and
_Last Call_ and _On Stranger Tides_; I didn't much care for TSohR. (I
haven't read any others, and yes I know I need to read _Declare_).
David Tate
David Tate
>
> One of my favorite authors, except for his misuse of sentient to mean
> sapient. Sentient means having senses. A cockroach is sentient, though
> hardly sapient. This is a distinction well worth preserving, and a major
> flaw in a work that hinges on determination of sapience.
IIRC, it was the Star Trek franchise that popularized the incorrect use
of 'sentient'.
(Janet Kagan wrote about the horror of discovering that she had made
this error, *after* the first edition of _Hellspark_ had already been
printed. I believe she corrected it in subsequent editions.)
David Tate
David Tate
>
> I'll chime in on your side. I really liked _The Anubis Gates_ and
> _Last Call_ and _On Stranger Tides_; I didn't much care for TSohR. (I
> haven't read any others,
...except _The Drawing of the Dark_, which was OK. Not sure why I
forgot that one before.
DMT
David Tate
>
> BTW, re James's original post, some people just can't get into my
> stuff. Mostly it's the style.
Perhaps, but for those people you wouldn't *expect* them to like your
stuff. I think James was asking about cases where you have objective
reasons to think you *will* like someone's work, but then don't.
In your case, pretty much any Vance fan can be expected to like your
stuff -- but I'm sure there are some somewhere who don't. They would
be on-topic posters in this thread.
David Tate
David Goldfarb
Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"David Goldfarb" <gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
>news:ejae67$16eo$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
>> very good, but he put out one clunker -- nobody's perfect.
>
>Agreed about Powers. The thing is, I've seen TSoHR praised a lot, so while
>I agree with you about it, I think we're in the minority. (I also didn't
>much care for whichever of ED and EW came out first, and have never read the
>other one.)
Okay, two clunkers. _Expiration Date_ was the one that came out
first. I liked it better than _Stress_, but yeah, it was fairly weak.
I liked _Earthquake Weather_ better, but it was nowhere near _Last
Call_; you might look for it in the used book store.
--
David Goldfarb |"Feeling smug about one's opinions is the very
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | lifeblood of the Net."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Dawn Friedman
Ahasuerus
_The Stress of Her Regard_ may have shared a fatal flaw with
_Expiration Date_: the latter wasn't _Last Call_ and the former wasn't
_The Anubis Gates_.
--
Ahasuerus
David Tate
>
> The Villers books are more or less homogeneous, so if you didn't like
> the first one, then you are not very likely to enjoy the other two.
> OTOH, Retief books were written and rewritten over a period of 3
> decades. If you happened to be unlucky that day and picked up one of
> the post-stroke installments, then it may not have been representative
> of the early, better, stories and you may still like some or all of the
> first 7 volumes in the series
> (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?1478). On the third hand, if you
> liked the idea but were not impressed with Panshin's and (pre-stroke)
> Laumer's execution, you may want to try Walter Jon Williams'
> _Maijstral_ books (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?261).
And just to prove the whole de gustibus thing,
1. I like the Panshin books a lot, as I expected I would
2. I like the first Retief story, "Diplomat at Arms", a lot. It isn't
trying to be funny. The best of the rest is far, far below it on my
list.
3. I should have liked the Maijstral books better than I did. I like
Williams in general, and comedy of manners is my favorite thing -- and
yet, there was just something off about them. It may be a personal
aversion to cowardly protagonists (see "Rincewind"), even in comedy.
David Tate
David Goldfarb
David Tate <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
>I'll chime in on your side. I really liked _The Anubis Gates_ and
>_Last Call_ and _On Stranger Tides_; I didn't much care for TSohR. (I
>haven't read any others, and yes I know I need to read _Declare_).
I don't know that you *need* to read _Declare_. I'd say the three
you mention are Powers' best. (I have a lingering fondness for
_The Drawing of the Dark_, but by any reasonable measure it's
weaker than those.)
--
David Goldfarb | "Oh, death from on high. Neat."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Tom Servo, Mystery Science Theater 3000
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | "Gamera"
Nancy Lebovitz
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <eja88k$p9l$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
>Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> My friends keep recommending Iain M. Banks to me, but I absolutely detest
>>his work. Wild ideas and freaky tricks with language are not substitutes for
>>compelling characters and a plot.
>>
> I stopped being able to finish his books somewhere around DEAD
>AIR (aside from ones I am paid to finish) but I couldn't say why.
>
> His comments about money are able as silly as me disparaging
>the lever as being a symptom of ALS but SF is filled with wacky economics*
>and only freaks and former economists -- but I repeat myself -- would care.
>
>* Like the rampant Norbertism Poul Anderson shows in some of his fiction.
>
Norbertism?
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
http://nancylebov.livejournal.com
My two favorite colors are "Oooooh" and "SHINY!".
Ahasuerus
> 2. I like the first Retief story, "Diplomat at Arms", a lot. It isn't
> trying to be funny. The best of the rest is far, far below it on my list.
Oh, sure, the first Retief story was sui generis and not at all like
the rest of the series, but that goes without saying. The bulk of the
early stories and novels is reasonably enjoyable, though, if you are
into that kind of thing -- see Dani Zweig's Belated Reviews for details
(http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/sf/dani/030.htm). As always,
YMMV, etc.
--
Ahasuerus
Nancy Lebovitz
David Goldfarb <gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>In article <1163457494.9...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>David Tate <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
>>I'll chime in on your side. I really liked _The Anubis Gates_ and
>>_Last Call_ and _On Stranger Tides_; I didn't much care for TSohR. (I
>>haven't read any others, and yes I know I need to read _Declare_).
>
>I don't know that you *need* to read _Declare_. I'd say the three
>you mention are Powers' best. (I have a lingering fondness for
>_The Drawing of the Dark_, but by any reasonable measure it's
>weaker than those.)
_The Drawing of the Dark_ is my favorite Powers. In theory, _The Anubis
Gates_ is his coolest book, but _The Drawing of the Dark_ is the one I've
reread several times and _The Anubis Gates_ is the one I think might be
good to reread someday.
_Declare_ is impressive but creepy. I might reread it someday.
Nancy Lebovitz
Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Matt Hughes" <mhu...@mars.ark.com> wrote in message
>news:1163449193....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>
>>> DeCamp. I like golden age SF, I like humor, I enjoy erudition, but his
>>> books
>>> leave me totally flat.
>>
>> Dragon of the Ishtar Gate,""The Arrows of Hercules," et alia? Some
>> good adventuresome storytelling, in societies much different from ours
>> yet convincingly rendered, and without the lapses into facetiousness
>> that seemed to proliferate in his later books.
>
>I'll keep an eye out for them.
>
>Oh, I left out the one exception: "Judgment Day" is brilliant. I've read
>that the description of a lonely, bookish childhood is autobiographical. It
>shows.
It's the only emotionally intense deCamp story I know of.
Andrew Plotkin
I back-implied this in my previous post, but I'll say it: I thought
_Stress_ was great. At least as good as _Anubis Gates_, if not better.
The flaw in _Stress_, which I only pinned down when I re-read it last
month, is that the focus swings off the protagonist for a long stretch
near the end. (Byron and Shelley run around Venice without our hero.)
Other than that, it's got everything: horrific imagery, quantum
physics, chase scenes, despair, hope, and a thoroughly tangible sense
of the menace, inescapability, horror, and allure of vampiric
infection.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
If the Bush administration hasn't shipped you to Syria for interrogation, it's
for one reason: they don't feel like it. Not because of the Eighth Amendment.
Dorothy J Heydt
And for my part, _TDotD_ is the only Powers I've read and it's
left me utterly determined never to read any more. Like the
curate's egg, parts of it were excellent, or at least (as you
say) OK, but the basic premise ... that the fate of the western
world depends on a vat of beer ... left me completely disgusted.
Andrew Wheeler
>
> There's a class of authors I don't read because reading their
> fictions feels too much like homework. Gene Wolfe is probably the
> poster child for this set.
>
> There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
> on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
> out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
>
> Obligatory disclaimer: this is clearly a flaw in me, not them.
>
> Melissa Scott would be in the second group for me.
>
> Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
> love but don't, for some reason?
Given the things I do like (Gene Wolfe, Haruki Murakami, Don DeLillo,
etc.), I should really enjoy Avram Davidson and R.A. Lafferty. Both have
always left me cold.
--
Andrew Wheeler: Professional Editor, Amateur Wise-Acre
--
If you enjoyed this post, try my blog at
http://antickmusings.blogspot.com
If you hated this post, you probably have bad taste anyway.
Howard Brazee
Nicoll) wrote:
>>Taste is something utterly unquantifiable except in its grossest form.
>>For instance, I absolutely loathe, detest, and despise Rod Stewart--not
>>what he sings, but THAT he sings. Yet I really enjoy Kim Carnes, who
>>is, for all intents and purposes, a female version of that Rod Stewart
>>non-voice. Go figure.
>>
> For me the most problematic musician is the late Roy Orbison.
>I love his voice. I hate his taste in music. As a result, I own a
>bunch of RO CDs but I skip over a lot of the songs.
There are some artists that I avoid - and are often surprised. The
poster child for this is Robin Williams. I will avoid him as much as
I can, but have liked some of his movies very much.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>When I read my first book by CJ. Cherryh, I said, "I don't like this
>book, but it seems like the author is likely to write something I
>would like. So I read another. No dice. But once again, I thought
>it was something close to something I would like. I tried a third and
>it was about then I realised that she was never going to write
>something I would actually like in practice instead of theory.
Seconded.
William Hyde
Pete Granzeau wrote:
> On 13 Nov 2006 16:32:41 GMT, na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <eja4qb$dkr$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> >James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> There's a class of authors I don't read because reading their
> >>fictions feels too much like homework. Gene Wolfe is probably the
> >>poster child for this set.
> >>
> >> There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
> >>on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
> >>out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
> >>
>
> I found some of the Wolfe books difficult to read, but found myself
> enjoying, oh, say, _There Are Doors_, _Free Live Free_, and the recent
> fantasy pair. The New Sun and Long Sun books, however, are completely
> opaque to me.
And I was going to recommend to James that he ignore "Free Live Free"
and a few other works, and start with the Long Sun (I seem to recall
that
he started the New Sun and didn't like it).
I found the Long Sun books compelling, and read them every spare
moment
until I finshed them. I did start the New Sun books rather slowly back
in 1984,
but on a reread I found I couldn't put them down. Cost me a lot of
sleep.
On the other hand I disliked "Urth of the New Sun", and stalled 2/3 of
the
way through the first Short Sun book.
>
> Brust, however, is one of my "buy and read immediately"
Same here. I liked "Brokedown Palace" when I first read it, and even
more on a recent reread.
William Hyde
Kat R
Because it's a much less pretentious book than Last Call? Don't get me
wrong: I enjoyed both books, but Last Call occasionally gives me the
sense that Powers was trying very hard to recreate and exceed the oddity
of his earlier books, while Drawing of the Dark feels effortless and
loved, even if flawed.
--
Kat Richardson
Greywalker (Roc, 2006)
Website: http://www.katrichardson.com/
Bloggery: http://katrich.wordpress.com/
Howard Brazee
Lebovitz) wrote:
>H. Beam Piper, except for _Little Fuzzy_. He's the sort of golden age
>writer I should have at least liked, but there was a complete failure
>to click.
He's one of the authors that I found each book to be less satisfying
than the past.
Same thing with that author who has a character with a mechanical
horse on a way future magical planet.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>One of my favorite authors, except for his misuse of sentient to mean
>sapient. Sentient means having senses. A cockroach is sentient, though
>hardly sapient. This is a distinction well worth preserving, and a major
>flaw in a work that hinges on determination of sapience.
Although we don't use "sapient" to mean wise, or thinking - we mean it
to mean "who thinks the way people do", as a way to say how special we
are.
Mark
Mike Schilling wrote:
> "David Goldfarb" <gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
> news:ejae67$16eo$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> > Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >><art...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1163438935....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>>
> >>> While I love TIm Power and Sean Stewart I could not finish
> >>> The NiIght Watch (I tried twice)
> >>> The Stress of Her Regard
> >>
> >>care
> >>for it the first time. No go, it still seems pointless and overwrought,
> >>and
> >>invokes the eight deadly words.
> >
> > I finished it once, but doubt I will ever do so again. Powers is
> > very good, but he put out one clunker -- nobody's perfect.
>
> Agreed about Powers. The thing is, I've seen TSoHR praised a lot, so while
> much care for whichever of ED and EW came out first, and have never read the
> other one.)
Huh. This is interesting to me as I generally dislike fantasy, but I
never miss a Powers novel. I quite liked TSoHR, as well as LAST CALL
and EXPIRATION DATE (haven't read EW yet.) The earlier stuff doesn't
grab me, but he just keeps getting weirder and it's a bit addictive. I
think if there's one Powers novel that left me flat it was DINNER AT
THE DEVIANT'S PALACE.
Mark
author of:
THE SECANTIS SEQUENCE
REMAINS
www.marktiedemann.com
Aaron Denney
>
> Remus Shepherd wrote:
>
>> What really turns me off is how some authors -- Robert Forward comes to mind --
>> get all the details right but can't make me care about the characters or
>> story.
>
> Eh? Forward does not, repeat NOT, get all the details right. What he
> does is get it enough right that a lot of people can accept it as
> right, which is all you really need, and one of the great tricks of
> science fiction writing. It's also valuable in techno-thrillers; Tom
> Clancy was a master of the craft of convincing you that he'd gotten it
> all right.
So, uh, what did he get wrong?
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
Mike Schilling
"David Tate" <dt...@ida.org> wrote in message
news:1163456737.8...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>>
>> By the way, if you don't like the Vlad
>> books, you won't like Brust, period. (You could substitute Miles and
>> Bujold
>> into that sentence and it would be roughly as true.)
>
> You think?
>
> I hope you're wrong -- I suspect that my brother would really, really
> like the Chalion books, but I know for a fact that he loathes Miles.
> It's the *character* Miles he loathes, though -- he simply doesn't want
> to be around him, at all.
Um, OK. Mileage varies in all directions.
But if you don't like the *kind* of book the Miles books are, you won't like
Chalion, because both of them are what Bujold does when she's at her best..
> I can imagine someone not caring at all for Vlad, especially Company
> Man Vlad, but loving Khaavren.
I guess I'm not empathizing because I'm not particularly sensitive to
whether I like that characters or not. In fact, one of the few major
criticisms I'd make of the Khaavren books is that Brust made Pel a Good Guy,
which Aramis definitely is not, and one of the strengths of the Musketeer
books, for me, is that it's about the friendship of four very different and
imperfect men.
Nancy Lebovitz
Mike Schilling
> In article <1163457494.9...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> David Tate <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
>>I'll chime in on your side. I really liked _The Anubis Gates_ and
>>_Last Call_ and _On Stranger Tides_; I didn't much care for TSohR. (I
>>haven't read any others, and yes I know I need to read _Declare_).
>
> I don't know that you *need* to read _Declare_. I'd say the three
> you mention are Powers' best. (I have a lingering fondness for
> _The Drawing of the Dark_, but by any reasonable measure it's
> weaker than those.)
We're all leaving out _On Stranger Tides_, which is far less tortured than
TSoHR, more like a minor version of TaG.
Nancy Lebovitz
Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>> There's a class of authors I don't read because reading their
>> fictions feels too much like homework. Gene Wolfe is probably the
>> poster child for this set.
>>
>> There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
>> on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
>> out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
>>
>> Obligatory disclaimer: this is clearly a flaw in me, not them.
>>
>> Melissa Scott would be in the second group for me.
>>
>> Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
>> love but don't, for some reason?
>
>Given the things I do like (Gene Wolfe, Haruki Murakami, Don DeLillo,
>etc.), I should really enjoy Avram Davidson and R.A. Lafferty. Both have
>always left me cold.
I don't see Davidson and Lafferty as anything like Wolfe. I've only
read a little Murakami and don't remember it and haven't read DeLillo
at all.
I can't think of any other writer as being much like Davidson--I like
some of his work, but sometimes it just seems like bibble-bibble-bibble,
as though he's fascinated with piling up quantities of literate weirdness
with no narrative.
Lafferty is in the tall tale tradition--the only other writers I can
think of who do that aren't in the genre, though there's no reason
why they shouldn't be. There's Mark Helprin (_A Winter's Tale_) and
Laura Esquivel (_Like Water for Chocolate_).
David Tate
>
> Given the things I do like (Gene Wolfe, Haruki Murakami, Don DeLillo,
> etc.), I should really enjoy Avram Davidson and R.A. Lafferty. Both have
> always left me cold.
Good examples. If you don't mind my asking, is it the *same* thing
about both that leaves you cold?
(Sounds like I need to track down some Murakami and DeLillo...)
How do you feel about Jack Vance?
David Tate
David Tate
Kat R wrote:
> David Tate wrote:
> > David Tate wrote:
> >> I'll chime in on your side. I really liked _The Anubis Gates_ and
> >> _Last Call_ and _On Stranger Tides_; I didn't much care for TSohR. (I
> >> haven't read any others,
> >
> > ...except _The Drawing of the Dark_, which was OK. Not sure why I
> > forgot that one before.
> >
> > DMT
> >
> Because it's a much less pretentious book than Last Call?
No, because it's a much less polished book than Last Call. (Or than
Anubis or Tides).
There were half a dozen spots in TDotD where I was yanked out of the
narrative to think "Oops, that was awkward. First novel?"
(Besides, it's only pretentious if you can't pull it off.)
> Don't get me
> wrong: I enjoyed both books, but Last Call occasionally gives me the
> sense that Powers was trying very hard to recreate and exceed the oddity
> of his earlier books, while Drawing of the Dark feels effortless and
> loved, even if flawed.
The ending was somewhat anticlimactic for me (IIRC -- it hasn't stuck
in my mind, which is part of why I know I didn't like it as well). But
then, Last Call isn't my favorite either -- that's probably The Anubis
Gates.
I know that my lack of enthusiasm for TDotD seems to be a minority
opinion among Powers fans. I do own a copy, and I will re-read it one
of these days.
David Tate
Marilee J. Layman
<erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>Here, David Goldfarb <gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> In article <Ov26h.9191$yl4....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
>> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> ><art...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1163438935....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> While I love TIm Power and Sean Stewart I could not finish
>> >> The NiIght Watch (I tried twice)
>> >> The Stress of Her Regard
>> >
>> >I did finish TSoHR. Even re-read it, to try to figure out why I didn't care
>> >for it the first time. No go, it still seems pointless and overwrought, and
>> >invokes the eight deadly words.
>>
>> I finished it once, but doubt I will ever do so again. Powers is
>> very good, but he put out one clunker --
>
>-- which was _Expiration Date_, and also _Earthquake Weather_.
Not _Dinner at Deviant's Palace_? When I tell people I don't like
Powers because I read that, they always tell me it's his worst book.
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>
>David Tate wrote:
>
>> So far, M. John Harrison seems like my closest match. I finished the
>> first Viriconium novel (or novelet?), thinking all the while that I
>> should have been enjoying it more than I actually did. I started the
>> second, and never quite got around to finishing it.
>>
>> Based on trusted recommendations and general type, I ought to love P.C.
>> Hodgell's books, but I bogged down in the middle of the series and
>> don't expect to get back to it.
>
>With the whomping exception of _Ash_, I can't read any of Mary Gentle's
>books, despite the fact that they strongly resemble the type of book
>I'd devour in a heartbeat. But they just stymie me.
She just finished the prequel.
Konrad Gaertner
>
> I guess I'm not empathizing because I'm not particularly sensitive to
> whether I like that characters or not. In fact, one of the few major
> criticisms I'd make of the Khaavren books is that Brust made Pel a Good Guy,
> which Aramis definitely is not, and one of the strengths of the Musketeer
> books, for me, is that it's about the friendship of four very different and
> imperfect men.
YMV. One of the things I liked about Khaavren & co. was that Brust
made them likable, unlike all those violent idiots Dumas was
writing about.
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - - - email: gae...@aol.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll
JJ Karhu
<re...@panix.com> wrote:
> I'm still unclear on your concept of 'should love'. I can't tell what
>fiction I'm going to love until after I've read it. :)
>
> My friends keep recommending Iain M. Banks to me, but I absolutely detest
>his work. Wild ideas and freaky tricks with language are not substitutes for
>compelling characters and a plot.
>
>into Herbert's writing. I suppose that one is puzzling, as I love most of
>the SF grand masters' stuff.
Paging Tina Hall . . .
// JJ
JJ Karhu
Heydt) wrote:
>(Or the usedbookstore. I find it exceedingly difficult to just
>throw books away, no matter how bad. I've put a few in the paper
>recycling bin, though, over the years, ones that I didn't think
>ANYbody should have the misfortune of reading. The last one was
>called "Three Black Skirts" and propounded the thesis that a
>woman's wardrobe should have at its core three black skirts: a
>long one for formal dress, a knee-length for work, and an
>ultramini for when you're looking to get laid. Ms. Book met Ms.
>Bin.)
I'm pretty sure I'm skirting on the edges of disaster here . . . but
why?
Could you please describe *why* this observation was so off the mark,
just for the benefit of any male who would dare to write random pieces
about woman characters? :)
All this may seem obvious to you, women, but please don your sci-fi
hats and make like you are explaining it to an alien :)
// JJ -- an alien
Andrew Plotkin
That was the first Powers I read, by many years. (And I read it
because it was sci-fi in the library, not because anybody told me the
book or the author was worthwhile.) And I liked it. It had weird and
it had creepy, and both of those ramped up throughout the book. More
than that -- the scenario was very strange, but apparently natural to
the protagonist, and then the protagonist learned more and more about
how weird it was. This trick impressed me, although I didn't know
enough to articulate it that way at the time.
As is usual for me, if I liked a book when I was young, I remember it
fondly. But I haven't gone back to reread it, as I have with all the
rest of the Powers that I enjoyed.
I think _Deviant_ is better than the early two Powers novels (_The
Skies Discrowned_, _Forsake the Sky_, and _Epitaph of Rust_) (I forget
which of those titles is redundant). It's not a clunker.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
If the Bush administration hasn't subjected you to searches without a warrant,
it's for one reason: they don't feel like it. Not because you're innocent.
JJ Karhu
wrote:
When I read my first book by C.J. Cherryh (Cyteen) I realized that I
had an entirely insufficient grading scheme for books.
After I had read "Cyteen" I had the new high mark for scifi which made
everything else pale in comparison.
All those Clarke and Asimov and Heinlein books seemed like amateur
wannabes in comparison.
After several years, there have been many books which have tickled my
fancy in almost the same way. Some of them were by Cherryh, some were
by Hamilton et al.
But still, Cyteen is the book I re-read the most.
// JJ -- oh boy, your mileage will vary . . .
Peter Meilinger
> "David Tate" <dt...@ida.org> wrote in message
> news:1163456737.8...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Mike Schilling wrote:
> >>
> >> By the way, if you don't like the Vlad
> >> books, you won't like Brust, period. (You could substitute Miles and
> >> Bujold
> >> into that sentence and it would be roughly as true.)
> >
> > You think?
> >
> > I hope you're wrong -- I suspect that my brother would really, really
> > like the Chalion books, but I know for a fact that he loathes Miles.
> > It's the *character* Miles he loathes, though -- he simply doesn't want
> > to be around him, at all.
>
> Um, OK. Mileage varies in all directions.
Yep. I'm in the middle, I guess. I don't loathe Miles, but
I don't like him nearly as much as he probably thinks he
deserves. Even at his best he's got more than a bit of
the annoying asshole about him, but the plots and
the other characters are enough to make up for what
I don't like about him. Well, usually.
> But if you don't like the *kind* of book the Miles books are, you won't like
> Chalion, because both of them are what Bujold does when she's at her best..
I don't know about that, but I suppose it depends on how we define
"best," and how broadly we define "kind of book." Personally, I
could easily believe someone who doesn't like the Miles books
at all enjoying Chalion quite a bit.
That hypothetical person would probably enjoy at least parts of
more than a few of the Miles books, too, if they gave them a chance,
but I would certainly understand if they didn't feel like giving them
that chance.
Pete
James Nicoll
Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <eja9p9$adr$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <eja88k$p9l$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
>>Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> My friends keep recommending Iain M. Banks to me, but I absolutely detest
>>>his work. Wild ideas and freaky tricks with language are not substitutes for
>>>compelling characters and a plot.
>>>
>>AIR (aside from ones I am paid to finish) but I couldn't say why.
>>
>> His comments about money are able as silly as me disparaging
>>the lever as being a symptom of ALS but SF is filled with wacky economics*
>>and only freaks and former economists -- but I repeat myself -- would care.
>>
>>* Like the rampant Norbertism Poul Anderson shows in some of his fiction.
>>
>Norbertism?
Norbert Weiner thought that improved automation could only
lead to general poverty:
"Let us remember that the automatic machine, whatever we think of any
feelings it may have or may not have, is the precise economic equivalent
of slave labor. Any labor which competes with slave labor must accept the
economic conditions of slave labor."
and
"It is perfectly clear that this will produce an unemployment situation,
in comparison with which the present recession and even the depression
of the thirties will seem a pleasant joke."
This turns up in Anderson's fiction in the late '50s and
early '60s, where entire populations have been cast into permanent
unemployment by the tyranny of the machine.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Dorothy J Heydt
Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I guess I'm not empathizing because I'm not particularly sensitive to
>whether I like that characters or not. In fact, one of the few major
>criticisms I'd make of the Khaavren books is that Brust made Pel a Good Guy,
>which Aramis definitely is not, and one of the strengths of the Musketeer
>books, for me, is that it's about the friendship of four very different and
>imperfect men.
Well, don't forget that Pel is a Yendi. So that you can seldom
make a definite decision whether he's a Good Guy or not. Also
consider that after the Disaster he spent quite a lot of time
working for the would-be usurper ... until Zerika recovered the
Orb, at which point he switched sides quicker than the cat can
lick her ear. He is not, in other words, an honest politician.
Dorothy J Heydt
OK, this is probably more a specific me thing than a generalized
woman thing. I don't think going around to find random people to
get laid by is a good thing. A book that assumes that everyone
who reads it has as one of her primary goals, the frequent
acquisition of sex partners, does not have me as its target
audience.
There are probably many women around who will disagree with me
and agree with the book's author, and maybe some of them will
comment.
Dorothy J Heydt
Stasheff. I can't read him any more either. The first book was
not so very terrible; it went downhill from there.
Bill Patterson
James Nicoll
> Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
> love but don't, for some reason?
Generally anyone trying to write a Heinlein pastiche (or what the
authors often think of as an "homage") sets my teeth on edige. There
are some exceptions.
However, that was only thrown in to qualify as a "class." What
prompted this reply was the curious fact that I could not for a long
time read LeGuin; I don't mean that I didn't like it -- I mean the
words went up and didn't parse into anything at all, didn't stick
around long enough to grasp the sense. Now this was very startling to
me aet. 18 (I think it was Rhiannon I discovered this).
Years later The Dispossessed became one of my very favorite books and I
haven't had the same trouble since -- even went back and re-read the
Rhiannon book without trouble. Except that I didn't find the situation
or chafacters very interesting. Clearly the fault was in me, and it's
only happened once or twice in a lifetime of reading -- but a very
strange experience.
David Tate
> In article <ejatkh$3ma$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >Norbertism?
>
> Norbert Weiner thought that improved automation could only
> lead to general poverty:
>
> "Let us remember that the automatic machine, whatever we think of any
> feelings it may have or may not have, is the precise economic equivalent
> of slave labor. Any labor which competes with slave labor must accept the
> economic conditions of slave labor."
ObNit: Norbert Wiener.
[...]
> This turns up in Anderson's fiction in the late '50s and
> early '60s, where entire populations have been cast into permanent
> unemployment by the tyranny of the machine.
Not to mention being the central focus of Vonnegut's _Player Piano_.
Vonnegut at least considered the possibility that the productivity
increases would lead to *affluent* unemployment for the masses. Not
that that turns out any better...
David Tate
James Nicoll
David Tate <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
>James Nicoll wrote:
>> In article <ejatkh$3ma$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
>> Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >Norbertism?
>>
>> Norbert Weiner thought that improved automation could only
>> lead to general poverty:
>>
>> "Let us remember that the automatic machine, whatever we think of any
>> feelings it may have or may not have, is the precise economic equivalent
>> of slave labor. Any labor which competes with slave labor must accept the
>> economic conditions of slave labor."
>
>ObNit: Norbert Wiener.
>
>[...]
Ah, crap. See my LJ for my infallible method for spotting spelling
errors [1].
>> This turns up in Anderson's fiction in the late '50s and
>> early '60s, where entire populations have been cast into permanent
>> unemployment by the tyranny of the machine.
>
>Not to mention being the central focus of Vonnegut's _Player Piano_.
>Vonnegut at least considered the possibility that the productivity
>increases would lead to *affluent* unemployment for the masses. Not
>that that turns out any better...
>
Not totally certain Vonnegut is the go-to guy for conventionally
happy endings.
1: I hit send and then look at what I just posted.
Rich Horton
Nicoll) wrote:
> There's a class of authors I don't read because reading their
>fictions feels too much like homework. Gene Wolfe is probably the
>poster child for this set.
>
> There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
>on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
>out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
>
> Obligatory disclaimer: this is clearly a flaw in me, not them.
>
> Melissa Scott would be in the second group for me.
>
> Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
>love but don't, for some reason?
One suggestion -- one reason for this may be a quality of the prose.
Sometimes I have a hard time reading writers simply because I find
their prose offputting. This doesn't necessarily mean their prose is
BAD -- just that some quirk of the rhythm perhaps just doesn't quite
work -- perhaps only for a specific reader.
Indeed I think Melissa Scott is one such for me -- I can't reader her
either.
George Zebrowski is another -- I simply find his prose too hard to
struggle through.
Rich Horton
>James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>> There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
>> on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
>> out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
>>
>> Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
>> love but don't, for some reason?
>
>Great question, James.
>
>So far, M. John Harrison seems like my closest match. I finished the
>first Viriconium novel (or novelet?), thinking all the while that I
>should have been enjoying it more than I actually did. I started the
>second, and never quite got around to finishing it.
>
>Based on trusted recommendations and general type, I ought to love P.C.
>Hodgell's books, but I bogged down in the middle of the series and
>don't expect to get back to it.
I did not really much like _Dark of the Moon_ and I've not yet tried
Hodgell again. I was simply too lost throughout. Very likely my fault,
but what can you do?
James Nicoll
Thankfully, in GZ's case, the degree to which I hate his stories
and world-building more than distract me from the prose.
Mike Schilling
"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:J8pBq...@kithrup.com...
But he is 100% loyal to Khaavren and his other friends, and subordinates his
ambition to that loyalty.
Actually, the would-be usurper isn't a Bad Guy [1], and if the Orb had been
lost for good, an Empire under him wouldn't be evil compared to continued
anarchy. It's only when the Orb was recovered that it became clear that the
right choice was Zerika.
1. Especially compared to spoiler and spolier.
gary hayenga
> In article <Ov26h.9191$yl4....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <art...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1163438935....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>
>>> While I love TIm Power and Sean Stewart I could not finish
>>> The NiIght Watch (I tried twice)
>>> The Stress of Her Regard
>>
>> I did finish TSoHR. Even re-read it, to try to figure out why I didn't
>> care for it the first time. No go, it still seems pointless and
>> overwrought, and invokes the eight deadly words.
>
> I finished it once, but doubt I will ever do so again. Powers is
> very good, but he put out one clunker -- nobody's perfect.
>
> In terms of the larger thread, I've posted about this one before: Cherryh.
> Lots of people whom I greatly respect adore Cherryh but I can't read
> her work at all.
> Something about the way she writes prose just runs counter to the way
> I read. You know how some people write prose that hooks you and
> pulls you forward through the story? Heinlein had that knack; Brust
> and Duane have it; Niven used to but then he lost it. It's a rare
> and valuable talent (and of course is a place where mileage can
> strongly vary). Cherryh has the opposite: her prose actively impedes
> my reading so that getting through the story is a slog.
>
> The above is untrue of enough people that she's won Hugo awards, but
> I know that I'm not alone. (Pat Wrede has written articulately about
> the phenomenon on rec.arts.sf.composition, for instance.)
But the thing about C.J. Cherryh is that her prose, and her style, is
radically different from book to book.
I adore a lot of what C.J. Cherryh writes. _The Pride of Chanur_ and
sequels, _Merchanters Luck_, _Cuckoo's Egg_, _The Paladin_. (one style)
Some I merely like. _RimRunners_ and sequels, the Morgaine books, the
Foreigner books, the Fortress in the Eye books. (a completely
different style)
Others I simply bounce off the prose. _Cyteen_ and _Downbelow Station_
(hugo winners) I have never been able to finish. (style complete
unlike any of the other previously mentioned.
The Faded Sun trilogy and a few others in that style. I finished them
and I still regret it.
Rusalka and the other russian fairly tale books. I cannot read them at all.
So right there, off the top of my head, are 5 completely different
styles. Two of which I really, really like, and three I can't stand.
Plus many other books that are less distinctively styled. The
Merovingian Nights books.
The key here is that many people whose opinion I respect a lot think
that the ones I just bounce off of are some of the their favorite books
of all time.
gary hayenga
Mike Schilling
"Bill Patterson" <WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163477203.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Generally anyone trying to write a Heinlein pastiche (or what the
> authors often think of as an "homage") sets my teeth on edige. There
> are some exceptions.
What do you think of Sladek's Heinlein parody?
Unlike most of Sladek's parodies, it doesn't work for me. It's specifically
a take-off of "Let There Be Light", which reads to me like it's already a
parody of pre-Golden Age SF mixed with a hard-boiled detective story.
gary hayenga
> In article <1163440292.5...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> David Tate <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
>> James Nicoll wrote:
>>>
>>> There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
>>> on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
>>> out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
>>>
>>> Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
>>> love but don't, for some reason?
>>
>> Great question, James.
>>
>> So far, M. John Harrison seems like my closest match. I finished the
>> first Viriconium novel (or novelet?), thinking all the while that I
>> should have been enjoying it more than I actually did. I started the
>> second, and never quite got around to finishing it.
>>
>> Based on trusted recommendations and general type, I ought to love P.C.
>> Hodgell's books, but I bogged down in the middle of the series and
>> don't expect to get back to it.
>>
> The latest one isn't a bad jumping on place. I read it as
> the SFBC's designated canary and I am happy to say I am not on the
> bottom of my cage, feet up.
I would have to agree. _God Stalk_ is one of my favorite books of all
time. _Dark of the Moon_ wasn't bad, but much darker and more
convoluted and just not as much fun. _Seekers Mask_ , though I was
very glad to see it when it finally came out, went even further in that
direction and was the weakest of the three. _To Ride a Rathorn_ was
much better. Nowhere near as good as _God Stalk_ of course, but better
than both of the other too.
gary hayenga
Jim Lovejoy
It seemed to me that in at least some of Anderson's stories, the unemployed
were *affluent* unemployed. But because this stripped even more purpose
from their lives (ie the purpose of trying to survive), they ended up as
*unhappy affluent*.
htn963
> Mike Schilling wrote:
> > "David Tate" <dt...@ida.org> wrote in message
> > news:1163456737.8...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > Mike Schilling wrote:
> > >>
> > >> By the way, if you don't like the Vlad
> > >> books, you won't like Brust, period. (You could substitute Miles and
> > >> Bujold
> > >> into that sentence and it would be roughly as true.)
> > >
> > > You think?
> > >
> > > I hope you're wrong -- I suspect that my brother would really, really
> > > like the Chalion books, but I know for a fact that he loathes Miles.
> > > It's the *character* Miles he loathes, though -- he simply doesn't want
> > > to be around him, at all.
> >
> > Um, OK. Mileage varies in all directions.
>
> Yep. I'm in the middle, I guess. I don't loathe Miles, but
> I don't like him nearly as much as he probably thinks he
> deserves. Even at his best he's got more than a bit of
> the annoying asshole about him,
Which explains why so many annoying assholes in this newsgroup
likes him. Like likes like.
> but the plots and
> the other characters are enough to make up for what
> I don't like about him. Well, usually.
For me, his only redeeming connection is his mother, Cordelia.
--
Ht
htn963
James Nicoll wrote:
> There's a class of authors I don't read because reading their
> fictions feels too much like homework. Gene Wolfe is probably the
> poster child for this set.
Except that homework, unlike reading Wolfe, is supposed to serve a
contructive purpose.
> There's a second set, one that is far more puzzling, because
> on a first glance they have every feature I look for in fiction with-
> out any of the ones I avoid and yet I cannot finish their books.
>
> Obligatory disclaimer: this is clearly a flaw in me, not them.
No, it's them. Authors serve readers, not vice versa. Never
forget that.
> Melissa Scott would be in the second group for me.
Who her?
> Does anyone else have a set of authors whose work they should
> love but don't, for some reason?
I enjoy horror in purple prose, but H.P. Lovecraft always strikes
me as more hilarious and pathetic than scary or profound, even in a
kitsch way.
I like offbeat and dark SF tales with anti-heroic characters (like
the stuff Vance and Tanith Lee do) but add me to the list of those who
balked at Brust.
I think I'll be attracted to space operas that operates on grand
vistas and takes ideas far and beyond, but have never felt compelled to
finish anything by Banks, Hamilton, Doc Smith, and a host of others
(including the BAEN hacks) too numerous to mentioned. Instead I wind
up reading Vinge and Asimov, and a few others not as so prolific.
Perhaps, along the lines R. Shepard noted, the small stuff like
characterization and ideas for me ultimately outweighs in importance
the vast settings.
--
Ht
r.r...@thevine.net
(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>In article <Ov26h.9191$yl4....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
>Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>><art...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1163438935....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>
>>> While I love TIm Power and Sean Stewart I could not finish
>>> The NiIght Watch (I tried twice)
>>> The Stress of Her Regard
>>
>>I did finish TSoHR. Even re-read it, to try to figure out why I didn't care
>>for it the first time. No go, it still seems pointless and overwrought, and
>>invokes the eight deadly words.
>
>I finished it once, but doubt I will ever do so again. Powers is
>very good, but he put out one clunker -- nobody's perfect.
>
>In terms of the larger thread, I've posted about this one before: Cherryh.
>Lots of people whom I greatly respect adore Cherryh but I can't read
>her work at all.
>
>Something about the way she writes prose just runs counter to the way
>I read. You know how some people write prose that hooks you and
>pulls you forward through the story? Heinlein had that knack; Brust
>and Duane have it; Niven used to but then he lost it. It's a rare
>and valuable talent (and of course is a place where mileage can
>strongly vary). Cherryh has the opposite: her prose actively impedes
>my reading so that getting through the story is a slog.
>
While I have the opposite reaction. I love Cherryh's prose, and found
it difficult to get through Duane's. I tried Book of Night with Moon
(which has all the elements that I should like) and just could not get
into it. Finished the book, but have never had an inclination to pick
up any more Duane. Heinlein just rubs me the wrong way, and while I
like Brust's Brokedown Palace and what I read of the Taltos books, I
detest and loathe the Phoenix Guard books.
Another author that I should like and just don't: Bakker. I started
on _The Darkness that Comes Before_, and whenever I pick up the book
and actually read it, I really like the ideas and what I can see of
the characters, plot, world-building, etc. And every time I put it
down, I am entirely uninspired to ever pick it up again.
Rebecca
Dorothy J Heydt
htn963 <htn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>James Nicoll wrote:
>
>> Melissa Scott would be in the second group for me.
>
> Who her?
Her, a writer who writes pretty good science fiction rather well,
except I personally can't read most of it. (Too much sex, too
explicit, too off-the-beaten-path. I freely acknowledge that
this is a me issue, not a general one. James, what's your
objection to her?"
r.r...@thevine.net
Nicoll) wrote:
>"It is perfectly clear that this will produce an unemployment situation,
>in comparison with which the present recession and even the depression
>of the thirties will seem a pleasant joke."
>
> This turns up in Anderson's fiction in the late '50s and
>early '60s, where entire populations have been cast into permanent
>unemployment by the tyranny of the machine.
And the reason that people in this story don't just stop using
automated labor is?
Rebecca