"Quintessential" sci-fi
Fletch
I'm getting back into SF after about a 10 year hiatus, and I'd like some
recommendations on what authors or works are commonly considered to be the
cornerstones of the genre. I've read the authors obvious to me: Asimov,
Benford, Brin, Clarke, Heinlein, Herbert, Pohl, Bova, Kim Stanley Robinson,
some Stephenson, Niven, and probably a few others I've forgotten. I just
read _Revelation Space_, and I'm about to start _Manifold Time_.
Aside from these, what authors/titles are must reads? I'm open to most
sub-genres.
Luna
"Fletch" <Fle...@notgivingspammersmyemail.com> wrote:
To that list I'd add Philip K. Dick and Theodore Sturgeon, simply because I
love them. Oh, and more Pohl.
--
-Michelle Levin (Luna)
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
http://www.mindspring.com/~designbyluna
Anthony Nance
From your list above, it appears that the 'S' in SF is tuned more to
'Science' than the broader 'Speculative'. This is absolutely fine,
of course, least of all because it helps target the recommendations.
If so, many here would suggest Vernor Vinge, especially his most recent
two novels "A Fire Upon the Deep" and "A Deepness In The Sky", and typically
in that order, the publication order. I don't know if it matters. While
they are set in the same universe, 'Deepness' takes place thousands of
years _earlier_ than 'Fire'.
Many works by Poul Anderson certainly fit this slant as well, including
'Brain Wave', 'After Doomsday', and 'Tau Zero'. Anderson also wrote
a lot of Space Opera and Fantasy, if you end up looking for others by
him (and if it matters).
For neat environments/ecologies and/or world-building, Brian W. Aldiss
has some strong entries, including Non-Stop (aka Starship) and The Long
Afternoon of Earth.
You may also want to use Google to search this newsgroup's archives
for threads entitled The Novels of <Author Name Here>, where such
names as Greg Egan and Hal Clement come to mind.
More in a Fantasy direction (generally - he has written a ton of stuff),
Jack Vance is considered a craftsman as a writer. Usually recommended
is his Dying Earth series/collection. Less Fantastic by him would be
his Demon Princes series/collection, as well as 'To Live Forever'
and 'Emphyrio'.
In a decidedly Fantasy direction (of the weird-things-happen and/or
has-strange-powers variety, but decidedly not of the magic-talking-horsie
or go-on-a-quest variety) I would highly recommend Roger Zelazny. Usually
put forth as exemplary are 'Lord of Light', 'This Immortal' (aka '...And
Call Me Conrad'), and the first five books of the Amber series. Personally,
I greatly enjoy 'Creatures of Light and Darkness', and 'Doorways in the Sand'.
I also have a soft spot for 'A Night in the Lonesome October', although that
is less acclaimed.
Just the thoughts off the top of my head,
Tony
Fletch
Space Merchants_.
"Luna" <luna...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lunachick-65D7D...@news04.east.earthlink.net...
Mike Schilling
"Fletch" <Fle...@notgivingspammersmyemail.com> wrote in message
news:vora39o...@corp.supernews.com...
> Any particular Pohl? I've read _Beyond the Blue Event Horizon_,
But not _Gateway_ (the first and by far best in the series)?
Fletch
more with the "Science" in SF. How would you characterize "speculative"
works? What would you suggest as an intro to that genre?
"Anthony Nance" <na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:bmk1ug$ree$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
Fletch
time ago, but it's probably worth a re-read.
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yMhjb.114$wB2.21...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Rosanne
Fle...@notgivingspammersmyemail.com says...
> Thanks for the thorough reply. My experience to date has definitely been
> more with the "Science" in SF. How would you characterize "speculative"
> works? What would you suggest as an intro to that genre?
>
I think "speculative" is a broader category, designed to include
traditional science fiction and fantasy, plus all of the works that fall
somewhere in the middle.
Here are some authors that I follow. I hope this helps - these are
mostly the folks whose books I'll by just because their name is on the
jacket (and stay up way too late, just to finish a chapter).
Traditional sci-fi:
C.J. Cherryh (the Foreigner series, the Cyteen trilogy. She crosses
subcategories into fantasy, from what I understand. These two are
pretty straight sci-fi)
Marti Steussy (I wish she'd write more books - I've only read a couple:
"Forest of the Night" and "Dreams of Dawn")
Janet Kagan ("Mirabile" and "Uhura's Song")
Diane Carey (mostly Star Trek - VERY well-written. I'm not a "buy
everything Star Trek" sort of person)
(Old) Apocalypse:
George R. Stewart "The Earth Abides"
Pat Frank "Alas, Babylon"
Space Opera:
Sharon Lee and Steve Miller (The Liaden books)
David Weber (The Honor Harrington books, "Path of the Fury", heck, most
of what he writes).
Lois McMaster Bujold (the Vorkosigan books, mostly)
Humor:
Esther Friesner (just about anything she writes, I'll read...)
Fantasy:
Tanya Huff (just about everything)
Mercedes Lackey (just about everything)
Anne McCaffrey (" ")
Andre Norton (definitely considered a "quintessential" in the fantasy
area. I really like her work, but she isn't one of the authors whose
books I'll buy without even looking at the title and blurb)
Marion Zimmer Bradley
Good luck and happy hunting!
~ Rosanne
Konrad Gaertner
>
> Thanks for the thorough reply. My experience to date has definitely been
> more with the "Science" in SF. How would you characterize "speculative"
> works? What would you suggest as an intro to that genre?
Speculative Fiction (which is what SF usually means around here)
includes science fiction, fantasy, supernatural horror, and alternate
history.
I'm mainly a fantasy person, but here's some books I like that at
least look like science fiction:
Daniel Keys Moran: _Emerald Eyes_, _The Long Run_, _The Last Dancer_
Douglas Adams: _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ and sequels
Terry Pratchett: _Strata_, _The Bromeliad_, _Johnny Maxwell Trilogy_
(Wow, seven responses without anyone recommended Bujold -- is that a
record?)
--KG
Mike Dworetsky
"Fletch" <Fle...@notgivingspammersmyemail.com> wrote in message
news:voqqv3r...@corp.supernews.com...
I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned Ian M. Banks: _Consider Phlebas_,
_Use of Weapons_, _The Player of Games_, _Excession_, _Look to Windward_,
_Against a Dark Background_, _Inversions_.
Vernor Vinge, yes, also Greg Bear. You have many hours of reading enjoyment
ahead.
More in the fantasy vein, I personally also like China Mieville (Perdido
Street station, The Scar).
Space Opera: Peter F. Hamilton, Night's Dawn (either a trilogy or a sextet,
depending on where you obtain it): The Reality Dysfunction, The Neutronium
Alchemist, The Naked God.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
David Tate
>
> Traditional sci-fi:
> Janet Kagan ("Mirabile" and "Uhura's Song")
That's an odd-looking recommendation to me, since I think her novel
_Hellspark_ is an order of magnitude better than either of the works
you named.
> Space Opera:
> Sharon Lee and Steve Miller (The Liaden books)
Romance novels in space, with exploding spaceships and psychic powers
and True Love and giant sentient turtles with knives. I adore them.
David Tate
Anthony Nance
Fletch <Fle...@notgivingspammersmyemail.com> wrote:
>Thanks for the thorough reply. My experience to date has definitely been
>more with the "Science" in SF. How would you characterize "speculative"
>works? What would you suggest as an intro to that genre?
I think Konrad's right on the mark when he says Speculative Fiction
includes science fiction, fantasy, supernatural horror, and alternate
history. Around here then, science fiction is under the umbrella
of speculative. There are several subgenres and boundary-busters
of course. A very few that get more "airtime" here would be:
Space Opera - Loosely, adventure stories in space. Horse operas being
Westerns, Space Opera is sometimes viewed as Westerns in
space. Some prominent/often-recommended examples, roughly
in chronological order, and ignoring stuff by authors you've
listed (like Asimov's Foundation series):
E.E. "Doc" Smith's Lensman stories (beware - these are dated
and the prose is not for everyone; they are also a
rollicking good time and loved by many)
Alfred Bester's "The Stars My Destination" (aka Tiger! Tiger!")
fits here, and is generally considered to be one of
the best SF novels ever (as is Bester's "Demolished
Man", but DM is surely not space opera)
Poul Anderson's Flandry series
James Blish "Cities in Flight" (collection of four novellas)
Gken Cook's "The Dragon Never Sleeps"
Lois McMaster Bujold's Miles Vorkosigan series
Most view Iain M Banks Culture novels as space opera
Military SF - Wars, mercenaries, battles, etc. Some promient authors here
are David Drake, David Weber, and much Jerry Pournelle.
I know very little about MilSF and have surely left out
some prominent authors.
High Fantasy - Contains a large subset of: mages, wizards, quests, elves,
magical or powerful items, nobles/aristocracy, myths, legends,
prophecies, etc. JRR Tolkien's "Hobbit" and his Lord of the
Rings trilogy set the standard here. Ursula K. Le Guin's
first three Wizard of Earthsea books are also good (and
non-derivative) examples. If you add strong notions of
political intrigue, you can toss in series by GRR Martin
(as well as Guy Gavriel Kay, I think).
There are many more subgenres (all with fuzzy boundaries) and very
many books/series that are hard to pigenhole, and I think/hope a
lot more people chime in to help.
Tony
David T. Bilek
>Rosanne <93g2...@REMOVEsneakemail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.19f7a1e06...@news.verizon.net>...
>>
>> Traditional sci-fi:
>> Janet Kagan ("Mirabile" and "Uhura's Song")
>
>That's an odd-looking recommendation to me, since I think her novel
>_Hellspark_ is an order of magnitude better than either of the works
>you named.
>
Agree. And I must admit to some crogglement at a media tie-in novel
being referred to as "traditional".
-David
Karl M Syring
>
> Space Opera: Peter F. Hamilton, Night's Dawn (either a trilogy or a sextet,
> depending on where you obtain it): The Reality Dysfunction, The Neutronium
> Alchemist, The Naked God.
To much drawn out for my tastes, but I would nominate Bruce
Sterlings _Schismatrix_.
Karl M. Syring
Gene Ward Smith
>Space Opera - Loosely, adventure stories in space. Horse operas being
> Westerns, Space Opera is sometimes viewed as Westerns in
> space. Some prominent/often-recommended examples, roughly
> in chronological order, and ignoring stuff by authors you've
> listed (like Asimov's Foundation series):
> E.E. "Doc" Smith's Lensman stories (beware - these are dated
> and the prose is not for everyone; they are also a
> rollicking good time and loved by many)
> Alfred Bester's "The Stars My Destination" (aka Tiger! Tiger!")
> fits here, and is generally considered to be one of
> the best SF novels ever (as is Bester's "Demolished
> Man", but DM is surely not space opera)
> Poul Anderson's Flandry series
> James Blish "Cities in Flight" (collection of four novellas)
> Gken Cook's "The Dragon Never Sleeps"
> Lois McMaster Bujold's Miles Vorkosigan series
> Most view Iain M Banks Culture novels as space opera
A. Bertram Chandler wrote tons of space opera as well.
Doug
>
>
> (Wow, seven responses without anyone recommended Bujold -- is that a
> record?)
Does that mean that those of us who've never read any Bujold are
hopelessly out of touch?
Doug
Craig Richardson
wrote:
Less deserving of crogglement than most. Like Greg Bear's _Corona_,
_Uhura's Song_ is a ST novel because, well, because that's who bought
it. There's nothing in the book which would require that the "crew"
be the ST characters we know and love, and, though Uhura is the focus
character, it's mostly extrapolation/flashback - it would work just as
well with a different communications officer/linguist, and given the
weight of the non-canon characterization, that's arguably what we
have. Even more so for the other characters. Practically no time is
spent on the Enterprise, and any Federation technology we see is in
full "generic" mode. It's the alien society and the Outsider among
the crew who are the real stars, and the real focus. It's what
_Doctor's Orders_ would be if Duane had focused on the aliens' view of
the crew and the situation, rather than the crew's view of the
situation and the aliens.
--Craig
--
I start to wish Bob Melvin would walk out to the mound, ask Freddy if he
was injured, and then kick him in the balls so he can call in an
emergency replacement from the bullpen --Derek Zumsteg in BP, 5/13/2003
Andrew Plotkin
Serious answer: no. If you'd never *heard* of Bujold, you'd be
hopelessly out of touch.
And if a *group* of people had nobody who'd read Bujold -- I mean a
sci-fi-reading subcommunity, not a group selected as non-Bujold-fans
-- I'd say that group was out of touch.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Craig Richardson
<erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>Here, Doug <tr...@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
>> Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
>> >
>> >
>> > (Wow, seven responses without anyone recommended Bujold -- is that a
>> > record?)
>>
>> Does that mean that those of us who've never read any Bujold are
>> hopelessly out of touch?
>
>Serious answer: no. If you'd never *heard* of Bujold, you'd be
>hopelessly out of touch.
Also, it depends on why. If it's "my to-read stack is already four
feet deep" or "I prefer my sci-fi to be diamond-hard - space opera's
for wimps" or "${REVIEWER}, whom I trust, said to floss the cat
instead", or even even "I bounced off _The Warrior's Apprentice_
harder than Donovan McNabb off Simeon Rice", then no.
If you know she's out there, what her preferred sandboxes are, and
what the voting split was (and are familiar with both the majority and
dissenting opinions) - as practically everybody reading this,
regardless of their opinion, is - you're not out of touch at all.
Eric Walker
>I'm getting back into SF after about a 10 year hiatus, and I'd
>like some recommendations on what authors or works are
>commonly considered to be the cornerstones of the genre.
[...]
>[W]hat authors/titles are must reads? I'm open to most
>sub-genres.
Rather than its usual practice of extracting a long laundry
list, Lists 'R' Us Central will this time just point you to the
web site in the sig line below.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, webmaster
Great Science-Fiction & Fantasy Works
http://greatsfandf.com
Doug
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 21:28:11 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Plotkin
> <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>
> >Here, Doug <tr...@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
> >> Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > (Wow, seven responses without anyone recommended Bujold -- is that a
> >> > record?)
> >>
> >> Does that mean that those of us who've never read any Bujold are
> >> hopelessly out of touch?
> >
> >Serious answer: no. If you'd never *heard* of Bujold, you'd be
> >hopelessly out of touch.
>
> Also, it depends on why. If it's "my to-read stack is already four
> feet deep" or "I prefer my sci-fi to be diamond-hard - space opera's
> for wimps" or "${REVIEWER}, whom I trust, said to floss the cat
> instead", or even even "I bounced off _The Warrior's Apprentice_
> harder than Donovan McNabb off Simeon Rice", then no.
>
> If you know she's out there, what her preferred sandboxes are, and
> what the voting split was (and are familiar with both the majority and
> dissenting opinions) - as practically everybody reading this,
> regardless of their opinion, is - you're not out of touch at all.
*whew*
I had to check my booklog to make sure I hadn't read any Bujold, since
I usually end up reading at least _something_ by popular authors just
to see what all the fuss is about.
I've looked at her books and left them on the shelf because they
didn't strike my fancy. Am I missing something great that's not
obvious from casually perusing them?
Doug
Helgi Briem
>I had to check my booklog to make sure I hadn't read any Bujold, since
>I usually end up reading at least _something_ by popular authors just
>to see what all the fuss is about.
>
>I've looked at her books and left them on the shelf because they
>didn't strike my fancy. Am I missing something great that's not
>obvious from casually perusing them?
She's *enormously* popular. Both, it seems, among hardcore
SF fans and more casual readers.
For myself, I wouldn't exactly say *great*, but certainly her
books are very entertaining, easy to read and imaginative,
both in plot and characterisation. The story background
is fairly standard space opera, but well done and consistent.
Craig Richardson
>I had to check my booklog to make sure I hadn't read any Bujold, since
>I usually end up reading at least _something_ by popular authors just
>to see what all the fuss is about.
>
>I've looked at her books and left them on the shelf because they
>didn't strike my fancy. Am I missing something great that's not
>obvious from casually perusing them?
Well, /I/ think so, but my biases are fairly well-known.
Bujold's science fiction isn't flashy, and she doesn't have time to
reinvent the technological wheel - but when she does introduce
technology, it's important, and well thought out, both in operation
and implication to society[1]. The politics, both "local" and
interstellar, are interesting, but that alone doesn't distinguish
Bujold from Weber. It's characters, and dialog, where she really
shines, and that's a long-term thing. Bujold summarizes poorly - back
covers can't properly convey "It's not /just/ space opera". And it
builds over time, more than other series - characters change, the
changes are real, and they are important.
She's created, IMO, one of the best characters in all science fiction
- a man who was for generations at the heart of the struggle for the
future of a planet, but whose depths are only known to his nearest and
dearest. Which fools the reader - we think /we/ don't know him either
- after all, he's never been the viewpoint character - until the point
comes[3] where there's a situation, and his response is so perfect
that it hits like a punch in the gut, redoubled because it has the
weight of all that went before behind it as well.
Oh, and some people find his kid interesting, too, at least after he
grew up (as with many of us, this was when he was about thirty).
--Craig
[1] She also loses hard-SF cred because the most important device
doesn't come from physics, but biology, and it's not a weapon in any
way the military would recognize[2].
[2] Those parts of the military not named Aral Vorkosigan, that is ("a
weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind").
[3] Canonically, this is the famous line from the aftermath of the
party in _A Civil Campaign_.
Mark Atwood
> [3] Canonically, this is the famous line from the aftermath of the
> party in _A Civil Campaign_.
Would that be "Which one?"?
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right,
m...@pobox.com | people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Craig Richardson
>Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> [3] Canonically, this is the famous line from the aftermath of the
>> party in _A Civil Campaign_.
>
>Would that be "Which one?"?
It would. I was trying to tap-dance around any actual spoilers while
still being fairly specific in implication.
--Craig
David T. Bilek
<crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 17 Oct 2003 13:59:06 -0700, Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>> [3] Canonically, this is the famous line from the aftermath of the
>>> party in _A Civil Campaign_.
>>
>>Would that be "Which one?"?
>
>It would. I was trying to tap-dance around any actual spoilers while
>still being fairly specific in implication.
>
It's not a spoiler because it is meaningless out of context. You'd
have to be a better man than I to figure out what that quote means all
by itself.
-David
Mark Atwood
All the really good Bujold one-liners are like that.
(botched quote) "That is not something people often ask of a son of my mother."
or
"Cold!!!!"
Mike Schilling
"Mark Atwood" <m...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:m3oewft...@khem.blackfedora.com...
> David T. Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> writes:
> > On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:57:45 -0700, Craig Richardson
<crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> On 17 Oct 2003 13:59:06 -0700, Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>>Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >>>> [3] Canonically, this is the famous line from the aftermath of the
> >>>> party in _A Civil Campaign_.
> >>> Would that be "Which one?"?
> >> It would. I was trying to tap-dance around any actual spoilers while
> >> still being fairly specific in implication.
> >
> > It's not a spoiler because it is meaningless out of context. You'd
> > have to be a better man than I to figure out what that quote means all
> > by itself.
>
> All the really good Bujold one-liners are like that.
>
> (botched quote) "That is not something people often ask of a son of my
mother."
>
> or
>
> "Cold!!!!"
"She's getting away!"
Leaving the realm of one-liners, I also love Aral's half of the fight he and
Piotr have towards the end of Barrayar. (likewise botched) "*I* will
protect my son, an opportunity you were not granted."
OWK
> recommendations on what authors or works are commonly considered to be the
> Benford, Brin, Clarke, Heinlein, Herbert, Pohl, Bova, Kim Stanley Robinson,
> some Stephenson, Niven, and probably a few others I've forgotten. I just
> read _Revelation Space_, and I'm about to start _Manifold Time_.
>
> sub-genres.
Down thread is some "speculative" suggestions.
A possible sub-group is 'secret history' type books. World is ours,
current or past, but things have gone on differently behind the
scenes. These can sort of leak into alternate history quite easily.
A few suggestions:
Mary Gentle's _Ash_ (published as 4 volumes in the US)
Tim Powers. Of these I liked "The Anubis Gates", "Last Call" and
"Declare" the best.
I'll second the recommendation of the Vinge novels. You might also
try Iain Banks at some point. "The Player of Games" is a good
introduction to his 'Culture novels'. His mainstream fiction is
interesting as well.
Googling through this newsgroup is a good way to find references.
Probably never would have read Bester's "The Stars My Destination" or
Zelazny's "Lord of Light" otherwise. There are threads on the novels
of a specific author, and also a very good set of threads reviewing
the SFBC (Science Fiction Book Club) offerings since 1957 or so.
- Kurt
Doug
> On 17 Oct 2003 13:59:06 -0700, Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >> [3] Canonically, this is the famous line from the aftermath of the
> >> party in _A Civil Campaign_.
> >
> >Would that be "Which one?"?
>
> It would. I was trying to tap-dance around any actual spoilers while
> still being fairly specific in implication.
Well, you did a yeoman's job and I am going to forthwith read a Bujold book.
Doug
...um, which one first?
Mark Atwood
Um, you have to read at least 3 of them to really "get" "Which One?".
Mike Dworetsky
"Karl M Syring" <syr...@email.com> wrote in message
news:bmmevg$oc4pv$1...@ID-7529.news.uni-berlin.de...
Thanks for the tip. Hamilton writes well, but the lengthy and intricate
plotting does make these very, very long.
Nancy Lebovitz
OWK <ove...@usaor.net> wrote:
>
>Tim Powers. Of these I liked "The Anubis Gates", "Last Call" and
>"Declare" the best.
And I'll recommend _The Drawing of the Dark_. I think those four
are the consensus favorites for Powers.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Now, with bumper stickers
Using your turn signal is not "giving information to the enemy"
David Tate
> Well, you did a yeoman's job and I am going to forthwith read a Bujold book.
> ...um, which one first?
Aye, there's the rub.
Not everyone agrees with me, but I think you have to read at least two
of the "back before Lois got good" books, and possibly a couple of the
"still not top form" books, before you can really enjoy the books that
earned Lois her reputation.
At that point, I generally recommend the following.
Start reading the Vorkosigan books in publication order, beginning
with _Shards of Honor_. Skip _Falling Free_ and _Ethan of Athos_ for
now.
Decision tree:
If you *liked* _Shards of Honor_ just fine as it is, continue in
publication order with _The Warrior's Apprentice_. If you like that
one as well, stop worrying and plow ahead in publication order. Since
they generally get better and better as you go, this is a very
rewarding approach -- so long as you don't get bogged down early on.
If you didn't much like _Shards of Honor_, or liked the plot and
characters but didn't think it was very well written, jump directly to
_Barrayar_, which is next in internal chronology, but written much
later. That gives a taste of how Lois's writing improves over time.
If that's enough to inspire you to finish them all, go back to
publication order. If it's not, I'm not sure what to recommend.
There are books that focus on Cordelia and Aral, and (rather more)
books that focus on Miles. There are books about young Miles, and
books about Miles becoming an adult. There are books about Mark.
There are books about Ekaterina, etc. Different people like these
different threads in varying degrees, which is complicated by them
being scattered across a publication history that sees a pronounced
change in the skills of the author.
My personal tastes are as follows: the quality of the earlier books
was not enough to put me off reading more. I found the first 4-6
books to be uneven -- pleasant enough, with occasional higher
accomplishments and occasional annoyances. The stretch of books (in
publication order)
_Borders of Infinity_ (1989)
_Barrayar_ (1991)
_Mirror Dance_ (1994)
_Memory_ (1996)
_Komarr_ (1998)
_A Civil Campaign_ (1999)
is among my favorite bodies of work by any SF author. (You'll note I
skipped _Cetaganda_ (1995) and _Diplomatic Immunity_ (2002), which
aren't quite up to the standard of the others.)
I know it's annoying to be told "even if you don't like the first few,
you might still want to stick it out because they get better".
Unfortunately, that was my experience, so It Could Happen To You, too.
Enjoy,
David Tate
David Tate
> In article <48986b55.03101...@posting.google.com>,
> OWK <ove...@usaor.net> wrote:
> >
> >Tim Powers. Of these I liked "The Anubis Gates", "Last Call" and
> >"Declare" the best.
>
> And I'll recommend _The Drawing of the Dark_. I think those four
> are the consensus favorites for Powers.
How can I resist contradicting a claim like that? :-)
I like _On Stranger Tides_ better than _The Drawing of the Dark_, and
I suspect I'm not alone in that. I thought _Dark_ was much more
uneven, and didn't take full advantage of all the borrowed firepower
it brought to bear. (It was an early novel, wasn't it?)
Indeed, I might even pick _The Stress of Her Regard_ over _Dark_.
I certainly agree about _Anubis_ and _Last Call_, though. I haven't
yet read _Declare_.
David Tate
Craig Richardson
>tr...@cinci.rr.com (Doug) wrote in message news:<db01bae.03101...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> Well, you did a yeoman's job and I am going to forthwith read a Bujold book.
>
>> ...um, which one first?
>
>Aye, there's the rub.
>
>Not everyone agrees with me, but I think you have to read at least two
>of the "back before Lois got good" books, and possibly a couple of the
>"still not top form" books, before you can really enjoy the books that
>earned Lois her reputation.
Yeah. It's relatively unavoidable - many of the events which anchor
their lives (e.g. Cordelia and Aral fall in love, Cordelia goes
shopping, the first time Miles is up on treason charges) happen in
_Shards_, _Barrayar_, and _Apprentice_. They're not as well written,
but a lot of stuff happens, and a lot of it is important.
>At that point, I generally recommend the following.
>
>Start reading the Vorkosigan books in publication order, beginning
>with _Shards of Honor_. Skip _Falling Free_ and _Ethan of Athos_ for
>now.
>
>Decision tree:
>If you *liked* _Shards of Honor_ just fine as it is, continue in
>publication order with _The Warrior's Apprentice_. If you like that
>one as well, stop worrying and plow ahead in publication order. Since
>they generally get better and better as you go, this is a very
>rewarding approach -- so long as you don't get bogged down early on.
If you can stand Miles in _Apprentice_, you can take anything he can
throw at you. If you can't, don't despair - he gets better, and it's
sufficiently painful to pay you back for his early insufferability.
>If you didn't much like _Shards of Honor_, or liked the plot and
>characters but didn't think it was very well written, jump directly to
>_Barrayar_, which is next in internal chronology, but written much
>later. That gives a taste of how Lois's writing improves over time.
>
>If that's enough to inspire you to finish them all, go back to
>publication order. If it's not, I'm not sure what to recommend.
_Borders of Infinity_. Three snapshots of Miles from the Naismith
years, including "The Mountains of Mourning", which turns out to have
rather more foreshadowing than we thought at the time.
If you don't like either Vorkosigan generation by this point, these
books are just not for you, and you can move on without shame.
>There are books that focus on Cordelia and Aral, and (rather more)
>books that focus on Miles. There are books about young Miles, and
>books about Miles becoming an adult. There are books about Mark.
>There are books about Ekaterina, etc. Different people like these
>different threads in varying degrees, which is complicated by them
>being scattered across a publication history that sees a pronounced
>change in the skills of the author.
>
>My personal tastes are as follows: the quality of the earlier books
>was not enough to put me off reading more. I found the first 4-6
>books to be uneven -- pleasant enough, with occasional higher
>accomplishments and occasional annoyances. The stretch of books (in
>publication order)
>_Borders of Infinity_ (1989)
>_Barrayar_ (1991)
>_Mirror Dance_ (1994)
>_Memory_ (1996)
>_Komarr_ (1998)
>_A Civil Campaign_ (1999)
>is among my favorite bodies of work by any SF author. (You'll note I
>skipped _Cetaganda_ (1995) and _Diplomatic Immunity_ (2002), which
>aren't quite up to the standard of the others.)
AOL.
Also, beware inflated expectations. _Shards_ and _Apprentice_ are
nothing special in and of themselves - they're just the foundation.
_The Vor Game_, to me, seems like the "Desperado" to _Apprentice_'s
"El Mariachi" - a chance to cover the same ground with a somewhat more
mature eye and skill set (and the Hugo is a bit of a stretch, even for
fans). _Brothers In Arms_ featured more emphasis on character and
less on action, the start of a trend, but no one would consider it
worthy of a major award. At this point, the characters, politics, and
history were all basically in place, but the potential was still
greater than the sum of the actual.
A number of people on this newsgroup have listened to the hype, and
been turned off by the fact that, up to this point, there's really no
brilliance. /That/ started with _Mirror Dance_ - Mark is still
recognizably Mark, and Jackson's Whole is still Jackson's Whole, but
there's so much more depth to them this time around (and it doesn't
hurt that there's so little of Miles Naismith, so to speak). Happily,
this continues, at least through _A Civil Campaign_, as Bujold is a
more mature and confident writer. She's now capable of packing
incredible power into a subtle nuance (e.g. "Which one?"). But nuance
depends on a firmly established basis - the shaft behind the
spear-head - and that comes from the early books.
>I know it's annoying to be told "even if you don't like the first few,
>you might still want to stick it out because they get better".
>Unfortunately, that was my experience, so It Could Happen To You, too.
If you're even indifferent, I think it's worth plugging on. If you're
actively repulsed by the characters, setting, or technology, it's not
going to get any better - the style and themes will, but that doesn't
help if you bounce off the universe.
Now, if you bounce off _Mirror Dance_ or _Memory_ or _Komarr_, stop
immediately. I can confidently say that you wouldn't like any of the
later books any better.
Gene Ward Smith
>Start reading the Vorkosigan books in publication order, beginning
>with _Shards of Honor_. Skip _Falling Free_ and _Ethan of Athos_ for
>now.
Of those I have read, Falling Free and Ethan of Athos are her two best. They
have no Vorkosigan in them, which is good, since that is the problem with this
series.
David Tate
>
> Now, if you [having read the predecessors] bounce off
> immediately. I can confidently say that you wouldn't like any of the
> later books any better.
I'll actually disagree with this -- I can imagine someone who doesn't
care about the Mark plotline nevertheless liking _Komarr_ and _ACC_
very much. Especially if they like Georgette Heyer and/or Dorothy L.
Sayers.
David Tate
Craig Richardson
Okay, I'll back off the "confidently". But there's still a lot of
overlap, and Mark himself is pretty difficult to hide. There's a
change in tone, but I don't think there's as much a change in theme,
and the characterization is pretty well established. IMO, someone who
disliked _Mirror Dance_ and liked _ACC_ would be at least as likely to
dislike as like any of the other recent books. But you're right that
there is the possibility of liking, which I had discounted.
Mark Atwood
>
> Okay, I'll back off the "confidently". But there's still a lot of
> overlap, and Mark himself is pretty difficult to hide.
"Sort of a compact bomb", is the term used in-story, I believe.
Rosanne
dt...@ida.org says...
> Rosanne <93g2...@REMOVEsneakemail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.19f7a1e06...@news.verizon.net>...
> >
> > Traditional sci-fi:
> > Janet Kagan ("Mirabile" and "Uhura's Song")
>
> That's an odd-looking recommendation to me, since I think her novel
> _Hellspark_ is an order of magnitude better than either of the works
> you named.
>
>
> David Tate
>
I will happily read it, just as soon as I have a spare bit of time to
track it down.
Oh, and I forgot Doris Egan - the Ivory Trilogy - space opera.
Thanks!
~ Rosanne
lal truckee
> I'm getting back into SF after about a 10 year hiatus, and I'd like some
> recommendations on what authors or works are commonly considered to be the
> cornerstones of the genre. I've read the authors obvious to me: Asimov,
> Benford, Brin, Clarke, Heinlein, Herbert, Pohl, Bova, Kim Stanley Robinson,
> some Stephenson, Niven, and probably a few others I've forgotten. I just
> read _Revelation Space_, and I'm about to start _Manifold Time_.
>
> Aside from these, what authors/titles are must reads? I'm open to most
> sub-genres.
Varley and early Bester
Mark Reichert
>
> Doug
> ...um, which one first?
This is probably too late for you but might help somebody else wanting
the same sort of answer right now (This thread showed up in Google
Groups search I was doing).
Someone's most compact answer was "Start with Shards of Honor. If you
want to see Lois develop as a writer, read on in publication order.
If you want to see Miles develop as a character, read on in internal
chronology."
Somebody else was right in one regard, the series is pretty special
from Mirror Dance through A Civil Campaign. I do think that underrates
Diplomatic Immunity. It most definitely underrates Barrayar which is
as good as any of those later books, at least for the last half or two
thirds of the book.
If you can get the Borders of Infinity paperback, the three novellas
are a perfect sampler and contain no spoilers for earlier stories
other that Miles rejoins the Dendarii (but then Lois established that
as early as the third published book Ethan of Athos).