He was right - No it doesn't. But what it does have to be - is well written. Clarke was a great writer, first and foremost. In my mind, what's wrong with so much (not all) of current sci-fi writing is that the authors substitute exposition for real character development creating a dulling kind of distancing.
I'm reading a recent Hugo-Nebula winner ('Roleback' if anyone's interested.), given to me by a friend who really wants me to to like it, but the characters are so leaden, there's so much propagandizing - that its just kind of DUH! The only character I warm to is the robot.
Mm, sci-fi has never been great on character development, with some exceptions (Butler, Le Guin, Dick, "Flowers for Algernon", "The Demolished Man" etc). Much of the Golden Age stuff is really bad at it (e.g. Heinlein, Asimov); then there are authors who clearly can do character (e.g. Banks, Gibson) but give the book over to events or setting or atmosphere because they feel it's more important.
Part of the reason things are classified as SF is the dealing with ideas, exploration of alternate societies, technologies, etc - things external to the characters' own heads.
I know that - but look at your list of exceptions. It can be done - all it takes is talent and the will to try. What really pisses me off is that this egregious book I'm slogging through WON! the Hugo and Nebula awards. Where are the standards?
I've just come back from teaching my car salesmen - if I weren't so tired, I'd give you chapter and verse on what irritates me about the book.
Lucky you, however. I'm going to have a tomato and salmon salad and watch 2-3 Torchwoods - I've been saving them up - should get my mind onto something else to be irritated by......
My parting comment however: a book about what it means to be human and the most interesting and believable character is.... the robot! DUH!!!
Is character development a necessary component of the sci-fi novel? (For some reason I'm thinking of the novel that was written without the letter E here..)
I'm currently reading the Baron-Cohen book on extreme brains and I'm starting to think that in the case of lots of SF, both the author and target audience are such extreme systematisers that character development as conventionally understood is more alien to them than actual aliens. Or - more reasonably - just not a priority to the readers.
I just took a look through the list of Hugo and Nebula winners. Apart from noticing that I've not read most of those from the past 20 years and that there is considerable overlap between the lists, The Terminal Man jumped out at me. I've read it and didn't think much of it; I suspect that like Rollback it got the award for dealing with "big ideas" like "what it means to be human" ...
Its hard to name A favourite - but Ursula le Guinn's Earthsea series - especially the last one, The Other Wind are books I read over and over. although now that I start to think about it. Anne McCaffrey's, 'The Ship Who Sang' still makes me cry every time I re-read it. I've given away over 8 copies to new friends, often my students.
Maybe its a guy thing - they like all that exposition with little or no real emotion to make them uncomfortable. Although I do like William Gibson.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'm reading a recent Hugo-Nebula winner ('Roleback' if anyone's interested.), given to me by a friend who really wants me to to like it, but the characters are so leaden, there's so much propagandizing - that its just kind of DUH! The only character I warm to is the robot.
no subject
Part of the reason things are classified as SF is the dealing with ideas, exploration of alternate societies, technologies, etc - things external to the characters' own heads.
no subject
What really pisses me off is that this egregious book I'm slogging through WON! the Hugo and Nebula awards. Where are the standards?
no subject
no subject
no subject
He seems to have 'fans' as opposed to 'people who read his books and enjoy them and think they're good'.
no subject
Lucky you, however. I'm going to have a tomato and salmon salad and watch 2-3 Torchwoods - I've been saving them up - should get my mind onto something else to be irritated by......
My parting comment however: a book about what it means to be human and the most interesting and believable character is.... the robot! DUH!!!
no subject
(For some reason I'm thinking of the novel that was written without the letter E here..)
I'm currently reading the Baron-Cohen book on extreme brains and I'm starting to think that in the case of lots of SF, both the author and target audience are such extreme systematisers that character development as conventionally understood is more alien to them than actual aliens. Or - more reasonably - just not a priority to the readers.
I just took a look through the list of Hugo and Nebula winners. Apart from noticing that I've not read most of those from the past 20 years and that there is considerable overlap between the lists, The Terminal Man jumped out at me. I've read it and didn't think much of it; I suspect that like Rollback it got the award for dealing with "big ideas" like "what it means to be human" ...
What's your favourite SF novel?
no subject
Earthsea series - especially the last one, The Other Wind are books I read over and over. although now that I start to think about it. Anne McCaffrey's, 'The Ship Who Sang' still makes me cry every time I re-read it. I've given away over 8 copies to new friends, often my students.
Maybe its a guy thing - they like all that exposition with little or no real emotion to make them uncomfortable. Although I do like William Gibson.
no subject
no subject