Judging SF novels - different criteria than other literature?

Personally I find 'Art' critics a pain in the arse, unless of course they themselves have actually mastered a great piece, innit.

Fritz Von Bullshittinnonentities³

And I should know, innit.

I assume you won't be making any more political comments until you are at least at ministerial level?

... not discussing the taste of a dish unless you're a chef, not commenting on hifi unless you can build some, not pontificating on a musician's skill unless you're an accomplished player yourself.

Thomas

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ross Blackman:
So, Fritz, I assume you won't be making any more political comments until you are at least at ministerial level?

Ross

---

As I suspect you're well aware I refer to so-called professional critics who make or break writers, musicians, artists, etc, with their often pointless and unqualified comments that a stupid majority of us strangely listen to, and judge opur actions accordingly, DJ's and Film creets alike, talking of imagination ***


Fritz Von Nothingnewtherethen

My favourites have been:

Julina May - Galactic Millieu series (The golden torc etc)
Frank Herbert - Dune series (but not the efforts by his son)
Stephen Donaldson - Chronicals of Thomas Covenant.

I will second Ian M Banks as a excellent story teller, but I am disapointed that there has been no output since Look to Windward.

Maybe I am a lazy reader as the key thing I am looking for is an involving story and a world that I could believe in amd I look upon my intelect being engaged as a bonus. I guess the frivolous side of me is seen best in my liking of most (but not all) of Terry Pratchetts output.

The writers I have mentioned have built on the interest in sci-fi I gained by reading Robert Heinlen and Asimov over 35 years ago. There was just something about sci-fi that has always appealed to me rather than mainstream literature. I will admit I have yet to read a Dickens novel for example.

Maybe for me, it is a case of SF for enjoyment and mainstream literature for education. I kind of like escapism from this world of ours.

I can hear music, sweet sweet music

"but I am disapointed that there has been no output since Look to Windward"

He released The Algerbraist in October this year.

Matthew

I guess my question indicates what I like about SF - escapism - but I do feel that the genre as a whole is attempting to comment on the human condition. Although I've never studied literature my understanding is that the exploration of the human condition is what sets literature apart from mere entertainment. Science fiction certainly does this by imagining the way that aspects of contemporary humanity might affect a future world.

I have read a lot of conventional fiction through the years but absolutely nothing other than SF has given me a sense of grandeur and awe. Involvement, concern for characters, food for thought are all things that I get from conventional fiction but never grandeur and awe.

When an SF novel gives me these feelings but isn't brilliantly written I am inclined to forgive it for its shortcomings.

Deane

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
As I suspect you're well aware I refer to so-called professional critics who make or break writers, musicians, artists, etc, with their often pointless and unqualified comments that a stupid majority of us strangely listen to, and judge opur actions accordingly, DJ's and Film creets alike, talking of imagination

---

Critics generally don't make or break anything anymore. That was a fifty years ago.

It's just that they don't have any impact anymore compared to what promotion via adverts, tv and what have you can accomplish.

And apart from that I'd say: just read a book, rather than complain about the culture, bud. Unless you want to be part of the "stupid majority"

BTW in a lot of cases book reviews are actually written by guys and gals who write books themselves.

Deane

Well written SF is of course often based on startling background ideas. Such authors can be admired for their sense of imagination and invention but it can also be used as a crutch for what rapidly becomes a poor conventinoal story propped up by the written "special effects" so to speak. Often I find the better SF to be a well written conventional story, time shifted to a different place and time, but not swamped by ray guns and robots etc. For example Frank Herbert's DUNE series (ONLY his orginal books, not his son's) is an example of a thoughtfull construction which while it has a very deep and strong original universe rapidly becomes a very enjoyable read because of the characters and the plot line together with a literate approach that requires the reader's intelligence, to be properly enjoyed and understood.

However I am at a lost to understand why you struggle to get a sense of awe and grandeur from other forms of fiction.One of my favourite authors is Dorothy Dunnet who has written two sereis of histroic fiction (Lymond & Nicolo) which are brillant evocations of a period in the history of Europe which was shaken by enormous events. Her characters of course interact with real historical figures and you could assume that provides a framework that does'nt force the author to imagine the background for the central story thus making the task easier but this does not really mean that much when you begin to read and discover the density of the plot lines and the depth to which the individual characters are explored. I found plenty fo grandeur and awe in reading these books.

I am only quoting one example as an illustration. A skillfull and strongly literate writer placing their story in any time surpasses "genre" and becomes read for their writing not because they are 'SF' or 'Historic' or 'Crime' or unclassifiable like Ian Banks is at his best. SF can be disasterous and superficial just like other "pulp fiction" and for me at least it cannot be saved or made more palatable by being set on some asteroid or in some far distant future.

regards
GEOFF

"Just trying to make a NAIM for myself"

quote:

---

Originally posted by herm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
As I suspect you're well aware I refer to so-called professional critics who make or break writers, musicians, artists, etc, with their often pointless and unqualified comments that a stupid majority of us strangely listen to, and judge opur actions accordingly, DJ's and Film creets alike, talking of imagination

---

Critics generally don't make or break anything anymore. That was a fifty years ago.

It's just that they don't have any impact anymore compared to what promotion via adverts, tv and what have you can accomplish.

And apart from that I'd say: just read a book, rather than complain about the culture, bud. Unless you want to be part of the "stupid majority"

BTW in a lot of cases book reviews are actually written by guys and gals who write books themselves.

---

That may be the case in the Hollish world, but I doubt very much if it is anywhere else ! Your good old argumentative approach hasent chernged one iota since the last time you commented on my posts (which is fine ) but I suugest maybe you should try the "Argument thread" old Son, or is it Bud ? a nice cold bottle of whoich I am soon to my lips put, innit.

Fritz Von Happychristmasnederederland

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deane F:
I guess my question indicates what I like about SF - escapism - but I do feel that the genre as a whole is attempting to comment on the human condition. Although I've never studied literature my understanding is that the exploration of the human condition is what sets literature apart from mere entertainment. Science fiction certainly does this by imagining the way that aspects of contemporary humanity might affect a future world.

I have read a lot of conventional fiction through the years but absolutely nothing other than SF has given me a sense of grandeur and awe. Involvement, concern for characters, food for thought are all things that I get from conventional fiction but never grandeur and awe.

When an SF novel gives me these feelings but isn't brilliantly written I am inclined to forgive it for its shortcomings.

Deane

---

Nicely Put Deanne, A very happy Christmas to Christchurch too.

Regards. Fritz Von Originalityisademandinggiftitseems

Deane

Well written SF is of course often based on startling background ideas. Such authors can be admired for their sense of imagination and invention but it can also be used as a crutch for what rapidly becomes a poor conventinoal story propped up by the written "special effects" so to speak. Often I find the better SF to be a well written conventional story, time shifted to a different place and time, but not swamped by ray guns and robots etc. For example Frank Herbert's DUNE series (ONLY his orginal books, not his son's) is an example of a thoughtfull construction which while it has a very deep and strong original universe rapidly becomes a very enjoyable read because of the characters and the plot line together with a literate approach that requires the reader's intelligence, to be properly enjoyed and understood.

However I am at a lost to understand why you struggle to get a sense of awe and grandeur from other forms of fiction.One of my favourite authors is Dorothy Dunnet who has written two sereis of histroic fiction (Lymond & Nicolo) which are brillant evocations of a period in the history of Europe which was shaken by enormous events. Her characters of course interact with real historical figures and you could assume that provides a framework that does'nt force the author to imagine the background for the central story thus making the task easier but this does not really mean that much when you begin to read and discover the density of the plot lines and the depth to which the individual characters are explored. I found plenty fo grandeur and awe in reading these books.

I am only quoting one example as an illustration. A skillfull and strongly literate writer placing their story in any time surpasses "genre" and becomes read for their writing not because they are 'SF' or 'Historic' or 'Crime' or unclassifiable like Ian Banks is at his best. SF can be disasterous and superficial just like other "pulp fiction" and for me at least it cannot be saved or made more palatable by being set on some asteroid or in some far distant future.

regards
GEOFF

"Just trying to make a NAIM for myself"

I prefer to judge writing simply by how it affects me; avoiding, if I can, my tendency to form hypotheses about what technical criteria are important.

Nevertheless, I somehow expect to prefer a badly written but good story to a well written but lesser one. In practice, however, I have found this not to be so. Both Philip K. Dick and Isaac Asimov, for example, had interesting and original ideas but their (IMO) poor styles seriously affected my ability to enjoy their writing.

On the other hand, once a writer reaches a certain minimum standard I don't even think about style. Arthur C. Clarke and Ray Bradbury, for example, could not be more different stylistically [Clarke's writing having the kind of simple but not simplistic "invisible" style that I aspire to, and Bradbury's being quite idiosyncratic] but I find both form patterns in my mind that allow me to get lost in the story and forget about the words. I am sure there are writers who styles I prefer to theirs, in an abstract sort of way, but it is not really relevant to me.

As for characterisation, Clarke doesn't - and perhaps can't - use complex characterisation but he writes stories that work, for me, on their own terms, with as much characterisation as they need. Would the same be true if he wrote detective novels, historical novels or "literary" novels? For me, probably yes...

I find that an indicator of a very well written novel is that I'm still thinking about the story and characters for a few days after I finish the book.

quote:

---

Great literature is great literature is great literature.

---

Ross

If you can give some objective definition of "great" which we can all accept, then we have a starting point; otherwise it is no more than "I think this is great, so it is" statement of personal preference or prejudice.

cheers

Nigel

1. Imagine a line 10m long, at one end is, say, "Great Expectations" and at the other "Lord of the Rings".

2. Place your candidate book on this continuum.

3. If it's within 10cm of the "Great Expectations" end then it can be legitimately called "great literature".

This is the offical definition of the SI unit for literature greatness and anyone in disagreement can shove their cultural relativism up their fundament.

Matthew

Nothing like reasoned debate, Matty

cheers

Nigel

quote:

---

Originally posted by J. A. Toon:
On the subject of which, having read Dostoyevky's (seeing as you mention him) _Crime and Punishment_ and _The Idiot_, brilliant as they are (well, the former anyway), I couldn't help but feel that they both (particularly the latter) could have benefitted from some serious editing.

---

<John McEnroe Mode On>

You cannot be serious!

-- Ian