Do SF authors loose something as they age
Daniel Speyer
works are unworthy of them. The famous example is Heinlen, but I've
seen the same said of Le Guin and others. It was recently recomended
here that Xenocide and Children of the Mind be ignored because they
don't live up to their prequals, but what might be said of "Rama
Revealed"?
Even those authors who don't go so far downhill seem to do their best
work early. Foundation and True Names were early works. I think Snow
Crash was too.
There doesn't seem to be a clear pattern, though one might suppose
there's an element of pride involved. Once authors become famous,
they come to believe we'll be fascinated to read anything they want to
say. They become preachy or fall in love with their own universes, or
simply abandon standards and publish way too often.
Or maybe SF thrives on new ways of thinking, and one person only has
so many.
Or maybe it's just selection bias.
What do other people think?
Dorothy J Heydt
Yes. Brain cells. Most of mine are gone already.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Doug Clark
"Omixochitl" <Omixoch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9380E65FE...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> Daniel Speyer <dsp...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in
> <2379a5eb.03051...@posting.google.com>:
That's just a title for a phenomenon whose existance Daniel is questioning.
For my money, I think it's not age--it's success.
Just as the worst enemy of Capitalism is a successful capitalist, and
author's worst enemy is his own ego. Editors may not necessarily be able to
"Create" (with quote marks and a capital C), but if they see a hole, there's
usually a hole. When an author gets to the point that he can tell an editor
where to get off, and starts doing so, he starts to go downhill. Until his
last couple, uniformly bad, books, Heinlein had some good stuff. Good stuff
that needed an editorial weed wacker to get at.
I just can't think of any older authors, who remained IN the writing biz (in
or out of sf), who didn't have enough success to get, shall we say, too big
for their britches to use as a control group to test the hypothesis.
Suggestions?
Lee Gleason
"Daniel Speyer" <dsp...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:2379a5eb.03051...@posting.google.com...
> I've been thinking lately about the number of SF authors whose later
> works are unworthy of them. The famous example is Heinlen, but I've
> seen the same said of Le Guin and others. It was recently recomended
> here that Xenocide and Children of the Mind be ignored because they
> don't live up to their prequals, but what might be said of "Rama
> Revealed"?
Though I'm a hard core, devoted Keith Laumer fan, his later novels were
a total embarassment. "Zone Yellow", "Judson's Eden", lots of short stories
after 1986 or so, were unintelligible gibberish.
I wondered, didn't the editors even read these things before publishing
them? I've not exaggerating here...it was sad to behold. 'Course, he
was having health problems...
Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants
lgle...@houston.rr.com
Sea Wasp
>
> "Daniel Speyer" <dsp...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
> news:2379a5eb.03051...@posting.google.com..
> > works are unworthy of them. The famous example is Heinlen, but I've
> > seen the same said of Le Guin and others. It was recently recomended
> > here that Xenocide and Children of the Mind be ignored because they
> > don't live up to their prequals, but what might be said of "Rama
> > Revealed"?
>
> Though I'm a hard core, devoted Keith Laumer fan, his later novels were
> a total embarassment. "Zone Yellow", "Judson's Eden", lots of short stories
> after 1986 or so, were unintelligible gibberish.
>
> I wondered, didn't the editors even read these things before publishing
> them? I've not exaggerating here...it was sad to behold. 'Course, he
> was having health problems...
From what I understand, it boiled down to this: it was the only way
Laumer could pay his bills, and because his older output had made him a
notable, if not wealthy, star in the SF firmament, the editors in
question basically gave him a "pass" to allow him to live out his life
in some semblance of dignity.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Sea Wasp
>
> Even those authors who don't go so far downhill seem to do their best
> work early. Foundation and True Names were early works. I think Snow
> Crash was too.
True Names was good, but I don't think it compares to Fire or
Deepness. Both of those are better than True Names.
I think much of it has to do with the Newness Effect. All authors
have a style and a set of tools they use. When you first encounter the
author, you don't know the style or the tools.
After you've seen a dozen books by the author, he's shown you all of
his major tricks, and all that's left are pretty much variations on his
theme. If, in addition, any of the OTHER factors drop in to visit -- bad
health, arrogance, etc. -- from your point of view you'll see a quick
drop in quality.
This isn't to say that some authors don't actually (if there IS an
"actually" in fiction) get worse with time, but I think that the number
that do is probably somewhat exaggerated. They just don't have as much
new and exciting to demonstrate; they've shot their best wad early.
Jaime Frontero
"Doug Clark" <rdc...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:twhya.59689$JE3.3100603@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
how that group would be relevant...) -- but authors *with* success, who
didn't get too big for their britches, might be more pertinent: i.e., jack
williamson, clifford simak, kurt vonnegut (who is technically no longer a
'jr.'), and philip jose farmer -- to name a few in SF. and without: mickey
spillane (believe it or not), john o'hara, w. somerset maugham, and melville
(although he was judged later in his career to be uneditable).
hmmm. perhaps i have made the case that humility is a dead or dying art...
j
Johnny1A
> I've been thinking lately about the number of SF authors whose later
> works are unworthy of them. The famous example is Heinlen, but I've
> seen the same said of Le Guin and others. It was recently recomended
> here that Xenocide and Children of the Mind be ignored because they
> don't live up to their prequals, but what might be said of "Rama
> Revealed"?
The later Rama (and other very late Clarke) novels may not be
indicative, since word is they were largely written by Gentry Lee.
Clarke is an interesting case of idea reuse. Several of the ideas he
later used effectively in full-length novels had their genesis in
earlier short stories. For ex, famously, _2001_ seems to have been an
expansion of an idea originally floated in _The Sentinel_.
Likewise, _Rendezvous with Rama_ seems to have been presaged by
_Jupiter V_.
Shermanlee
jere7my tho?rpe
wrote:
> After you've seen a dozen books by the author, he's shown you all of
> his major tricks, and all that's left are pretty much variations on his
> theme.
There are, of course, exceptions; I think _The Book of the Short
Sun_ is Gene Wolfe's best work to date, and it's certainly not the same
old sandwich. He uses his standard themes of identity and memory, but
there are plenty of new tricks therein.
Other post-dozen novelties: Steven Brust. Philip K. Dick entered
a whole new headspace for his later books, including _A Scanner Darkly_.
Iain Banks remains happily fresh.
----j7y
--
*************************************************************************
jere7my tho?rpe / 734-769-0913 "Homo sum: humani nihil a me
Remove .boffo to reply via email alienum puto." ---Terentius
Peter D. Tillman
"Doug Clark" <rdc...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
> > Ever heard of the Brain Eater?
>
> That's just a title for a phenomenon whose existance Daniel is questioning.
> For my money, I think it's not age--it's success.
>
> Just as the worst enemy of Capitalism is a successful capitalist, and
> author's worst enemy is his own ego. Editors may not necessarily be able to
> "Create" (with quote marks and a capital C), but if they see a hole, there's
> usually a hole. When an author gets to the point that he can tell an editor
> where to get off, and starts doing so, he starts to go downhill. Until his
> last couple, uniformly bad, books, Heinlein had some good stuff. Good stuff
> that needed an editorial weed wacker to get at.
>
> I just can't think of any older authors, who remained IN the writing biz (in
> or out of sf), who didn't have enough success to get, shall we say, too big
> for their britches to use as a control group to test the hypothesis.
> Suggestions?
Jack Vance. His voice, style, quirks, strengths & weaknesses are all
remarkably consistent, from when he finished his apprentice-work (=
published THE DYING EARTH) to now.
Vance has never been a best-selling author, and seems an extraordinarily
modest and self-contained man.
Arthur C. Clarke might be another example. His fiction-writing talents
are modest, but consistent, as perusal of his massive Collected Short
Fiction volume will confirm. His non-fiction voice is also consistent,
and consistently good, over his 50+ year career, ims. Nor has he run out
of interesting things to say.
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
Doug Palmer
> Even those authors who don't go so far downhill seem to do their best
> work early. Foundation and True Names were early works. I think Snow
> Crash was too.
Am I the only person who thinks that Stephenson has got better with age?
"Snow Crash" was a pretty fine book. But I thought that "The Diamond Age"
and "Cyrptonomicon" were far meatier and better written.
--
Doug Palmer http://www.charvolant.org/~doug do...@charvolant.org
John Pelan
wrote:
R.A. Lafferty
Arthur Porges
Clifford Simak
Jack Vance
Gene Wolfe
Manly Wade Wellman
There's a small group, all of whom have/had careers spanning thirty or
more years. (Well, Lafferty's career was just under that, but I
include him as he started writing relatively later in life than most)
Thoughts?
Cheers,
John
Louann Miller
wrote:
>On Mon, 19 May 2003 18:20:33 -0700, Daniel Speyer wrote:
>
>> Even those authors who don't go so far downhill seem to do their best
>> work early. Foundation and True Names were early works. I think Snow
>> Crash was too.
>
>Am I the only person who thinks that Stephenson has got better with age?
>"Snow Crash" was a pretty fine book. But I thought that "The Diamond Age"
>and "Cyrptonomicon" were far meatier and better written.
Stephenson is still fairly young, IIRC. The Brain Eater really seems
to bite down around age 55 or 60.
Louann
Matt Ruff
- M. Ruff
Tony Zbaraschuk
Daniel Speyer <dsp...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>I've been thinking lately about the number of SF authors whose later
>works are unworthy of them. The famous example is Heinlen, but I've
>seen the same said of Le Guin and others.
You might google for "Brain Eater", which seems to be the usual description
of this sort of thing on r.a.sf.w.
>It was recently recomended
>here that Xenocide and Children of the Mind be ignored because they
>don't live up to their prequals, but what might be said of "Rama
>Revealed"?
Nothing. It never existed. :)
>Even those authors who don't go so far downhill seem to do their best
>work early. Foundation and True Names were early works. I think Snow
>Crash was too.
Stephenson's actually been getting better, IMO.
And sometimes late work can be very good indeed -- look at
Jack Vance with the Lyonesse trilogy, for instance.
Tony Z
--
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me --
As he died to make men holy let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on! --Julia Ward Howe
Red Rackham
Jack Vance seems to be lucky. His advice, to younger people, was
to "get what you want done before your 70's, when the machinery
begins to break down". His machinery seemed to stay in tip-top
shape well after 60.
Michael Stemper
>Lee Gleason wrote:
>> Though I'm a hard core, devoted Keith Laumer fan, his later novels were
>> a total embarassment. "Zone Yellow", "Judson's Eden", lots of short stories
>> after 1986 or so, were unintelligible gibberish.
>>
>> I wondered, didn't the editors even read these things before publishing
>> them? I've not exaggerating here...it was sad to behold. 'Course, he
>> was having health problems...
>
> From what I understand, it boiled down to this: it was the only way
>Laumer could pay his bills, and because his older output had made him a
>notable, if not wealthy, star in the SF firmament, the editors in
>question basically gave him a "pass" to allow him to live out his life
>in some semblance of dignity.
Wouldn't it have been a bigger contribution to his dignity for them to
have done some *editing*, so that he wouldn't have had such embarrassing
crap published with his name on it?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
If it's "tourist season", where do I get my license?
David E. Siegel
> "Omixochitl" <Omixoch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9380E65FE...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > Daniel Speyer <dsp...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in
> > <2379a5eb.03051...@posting.google.com>:
> >
> > > I've been thinking lately about the number of SF authors whose later
> > > works are unworthy of them. The famous example is Heinlen, but I've
> > > seen the same said of Le Guin and others. It was recently recomended
> > > here that Xenocide and Children of the Mind be ignored because they
> > > don't live up to their prequals, but what might be said of "Rama
> > > Revealed"?
> > >
> > > Or maybe SF thrives on new ways of thinking, and one person only has
> > > so many.
> > >
> > > Or maybe it's just selection bias.
> > >
> > > What do other people think?
> >
> > Ever heard of the Brain Eater?
>
> That's just a title for a phenomenon whose existance Daniel is questioning.
> For my money, I think it's not age--it's success.
>
> Just as the worst enemy of Capitalism is a successful capitalist, and
> author's worst enemy is his own ego. Editors may not necessarily be able to
> "Create" (with quote marks and a capital C), but if they see a hole, there's
> usually a hole. When an author gets to the point that he can tell an editor
> where to get off, and starts doing so, he starts to go downhill. Until his
> last couple, uniformly bad, books, Heinlein had some good stuff. Good stuff
> that needed an editorial weed wacker to get at.
>
> I just can't think of any older authors, who remained IN the writing biz (in
> or out of sf), who didn't have enough success to get, shall we say, too big
> for their britches to use as a control group to test the hypothesis.
> Suggestions?
There are lots of mid-list writers who have fairly long carerrs but
never get big enough to tell an editor "hands off" (and soem who do
get so big but are reliably reported to gladly accept editing, and
even pay freelance editors when they don't get enough from a
publisher.)
Jack Vance has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread. Hal Clement
comes to mind also.
Laumer has a specifc physical problem, and his writing seems to suffer
a drastic, sudden change at that time.
writers who are still working and don't seem to have gone down hill,
even thoguh they have a good many books to their credit might include:
Lois Bujold, C.J. Cherryh (who probably is popular enough to tell an
editor "hands off" if she choses to do so), Patricia Wrede, Terry
Prachitt, and George R.R. Martin. All of these have been workign long
enough for the "newness effect" to be over with, and I see no trace of
the Brain Eater.
Ray Bradbury's carerr was quite long, and while I don't like all his
stuff by any means, I don't see much sign of a general downward trend.
He certianly was famous enough to dispense with editorial suggestions
if he so wished.
-DES
James Nicoll
>For my money, I think it's not age--it's success.
I think it is a variety of things, from actual brain damage
to too much contact with the fans to too little contact with people
in general (Being naturally a hermit, the last is how I expect to go)
to training as an electrical engineer.
>Just as the worst enemy of Capitalism is a successful capitalist, and
>author's worst enemy is his own ego. Editors may not necessarily be able to
>"Create" (with quote marks and a capital C), but if they see a hole, there's
>usually a hole. When an author gets to the point that he can tell an editor
>where to get off, and starts doing so, he starts to go downhill. Until his
>last couple, uniformly bad, books, Heinlein had some good stuff. Good stuff
>that needed an editorial weed wacker to get at.
>
>I just can't think of any older authors, who remained IN the writing biz (in
>or out of sf), who didn't have enough success to get, shall we say, too big
>for their britches to use as a control group to test the hypothesis.
>Suggestions?
Stil active or died without succumbing to the BE.
Westlake. Block. Watt-Evans[1]. Robertson Davies (although he wrote
better than his last few). John D. MacDonald. Hal Clement. Maybe Vance (I
can't read his recent stuff but I can't read his old stuff either). A.
Bertram Chandler. Lots, really.
I think there's another entity stalking some authors and that's
Fashion: a lot of authors get a ten year run and then can't sell anymore,
regardless of the quality of their work.
1: Who really is a bit young to worry about the BE but others who started
with him have been lost to the shadows.
--
"About this time, I started getting depressed. Probably the late
hour and the silence. I decided to put on some music.
Boy, that Billie Holiday can sing."
_Why I Hate Saturn_, Kyle Baker
Squirrel Police
> and melville
>(although he was judged later in his career to be uneditable).
I've never read any Melville, but I'll never forget reference to
him in one of Orson Card's books on authoring. He was espousing
a "less is more" theory of description, and quoted a lengthy paragraph
from _Moby Dick_. Card then proceeded to point out how overblown
and overwrought the writing was, with the disclaimer that
he's still a good author, etc. Then he quoted the FULL,
unedited paragraph, which was about twice as long :-)
Daniel Speyer
[snip]
>
> The later Rama (and other very late Clarke) novels may not be
> indicative, since word is they were largely written by Gentry Lee.
>
That excuses Rama Revealed (I guess), but what about 3001?
Matt Hughes
> Flights of arrows, maybe?
>
Our belts.
Matt Hughes
LHeilb8013
> works are unworthy of them.
Some like MZM lose even more after they are dead..........:)
Lloyd Heilbrunn
Dorothy J Heydt
If by chance you mean MZB, that's because some of her posthumous
works were written by Mercedes Lackey.
Paul F. Dietz
> If by chance you mean MZB, that's because some of her posthumous
> works were written by Mercedes Lackey.
Didn't MZB suffer a stroke some years before she died?
Paul
lal_truckee
> In article <20030520162519...@mb-m14.aol.com>,
> LHeilb8013 <lheil...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>I've been thinking lately about the number of SF authors whose later
>>>works are unworthy of them.
>>
>>Some like MZM lose even more after they are dead..........:)
>
>
> If by chance you mean MZB, that's because some of her posthumous
> works were written by Mercedes Lackey.
appropriate last name ...
A.C.
news:20030520162519...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> > I've been thinking lately about the number of SF authors whose later
> > works are unworthy of them.
> Some like MZM lose even more after they are dead..........:)
Marion Zimmer Marion?
Sea Wasp
>
>
> Wouldn't it have been a bigger contribution to his dignity for them to
> have done some *editing*, so that he wouldn't have had such embarrassing
> crap published with his name on it?
There's a very fine line there. If I recall some of the stories in
question, you'd almost have to go beyond "editing" to "rewriting", and
that would cross the line for most people.
Mike Schilling
"A.C." <nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Fzyya.23629$4_1.4...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Wasn't she married to Ford Madox Ford?
Andrew Wheeler
>
> I've been thinking lately about the number of SF authors whose later
> works are unworthy of them.
>
> Or maybe SF thrives on new ways of thinking, and one person only has
> so many.
>
> Or maybe it's just selection bias.
>
> What do other people think?
Just to be contrary, here are some examples that I think buck this
particular (possible) trend...
Writers who are dead and so the books are closed:
Philip K. Dick
Poul Anderson (always uneven, in my opinion, but the hit ratio didn't
go down much with age)
Fritz Leiber
John Sladek
Authors who are still alive (so it might not be as definitive):
Jack Vance
Robert Silverberg (though he does seem to decide to start writing in an
entirely different manner every decade or so)
Gene Wolfe
Tim Powers (who might not be old enough to really give the Brain Eater
time to set in, though)
Of course, as I thought of those names, many more came to my head who
*do* fit the pattern. I suspect, echoing what some other poster said,
that what is happening is not the attacks of age but the corruptions of
success -- the greatest poster children for this effect are those
writers who had pots of money flung at them to do very specific kinds of
books (generally endless sequels).
(P.S. You mean "lose." To "loose" something is to set it free. It's a
ridiculously common error these days, but it always sets my teeth on edge.)
--
Andrew Wheeler
--
People tell me one thing and out the other. I feel as much like I did
yesterday as I did today. I never liked room temperature. My throat is
closer than it seems. Likes and dislikes are among my favorites. No
napkin is sanitary enough for me. I don't like any of my loved ones.
--from a brain damage reading test by Daniel M. Wegner
Andrew Wheeler
>
> Stil active or died without succumbing to the BE.
>
> Westlake. Block. Watt-Evans[1]. Robertson Davies (although he
> wrote better than his last few). John D. MacDonald. Hal Clement. Maybe
> Vance (I can't read his recent stuff but I can't read his old stuff
> either). A. Bertram Chandler. Lots, really.
But I note that your list is almost half mystery writers -- I've thought
about that effect myself. For some odd reason, aging writers of
mysteries (even writers of long-running *series*) can stay strong
writers, and even get better as they go along.
Maybe it's something in the water over there, or maybe (as you brought
up a week or two ago) it's something in the way a mystery series is
typically constructed as opposed to the way a SF/Fantasy series is. For
one thing, mystery protagonists only very occasionally save the world,
and that is A Good Thing. There's something corrupting about the set of
sfnal series expectations, and it's hard for those strongly tempted to escape.
Jaime Frontero
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Mezya.2469$yC6.15...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
j
Richard Horton
>There's a small group, all of whom have/had careers spanning thirty or
>more years. (Well, Lafferty's career was just under that, but I
>include him as he started writing relatively later in life than most)
>Thoughts?
Tom Purdom. Started writing in about 1959 or 1960, as I recall.
Mediocre Campbell stuff. But as of the past few years, he's done some
downright brilliant work. Granted, he hasn't really had an extensive
writing career qua career.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Richard Horton
You do know that Ford Madox Ford was a pseudonym, right? For Ford
Madox Hueffer. (He did eventually legally change his name.)
As it happens, I just read a 1949 issue of Startling Stories, with a
letter from Marion Zimmer. (Complaining that the editor was banning
letters with silly fannish injokes.)
Mike Schilling
"Richard Horton" <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:gnCya.4607$ln7....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> On Tue, 20 May 2003 23:54:20 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"A.C." <nomadi...@removethistomailmehotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:Fzyya.23629$4_1.4...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> >> "LHeilb8013" <lheil...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:20030520162519...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> >> > > I've been thinking lately about the number of SF authors whose
later
> >> > > works are unworthy of them.
> >> > Some like MZM lose even more after they are dead..........:)
> >>
> >> Marion Zimmer Marion?
> >
> >Wasn't she married to Ford Madox Ford?
> >
>
> You do know that Ford Madox Ford was a pseudonym, right? For Ford
> Madox Hueffer. (He did eventually legally change his name.)
I would have called myself Hueffer Ford Reffeuh.
>
> As it happens, I just read a 1949 issue of Startling Stories, with a
> letter from Marion Zimmer. (Complaining that the editor was banning
> letters with silly fannish injokes.)
>
That is the saddest story I've ever heard.
LHeilb8013
>>> works are unworthy of them.
>>
>>Some like MZM lose even more after they are dead..........:)
>
>If by chance you mean MZB, that's because some of her posthumous
>works were written by Mercedes Lackey.
>
>Dorothy J. Heydt
>Albany, California
>djh...@kithrup.com
> http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
>
>
Sorry, need to avoid typos when trying to make a joke.........
Lloyd Heilbrunn
Mark Reichert
> or out of sf), who didn't have enough success to get, shall we say, too big
> for their britches to use as a control group to test the hypothesis.
> Suggestions?
Since nobody has mentioned him: Poul Anderson. At least I didn't hear
anything bad about his last books.
Jaime Frontero
stories (two of 'em) in vortex #2 (1953). sometimes she signed herself off
as 'astra'-something or other. when i was selling off a huge collection of
pulps i picked up a few years ago, i used to mention letters of note in my
ebay descriptions, and MZB was easily the most active letter-writer of the
very late forties and early fifties. asimov was a pretty busy fan in the
mid to late thirties (prior to his debut in amazing in 1939).
it wasn't sad though -- she was just the most quintessential fan that
probably ever was...
j
Joseph Michael Bay
>>>> I've been thinking lately about the number of SF authors whose later
>>>> works are unworthy of them.
>>>
>>>Some like MZM lose even more after they are dead..........:)
>>
>>If by chance you mean MZB, that's because some of her posthumous
>>works were written by Mercedes Lackey.
>Sorry, need to avoid typos when trying to make a joke.........
Yeah, it looses something when you have to mentally correct it.
--
Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University
www.stanford.edu/~jmbay/
those evil natured robots she's gotta be strong to fight them
they're programmed to destroy us so she's taken lots of vitamins
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
They were better-written than his early work, but not as compelling.
I Just Did Not Care about the characters in _Harvest of Stars_ et seq.,
and I missed some of his later books entirely.
Jack Williamson's mid-career works were definitely better than his
more recent ones, though again I've missed some of his later books.
He's never written what I'd call a bad book, though.
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"We remain convinced that this is the best defensive posture to adopt in
order to minimize casualties when the Great Old Ones return from beyond
the stars to eat our brains." -Charlie Stross, _The Concrete Jungle_
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
> Michael Stemper wrote:
>> Wouldn't it have been a bigger contribution to his dignity for them to
>> have done some *editing*, so that he wouldn't have had such embarrassing
>> crap published with his name on it?
> There's a very fine line there. If I recall some of the stories in
> question, you'd almost have to go beyond "editing" to "rewriting", and
> that would cross the line for most people.
I wish they'd taken the Clarke approach for those: get someone else to
"collaborate" with Laumer, let him write as much as he could and wanted,
and then let the collaborator turn it into a novel. Better later books,
even co-written, would have sold better than what did get published.
Mike Schilling
>
> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:utCya.4612$2T7....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > letter from Marion Zimmer. (Complaining that the editor was banning
> > > letters with silly fannish injokes.)
> > >
> > That is the saddest story I've ever heard.
> >
> she was all over the lettercols in the SF pulps and mags, prior to her
debut
> stories (two of 'em) in vortex #2 (1953). sometimes she signed herself
off
> as 'astra'-something or other. when i was selling off a huge collection
of
> pulps i picked up a few years ago, i used to mention letters of note in my
> ebay descriptions, and MZB was easily the most active letter-writer of the
> very late forties and early fifties. asimov was a pretty busy fan in the
> mid to late thirties (prior to his debut in amazing in 1939).
>
> it wasn't sad though -- she was just the most quintessential fan that
> probably ever was...
Sorry, I was being obscure. The only Ford novel I've read is _A Soldier's
Story_, which begins "This is the saddest story I know."
Jaime Frontero
j
Karl M Syring
>
> As it happens, I just read a 1949 issue of Startling Stories, with a
> letter from Marion Zimmer. (Complaining that the editor was banning
> letters with silly fannish injokes.)
What is a typical 1949 silly fannish injoke?
Karl M. Syring
Fred Galvin
> she was all over the lettercols in the SF pulps and mags, prior to
> her debut stories (two of 'em) in vortex #2 (1953). sometimes she
> signed herself off as 'astra'-something or other. when i was
> selling off a huge collection of pulps i picked up a few years ago,
> i used to mention letters of note in my ebay descriptions, and MZB
> was easily the most active letter-writer of the very late forties
> and early fifties. asimov was a pretty busy fan in the mid to late
> thirties (prior to his debut in amazing in 1939).
>
> it wasn't sad though -- she was just the most quintessential fan
> that probably ever was...
Yep. I've probably read more of her letters than her fiction.
Actually, the only story of hers that I can remember was her weird
short "A Dozen of Everything" which really creeped me out, 40 or 50
years ago. Anyway, she wrote great letters. Enthusiastically:
"That man Kuttner, oh boy, oh boy! Henry, Henry, O'Henry! I love him!
I could write an epic poem in his honor! But don't worry, I won't."
Prophetically:
"The next thing I hope will happen will be, that some kind author will
write a story with a woman as hero. Hmm, that's an idea. Maybe I'll do
it myself. I mean a full-length fantastic novel."
By the way, what well-known author (hint: it _wasn't_ Marion) wrote
this:
"However, I reject with disdain the suggestion that I'm softening up
with regard to women in science-fiction stories. I'm _still_ agin them
-- but only, be it remarked, in science-fiction stories."
Daniel Frankham
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:utCya.4612$2T7....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> > That is the saddest story I've ever heard.
>Sorry, I was being obscure. The only Ford novel I've read is _A Soldier's
>Story_, which begins "This is the saddest story I know."
The Good Soldier?
--
Daniel Frankham
Htn963
>lheil...@aol.com (LHeilb8013) writes:
>
>>>>> I've been thinking lately about the number of SF authors whose later
>>>>> works are unworthy of them.
>>>>
>>>>Some like MZM lose even more after they are dead..........:)
>>>
>>>If by chance you mean MZB, that's because some of her posthumous
>>>works were written by Mercedes Lackey.
>
>
>>Sorry, need to avoid typos when trying to make a joke.........
>
>Yeah, it looses something when you have to mentally correct it.
It's "lose" people. The only thing SF authors may "loose" as they age is
the notch on their belt.
--
Ht
|Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
--John Donne, "Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions"|
Jaime Frontero
"Fred Galvin" <gal...@math.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:030521024149...@gandalf.math.ukans.edu...
j
Richard Horton
<hendy_nospam@nospam_unique-software.com_nospam> wrote:
>
>it wasn't sad though -- she was just the most quintessential fan that
>probably ever was...
Mike was joking about the first line (and original title) of Ford
Madox Ford's great novel _The Good Soldier_.
Richard R. Hershberger
> >> works are unworthy of them.
> >
> >Some like MZM lose even more after they are dead..........:)
>
> If by chance you mean MZB, that's because some of her posthumous
> works were written by Mercedes Lackey.
Zounds! Really? That is bizarre on several levels. I find both MZB
and Lackey unreadable, but in different ways. I can't imagine Lackey
successfully writing an MZB pastiche. Is she going from incomplete
works, or notes, or at least outlines? Are the books being published
under MZB's name alone, or does Lackey get at least a "with" credit?
Richard R. Hershberger
Lori Coulson
> works were written by Mercedes Lackey.
>
Actually, Lackey has only co-authored one novel with MZB --
_Rediscovery_. It was written while MZB was alive, and was supposedly
edited by MZB.
The Margaret Alton trilogy had Adrienne Martine-Barnes as co-author,
and again was supposedly edited by MZB (and was published while MZB
was alive).
Diana Paxson co-authored the Avalon books that were written after
_Mists_, with only _Priestess of Avalon_ being published after MZB's
death.
Now, the _Fall of Neskaya_ trilogy IS being written and published
posthumously...
Lori Coulson
Jim Cambias
dsp...@wam.umd.edu (Daniel Speyer) wrote:
> sherm...@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) wrote in message
news:<b3030854.03051...@posting.google.com>...
> [snip]
> >
> > The later Rama (and other very late Clarke) novels may not be
> > indicative, since word is they were largely written by Gentry Lee.
> >
>
> That excuses Rama Revealed (I guess), but what about 3001?
"They backed a dump truck full of money up to my house! What could I do?"
Cambias
Mike Schilling
"Daniel Frankham" <dan...@ecite.net.au> wrote in message
news:6tkmcvs220fj37pb5...@4ax.com...
Yes, thank you. It was some time ago (clearly).
Chris Thompson
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
[...]
> Stil active or died without succumbing to the BE.
>
> Westlake. Block. Watt-Evans[1]. Robertson Davies (although he wrote
>better than his last few). John D. MacDonald. Hal Clement.
Hmmm... I've just been reading _Half Life_, and although it's not
exactly brain-eater level, it really doesn't live up to his old
reputation.
> Maybe Vance (I
>can't read his recent stuff but I can't read his old stuff either). A.
>Bertram Chandler. Lots, really.
I would mention Bujold and Wolfe if others hadn't done so already.
Oh, I did anyway. :-)
Chris Thompson
Email: cet1 [at] cam.ac.uk
Fred Galvin
> hmmm. the word 'agin' makes it a pretty good bet that it's early
> RAH, no?
No, it's Asimov, in the Spring 1942 Planet Stories, the issue with his
"Black Friar of the Flame" in it.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
> Stil active or died without succumbing to the BE.
>
> Westlake. Block. Watt-Evans[1].
>
>1: Who really is a bit young to worry about the BE but others who started
>with him have been lost to the shadows.
Hey! I'm only 48 -- since when does the Brain Eater get anyone this
young? For heaven's sake, I'm still learning the business!
(Okay, twenty-four years to learn the business doesn't exactly make me
a fast learner, but all the same...)
(Hmm... 24, 48... I've been a professional novelist almost half my
life now. It's been twenty-four years and eleven days since I sold my
first novel.)
Anyway, speaking for myself, I do believe in the Brain Eater -- it
doesn't get everyone, but it certainly does get a lot of writers. I
think a large part of it is the result of getting so deeply into one's
own particular technical interests that one loses track of what
entertains readers; just telling a story becomes so easy with practice
that you don't worry about it anymore because you're busy playing with
ideas and techniques, and sometimes you forget to do it at all...
And there are health issues. I had my own little bout of those, in
the form of an endocrine problem, a few years back -- and I didn't
know I was sick until I had been ill for at least a year, possibly a
few years, and didn't know it had affected my writing until I read the
page proofs for THE DRAGON SOCIETY, months after I got effectively
medicated, and compared it with DRAGON WEATHER. I don't know about
anyone else, but I can tell I was sick when I wrote SOCIETY, where
WEATHER, written before it got serious, is pretty good. (DRAGON
VENOM, written after the medication kicked in, also isn't bad at all.)
This sort of thing is going to be more common among older writers,
obviously. Laumer and Heinlein both had real brain damage -- in
Laumer's case, fairly severe. Randall Garrett also lost it toward the
end, though his wife was able to help out a lot and mostly make up for
it.
But if a writer stays healthy, and remembers that telling a good story
is the first priority and games with style or world-merging or
dragging characters back for another appearance aren't, I'd think it
wouldn't be that hard to avoid the Brain Eater.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.watt-evans.com/ Last update 3/1/03
My latest novel is ITHANALIN'S RESTORATION; Tor paperback in October!
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>But I note that your list is almost half mystery writers -- I've thought
>about that effect myself. For some odd reason, aging writers of
>mysteries (even writers of long-running *series*) can stay strong
>writers, and even get better as they go along.
Um. Agatha Christie is a pretty good counter-example, with bilge like
POSTERN OF FATE. Everything decent she published after that point was
old stuff she'd stashed away long before, like CURTAIN.
Or look at Rex Stout's embarrassingly lame PLEASE PASS THE GUILT --
though he then redeemed himself with A FAMILY AFFAIR.
The Brain Eater may _prefer_ SF writers, but it's nibbled on a few
mystery authors.
Louann Miller
wrote:
>In article <badtsd$emt$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>[...]
>> Stil active or died without succumbing to the BE.
(snip)
>I would mention Bujold and Wolfe if others hadn't done so already.
>Oh, I did anyway. :-)
Bujold is somewhere in her early fifties, so she's unlikely to meet
the Brain Eater soon on that score. I don't think she's anywhere near
the other main cause, Too Big To Edit. Sure, fandom loves her and buys
her religiously, but I gather you have to be making really obscene
amounts of money before you're likely to go all Tom Clancy on your
editors.
Louann
Dorothy J Heydt
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Laumer and Heinlein both had real brain damage -- in
>Laumer's case, fairly severe. Randall Garrett also lost it toward the
>end, though his wife was able to help out a lot and mostly make up for
>it.
Randall had a real brain-damager, viral encephalitis.
James Nicoll
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>wrote:
>
>> Stil active or died without succumbing to the BE.
>>
>> Westlake. Block. Watt-Evans[1].
>>
>>1: Who really is a bit young to worry about the BE but others who started
>>with him have been lost to the shadows.
>
>Hey! I'm only 48 -- since when does the Brain Eater get anyone this
>young? For heaven's sake, I'm still learning the business!
James P. Hogan started out about the same time you did, right?
And he produced _Cradle of Saturn_ three or four years ago.
Hideous News Dept: the sequel is due out from Baen RSN. It
looks worse than CoS.
>(Okay, twenty-four years to learn the business doesn't exactly make me
>a fast learner, but all the same...)
Hey, if you are learning then you are not fossilizing.
snip
>
>Anyway, speaking for myself, I do believe in the Brain Eater -- it
>doesn't get everyone, but it certainly does get a lot of writers. I
>think a large part of it is the result of getting so deeply into one's
>own particular technical interests that one loses track of what
>entertains readers; just telling a story becomes so easy with practice
>that you don't worry about it anymore because you're busy playing with
>ideas and techniques, and sometimes you forget to do it at all...
snip health
>
>But if a writer stays healthy, and remembers that telling a good story
>is the first priority and games with style or world-merging or
>dragging characters back for another appearance aren't, I'd think it
>wouldn't be that hard to avoid the Brain Eater.
I have a Theory about where your immunity to the BE comes from, if
you'd like to hear it.
--
"About this time, I started getting depressed. Probably the late
hour and the silence. I decided to put on some music.
Boy, that Billie Holiday can sing."
_Why I Hate Saturn_, Kyle Baker
James Nicoll
Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>> Stil active or died without succumbing to the BE.
>>
>> Vance (I can't read his recent stuff but I can't read his old stuff
>> either). A. Bertram Chandler. Lots, really.
>
>about that effect myself. For some odd reason, aging writers of
>mysteries (even writers of long-running *series*) can stay strong
>writers, and even get better as they go along.
As I said before, Mystery does some stuff right that SF
does horribly, horribly wrong.
>Maybe it's something in the water over there, or maybe (as you brought
>up a week or two ago) it's something in the way a mystery series is
>typically constructed as opposed to the way a SF/Fantasy series is. For
>one thing, mystery protagonists only very occasionally save the world,
>and that is A Good Thing. There's something corrupting about the set of
>sfnal series expectations, and it's hard for those strongly tempted to escape.
>
Oh, yes?
James Nicoll
Actually, I think Something Happened to Poul in the 1970s, although
I don't know if the BE was what happened. He got darker, more bitter,
embarrassed about early work and his stylistic tics got more pronounced,
all between, oh, _Satan's World_ (late '60s) and _Mirkheim_ and _A Knight
of Ghosts and Shadows_.
David Cowie
> (P.S. You mean "lose." To "loose" something is to set it free. It's a
> ridiculously common error these days, but it always sets my teeth on
> edge.)
>
I saw a sig which was about the lose/loose distinction. It was something
like:
These pants are very _loose_. They could not be any _looser_.
You _lose_ the game. You are a _loser_.
--
David Cowie david_cowie at lineone dot net
Mike Schilling
"Lawrence Watt-Evans" <lawr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4NPya.9374$rO.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> But if a writer stays healthy, and remembers that telling a good story
> is the first priority and games with style or world-merging or
> dragging characters back for another appearance aren't, I'd think it
> wouldn't be that hard to avoid the Brain Eater.
Do you think _Finnegans Wake_ is a product of the Brain Eater? It certainly
fails the "telling a good story" vs. "games with style" test, and Joyce's
health was not good towards the end of its writing. On the other hand, _FW_
may be the greatest intellectual achievement by a single human being in
history; lumping it in with _To Sail Beyond the Sunset_ seems wrong.
David Bilek
The only way I can see this bit as even arguably close to having a
bare smidgeon of truth to it is if you define virtually all science as
collaborative.
-David
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>In article <99e65015.0305...@posting.google.com>,
>Mark Reichert <Mark_R...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Doug Clark" <rdc...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message news:<twhya.59689$JE3.3...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>>> I just can't think of any older authors, who remained IN the writing biz (in
>>> or out of sf), who didn't have enough success to get, shall we say, too big
>>> for their britches to use as a control group to test the hypothesis.
>>> Suggestions?
>>
>>Since nobody has mentioned him: Poul Anderson. At least I didn't hear
>>anything bad about his last books.
>
> Actually, I think Something Happened to Poul in the 1970s, although
>I don't know if the BE was what happened. He got darker, more bitter,
>embarrassed about early work and his stylistic tics got more pronounced,
>all between, oh, _Satan's World_ (late '60s) and _Mirkheim_ and _A Knight
>of Ghosts and Shadows_.
My take is that it's not coincidence that the watershed in his work
was just about the time of John Campbell's death (although you are of
course free to consider this notion as just more evidence of Lunacy
Among Engineers). Note that he did explicitly close out the
Polesotechnic League stories in the memorial anthology.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Mike Schilling
"David Bilek" <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:lmoncvoapdmb0ced0...@4ax.com...
As do the scientists; "shoulders of giants" and all that.
Dan Goodman
news:bagl6a$cjs$1...@panix3.panix.com:
> In article <99e65015.0305...@posting.google.com>,
> Mark Reichert <Mark_R...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Doug Clark" <rdc...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:<twhya.59689$JE3.3...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>>> I just can't think of any older authors, who remained IN the writing
>>> biz (in or out of sf), who didn't have enough success to get, shall
>>> we say, too big for their britches to use as a control group to test
>>> the hypothesis. Suggestions?
>>
>>Since nobody has mentioned him: Poul Anderson. At least I didn't hear
>>anything bad about his last books.
>
> Actually, I think Something Happened to Poul in the 1970s,
> although
> I don't know if the BE was what happened. He got darker, more bitter,
> embarrassed about early work and his stylistic tics got more
> pronounced, all between, oh, _Satan's World_ (late '60s) and
> _Mirkheim_ and _A Knight of Ghosts and Shadows_.
I suspect part of it was giving up on most members of his species.
Justin Bacon
>Am I the only person who thinks that Stephenson has got better with age?
>"Snow Crash" was a pretty fine book. But I thought that "The Diamond Age"
>and "Cyrptonomicon" were far meatier and better written.
SNOW CRASH and THE BIG U are arguably the only Stephenson works that actually
have an ending. THE DIAMOND AGE definitely doesn't, and even CRYPTONOMICON's
"ending" doesn't really wrap the story up in any meaningful fashion.
As a result, I vastly prefer SNOW CRASH and THE BIG U to his later works --
even though his later works *have* improved in other ways.
SNOW CRASH and THE BIG U, for example, have already gotten re-reads.
CRYPTONOMICON may get a re-read eventually, but THE DIAMOND AGE will not
(because I found it ultimately completely unsatisfying).
As a counter-point to "SF authors lose things with age", I'd point at Vernor
Vinge. There's really no argument that he's producing his best work now.
And if we're talking speculative fiction, I'd also look at George R.R. Martin
as an example of someone who's writing better material now than 30 years ago
when he got into the industry.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
John Schilling
>"David Bilek" <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:lmoncvoapdmb0ced0...@4ax.com...
>> >Do you think _Finnegans Wake_ is a product of the Brain Eater? It
>> >certainly fails the "telling a good story" vs. "games with style" test,
>> >and Joyce's health was not good towards the end of its writing. On the
>> >other hand, _FW_ may be the greatest intellectual achievement by a single
>> >human being in history; lumping it in with _To Sail Beyond the Sunset_
>> >seems wrong.
>> The only way I can see this bit as even arguably close to having a
>> bare smidgeon of truth to it is if you define virtually all science as
>> collaborative.
>As do the scientists; "shoulders of giants" and all that.
And Joyce's linguistic stunts don't owe a debt payable all the way back
to the Kurgans?
If there's a difference between scientists and artists here, it's that
the scientists are honest about the scope of their individual achievement.
But I don't really think there's that much difference; you can as easily
find humble artists and egotistical scientists to cite as the reverse.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Justin Bacon
>Ray Bradbury's carerr was quite long, and while I don't like all his
>stuff by any means, I don't see much sign of a general downward trend.
> He certianly was famous enough to dispense with editorial suggestions
>if he so wished.
Good name to drop in this thread.
I think the concept of the "Brain Eater" phenomenon really comes down to
Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke.
Three of SF's biggest superstars all turned to writing absolute shite in the
'80s (although Asimov still wrote the, IMO, phenomenal ROBOTS OF DAWN and the
good-to-excellent ROBOTS AND EMPIRE -- so he was ahead of the pack, at least).
And once you've got a concept stuck in your head, you start looking for
supporting cases and ignore the evidence to the contrary.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Red Rackham
On Wed, 21 May 2003, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <99e65015.0305...@posting.google.com>,
> Mark Reichert <Mark_R...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Doug Clark" <rdc...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message news:<twhya.59689$JE3.3...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> >> I just can't think of any older authors, who remained IN the writing biz (in
> >> or out of sf), who didn't have enough success to get, shall we say, too big
> >> for their britches to use as a control group to test the hypothesis.
> >> Suggestions?
> >
> >Since nobody has mentioned him: Poul Anderson. At least I didn't hear
> >anything bad about his last books.
>
> Actually, I think Something Happened to Poul in the 1970s, although
> I don't know if the BE was what happened. He got darker, more bitter,
> embarrassed about early work and his stylistic tics got more pronounced,
> all between, oh, _Satan's World_ (late '60s) and _Mirkheim_ and _A Knight
> of Ghosts and Shadows_.
This has happened to Stephen King. He has rewritten his early work
"The Gunslinger", and says it's because it was embarrassing to him
as a work of a younger man trying to produce something important.
It seems he did something similar with the revision of THE STAND
(or THE STAND: The Complete and Uncut Edition, as is it's official
title). In an old Playboy interview he commented that his original
intention was to produce an American LORD OF THE RINGS, but "it
didn't turn out that way". He said this after saying "I hesitate
to mention this, because it sounds so darn pretentious". Alas,
that was what made that work so beautiful. His "pretentious"
ambitions didn't exactly fail, but now he seems to think of
himself as a mere producer of entertaining schlock, and wants
to pretend he never tried to be more.
David Bilek
>Doug Palmer wrote:
>>Am I the only person who thinks that Stephenson has got better with age?
>>"Snow Crash" was a pretty fine book. But I thought that "The Diamond Age"
>>and "Cyrptonomicon" were far meatier and better written.
>
>SNOW CRASH and THE BIG U are arguably the only Stephenson works that actually
>have an ending. THE DIAMOND AGE definitely doesn't, and even CRYPTONOMICON's
>"ending" doesn't really wrap the story up in any meaningful fashion.
>
_Zodiac_ has an ending, doesn't it?
-David
Default User
Justin Bacon wrote:
> SNOW CRASH and THE BIG U, for example, have already gotten re-reads.
> CRYPTONOMICON may get a re-read eventually, but THE DIAMOND AGE will not
> (because I found it ultimately completely unsatisfying).
The Big U. was odd, it was like two separate stories glued together with
the same characters. It was "Catch-22 on campus" and then . . . changed.
A lot.
Brian Rodenborn
Brenda W. Clough
>"Jaime Frontero" <hendy_nospam@nospam_unique-software.com_nospam> wrote in
>message news:gUCya.916208$3D1.523686@sccrnsc01...
>
>>"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:utCya.4612$2T7....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>>As it happens, I just read a 1949 issue of Startling Stories, with a
>>>>letter from Marion Zimmer. (Complaining that the editor was banning
>>>>letters with silly fannish injokes.)
>>>>
>>>That is the saddest story I've ever heard.
>>>
>>she was all over the lettercols in the SF pulps and mags, prior to her
>>
>debut
>
>>stories (two of 'em) in vortex #2 (1953). sometimes she signed herself
>>
>off
>
>>as 'astra'-something or other. when i was selling off a huge collection
>>
>of
>
>>pulps i picked up a few years ago, i used to mention letters of note in my
>>ebay descriptions, and MZB was easily the most active letter-writer of the
>>very late forties and early fifties. asimov was a pretty busy fan in the
>>mid to late thirties (prior to his debut in amazing in 1939).
>>
>>it wasn't sad though -- she was just the most quintessential fan that
>>probably ever was...
>>
>
>Sorry, I was being obscure. The only Ford novel I've read is _A Soldier's
>Story_, which begins "This is the saddest story I know."
>
>
Good god! I knew that! (And it was a really annoying novel, one of
those books in which all the characters could use a good slap upside the
head.)
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
Read my novella "May Be Some Time"
Complete at http://www.fictionwise.com
My web page is at http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Mike Schilling
"Brenda W. Clough" <clo...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3ECC1095...@erols.com...
> Mike Schilling wrote:
> >Sorry, I was being obscure. The only Ford novel I've read is _The Good
> >Soldier_, which begins "This is the saddest story I know."
> >
> >
>
>
> Good god! I knew that! (And it was a really annoying novel, one of
> those books in which all the characters could use a good slap upside the
> head.)
>
You should feel good about that. When I have a "Good god! I knew that!"
moment, it's usually something embarassing, like remembering the name of Tom
Cruise's first wife.
Sea Wasp
>
> Or look at Rex Stout's embarrassingly lame PLEASE PASS THE GUILT --
> though he then redeemed himself with A FAMILY AFFAIR.
>
> The Brain Eater may _prefer_ SF writers, but it's nibbled on a few
> mystery authors.
I don't think it's proper to apply the term "Brain Eater" to someone
who DOES redeem him/herself, as you say. You've only fallen victim if
all, or virtually all, of your material past a certain point plumbs
depths of suckitude that you could never have imagined when you were
younger.
Rex Stout's WORST Nero Wolfe novel was ten times better than most
people's best, anyway. Which makes me wonder how he ever was able to
write stuff like the clumsy romance-stuff I saw republished a few years
ago.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Mark Atwood
>
> As a counter-point to "SF authors lose things with age", I'd point at Vernor
> Vinge. There's really no argument that he's producing his best work now.
But still too damn slow!
I want to know how that story he read the first part of at ConJose' turns out!
--
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
Andrew Wheeler
>
> "Richard Horton" <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:gnCya.4607$ln7....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> > You do know that Ford Madox Ford was a pseudonym, right? For Ford
> > Madox Hueffer. (He did eventually legally change his name.)
>
> I would have called myself Hueffer Ford Reffeuh.
>
> >
> > As it happens, I just read a 1949 issue of Startling Stories, with a
> > letter from Marion Zimmer. (Complaining that the editor was banning
> > letters with silly fannish injokes.)
> >
> That is the saddest story I've ever heard.
I don't know what it says about me, but I burst out laughing as soon as
I saw that line, and I've been giggling for several minutes now.
--
Andrew Wheeler
--
People tell me one thing and out the other. I feel as much like I did
yesterday as I did today. I never liked room temperature. My throat is
closer than it seems. Likes and dislikes are among my favorites. No
napkin is sanitary enough for me. I don't like any of my loved ones.
--from a brain damage reading test by Daniel M. Wegner
Andrea Leistra
Mark Reichert <Mark_R...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Doug Clark" <rdc...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message news:<twhya.59689$JE3.3...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>> I just can't think of any older authors, who remained IN the writing biz (in
>> or out of sf), who didn't have enough success to get, shall we say, too big
>> for their britches to use as a control group to test the hypothesis.
>> Suggestions?
>
>Since nobody has mentioned him: Poul Anderson. At least I didn't hear
>anything bad about his last books.
I didn't read his last few, so can't comment on them.
That's because _Harvest of Stars_, or whatever the first in that bunch
with various combinations of the words "Harvest", "Stars", and "Fire" in
the title was, was so horrifically dreadfully bad -- full of lots of
characters several hundred years in the future taking time out of the plot
to bash twentieth-century liberals.
--
Andrea Leistra
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
> "Richard Horton" <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:gnCya.4607$ln7....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> letter from Marion Zimmer. (Complaining that the editor was banning
>> letters with silly fannish injokes.)
> That is the saddest story I've ever heard.
Lettercols were the USENET of their time. If she's "sad", what are
you, complaining about it to other fans 54 years later, 4 years after
she died?
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"We remain convinced that this is the best defensive posture to adopt in
order to minimize casualties when the Great Old Ones return from beyond
the stars to eat our brains." -Charlie Stross, _The Concrete Jungle_
Mike Schilling
"Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes" <kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnbcof3i.1...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu...
> Wed, 21 May 2003 03:34:50 GMT, Mike Schilling
<mscotts...@hotmail.com>:
> > "Richard Horton" <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:gnCya.4607$ln7....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> >> As it happens, I just read a 1949 issue of Startling Stories, with a
> >> letter from Marion Zimmer. (Complaining that the editor was banning
> >> letters with silly fannish injokes.)
> > That is the saddest story I've ever heard.
>
> Lettercols were the USENET of their time. If she's "sad", what are
> you, complaining about it to other fans 54 years later, 4 years after
> she died?
Never read _The Good Soldier_, I see.
Joe Bernstein
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote a main point that I
agree with, but then:
> but I gather you have to be making really obscene
> amounts of money before you're likely to go all Tom Clancy on your
> editors.
I don't think failure-to-edit is *just* a matter of what writers
threaten editors with, which is what your phrase "go all Tom
Clancy" suggests. (I don't know the specifics behind that phrase,
though.) As I understand it, Stephen King has repeatedly been
*very* interested in getting edited well, more or less without
any luck, that's why he resorted to a pseudonym early in his
success. Robert Jordan would illustrate one obvious reason why
a non-vicious writer might not get edited: with such immense
pressure to publish his books within milliseconds of their
completion, who has *time* to edit?
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://these-survive.postilion.org/> At this address,
personal e-mail is welcome, though unsolicited bulk e-mail is unwelcome.
Joe Bernstein
Justin Bacon <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
> And if we're talking speculative fiction, I'd also look at George R.R.
> Martin as an example of someone who's writing better material now than
> 30 years ago when he got into the industry.
Um, I don't know what Martin's short fiction is like lately, but I
have serious doubts that he could be writing it better than
"Sandkings" or "The Way of Cross and Dragon".
And I'm honestly not sure whether the Song of Ice and Fire is somehow
better than those stories, for some meaningful definition of "better".
Cross-form comparisons like that are often dangerous, and never more so
than when comparing things high on the scale of values for severely
dissimilar forms.
He does seem to be a good counter-example to the hypothesis that
the Brain Eater normally hits writers already in middle age.
Richard Horton
>Richard Horton wrote on Wed, 21 May 2003 03:28:12 GMT:
>>
>> As it happens, I just read a 1949 issue of Startling Stories, with a
>> letter from Marion Zimmer. (Complaining that the editor was banning
>> letters with silly fannish injokes.)
>
>What is a typical 1949 silly fannish injoke?
Here's the first paragraph of Marion "Astra" Zimmer's letter in the
May 1949 Startling Stories:
"So once again you give the screwball fans the old heave-ho. You did
that once before, by abolishing Snaggletooth and his kindred, but the
screwballs would not stay abolished. They crept back, shorn of blue
BEMs and Xeno, but built up a new wacky mythology all their own, with
purple BEMs, the Terrible Trio, Mad Mark Marchioni (where is he?), the
Bald Bergey and a weird sort of razzing and letters written in any old
code that came to hand."
(Later in the letter she praises a Kuttner story, by the way.)
The editor responds:
"Hey, relax, Marion. Methinks youu misundersood our intent. What we
were (and still are) growing tired of were those letters wich consist
of nothing but cryptic and unwitty mals mots ..."
Then he says: "Speaking of rarities, by the way, it is definitely such
to find you praising a Kuttner novel. Tsk! Tsk!" -- apparently his
tongue firmly in his cheek.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
David Bilek
>
>Here's the first paragraph of Marion "Astra" Zimmer's letter in the
>May 1949 Startling Stories:
>
>"So once again you give the screwball fans the old heave-ho. You did
>that once before, by abolishing Snaggletooth and his kindred, but the
>screwballs would not stay abolished. They crept back, shorn of blue
>BEMs and Xeno, but built up a new wacky mythology all their own, with
>purple BEMs, the Terrible Trio, Mad Mark Marchioni (where is he?), the
>Bald Bergey and a weird sort of razzing and letters written in any old
>code that came to hand."
>
>(Later in the letter she praises a Kuttner story, by the way.)
>
>The editor responds:
>
>"Hey, relax, Marion. Methinks youu misundersood our intent. What we
>were (and still are) growing tired of were those letters wich consist
>of nothing but cryptic and unwitty mals mots ..."
>
I feel for the editor. That's exactly how I feel about Usenet
sometimes.
How many times can people post "Nobody expects the Spanish
Inquisition!", "Mornington Crescent!", "You are (name) and I claim my
five pounds!", or any other example of humor-by-numbers before it
becomes old and tired?
I'm not sure, but many jokes reached that point years ago. At least
we haven't suffered through a "dead parrot sketch" retread in quite
some time.
-David
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Heydt) wrote:
>In article <4NPya.9374$rO.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Laumer and Heinlein both had real brain damage -- in
>>Laumer's case, fairly severe. Randall Garrett also lost it toward the
>>end, though his wife was able to help out a lot and mostly make up for
>>it.
>
>Randall had a real brain-damager, viral encephalitis.
Right -- I couldn't remember the exact nature of his illness. Thanks.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.watt-evans.com/ Last update 3/1/03
My latest novel is ITHANALIN'S RESTORATION; Tor paperback in October!
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>In article <4NPya.9374$rO.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>Hey! I'm only 48 -- since when does the Brain Eater get anyone this
>>young? For heaven's sake, I'm still learning the business!
>
> James P. Hogan started out about the same time you did, right?
>And he produced _Cradle of Saturn_ three or four years ago.
I think he was a little before me; THRICE UPON A TIME was Del Rey's SF
lead the same month my first novel appeared as a midlist title.
(That's the wort of thing I remember well.)
>>But if a writer stays healthy, and remembers that telling a good story
>>is the first priority and games with style or world-merging or
>>dragging characters back for another appearance aren't, I'd think it
>>wouldn't be that hard to avoid the Brain Eater.
>
> I have a Theory about where your immunity to the BE comes from, if
>you'd like to hear it.
I'd be very interested, actually.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Lawrence Watt-Evans" <lawr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:4NPya.9374$rO.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>
>> But if a writer stays healthy, and remembers that telling a good story
>> is the first priority and games with style or world-merging or
>> dragging characters back for another appearance aren't, I'd think it
>> wouldn't be that hard to avoid the Brain Eater.
>
>Do you think _Finnegans Wake_ is a product of the Brain Eater?
No, I think it's the product of obsession. Joyce was no longer
_trying_ to write a novel in the conventional sense; the Brain Eater
strikes when one attempts to write a novel but gets distracted or
fails, not when one attempts a unique literary experiment unlike
anything before or since.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>I think the concept of the "Brain Eater" phenomenon really comes down to
>Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke.
Robert L. Forward. Piers Anthony. Lots of examples exist.
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>What do other people think?
What is it about Usenet that causes people to be unable to distinguish
between the word "lose" and the word "loose"? SF writers don't
"loose" something as they age; they "lose" something as they age. It
just drives me batty. And it's not just one person; this is a mistake
I see all the time. Why?
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Lawrence Watt-Evans" <lawr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:4NPya.9374$rO.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>
>> But if a writer stays healthy, and remembers that telling a good story
>> is the first priority and games with style or world-merging or
>> dragging characters back for another appearance aren't, I'd think it
>> wouldn't be that hard to avoid the Brain Eater.
>
>Do you think _Finnegans Wake_ is a product of the Brain Eater? It certainly
>fails the "telling a good story" vs. "games with style" test, and Joyce's
>health was not good towards the end of its writing. On the other hand, _FW_
>may be the greatest intellectual achievement by a single human being in
>history; lumping it in with _To Sail Beyond the Sunset_ seems wrong.
>
Yes. While _To Said Beyond the Sunset_ isn't a great novel, or even a
"GREAT NOVEL," it can be read and understood by a human fluent in
English.
--
Pete McCutchen
Mike Schilling
> On 21 May 2003 22:03:40 GMT, tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote:
>
> >I think the concept of the "Brain Eater" phenomenon really comes down to
> >Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke.
>
> Robert L. Forward. Piers Anthony. Lots of examples exist.
>
Larry Niven.
Spider Robinson.
Orson Scott Card.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>Richard Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>>The editor responds:
>>
>>"Hey, relax, Marion. Methinks youu misundersood our intent. What we
>>were (and still are) growing tired of were those letters wich consist
>>of nothing but cryptic and unwitty mals mots ..."
>>
>
>I feel for the editor. That's exactly how I feel about Usenet
>sometimes.
>
>How many times can people post "Nobody expects the Spanish
>Inquisition!", "Mornington Crescent!", "You are (name) and I claim my
>five pounds!", or any other example of humor-by-numbers before it
>becomes old and tired?
I don't know. But I like the "mals mot".
--
We won't dispassionately investigate or rationally debate which drugs
do what damage and whether or how much of that damage is the result
of criminalization. We'd rather work ourselves into a screaming fit of
puritanism and then go home and take a pill.
- P.J. O'Rourke
Jeffrey C. Dege
>>
>>Do you think _Finnegans Wake_ is a product of the Brain Eater?
>
>No, I think it's the product of obsession. Joyce was no longer
>_trying_ to write a novel in the conventional sense;
True. He was trying to figure out just how much BS he could shovel and
still have the wonks call it "brilliant".
Mike Schilling
"Pete McCutchen" <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:d3ilcvo9ppgmvn8r0...@4ax.com...
I knew you didn't like Joyce, Pete:-)
My question was if the same affliction that made RAH write Lazarus novels ad
naseum and made Asimov think "the sexy woman is a robot" was a universally
useful trick ending was responsible for the Wake. I have mixed thoughts.
On the one hand, there's a sort of monomania in all cases. On the other
hand, the Brain Eater is associated with a loss of control, where Joyce
showed more control over his materials than even the Boss From Hell would
want over his employees.
Pete McCutchen
>Joseph Michael Bay wrote:
>
>>lheil...@aol.com (LHeilb8013) writes:
>>
>>>>>> I've been thinking lately about the number of SF authors whose later
>>>>>> works are unworthy of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Some like MZM lose even more after they are dead..........:)
>>>>
>>>>If by chance you mean MZB, that's because some of her posthumous
>>>>works were written by Mercedes Lackey.
>>
>>
>>>Sorry, need to avoid typos when trying to make a joke.........
>>
>>Yeah, it looses something when you have to mentally correct it.
>
> It's "lose" people. The only thing SF authors may "loose" as they age is
>the notch on their belt.
Yes. I think he knew that.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
Michael Bay) wrote:
>>Sorry, need to avoid typos when trying to make a joke.........
>
>Yeah, it looses something when you have to mentally correct it.
I was going to correct you, perhaps with a snide comment about
Stanford, but then I realized that you were making a joke. Very good!
You *almost* had me.
--
Pete McCutchen
Mike Schilling
Its nothing too loose you're cool over.
Mike Schilling
A shame; the more snide comments about Stanford, the merrier. (Did you know
they still won't admit losing the Big Game in '82?)
Mike (Cal '81)