Garovorkins Asks #2 The Least and Last of Sci-Fi

Mr. Garovorkin Asks: In Scfi Who Is The Greatest And Who Is The Most Overrated?

Quote:

Originally Posted by War Arrow At the risk of making many, many enemies, I'd say Asimov is the most overrated. I find much of his writing embarrassing, some nice ideas but a prose style that reminds me of Enid Blyton with characters such as Donovan and Powell who exclaim Sizzling Satellites! and the like. Perhaps I haven't read his decent stuff (and I must admit The Bicentennial Man is a great improvement on what I have read) but I just find him a bit goofy. Perhaps he hasn't aged well, but so what - I've now read plenty of science-fiction novels from the 40s and 50s which still do the job without making me squirm with embarrassment.

Exclaim, do they? I tend to follow the Agatha Christie advice (which Stephen King, not content with knicking the plots off John Wyndham, also knicked this piece of writers advice, and why not: it's a good one) - always say "said". Not exclaimed, blasted, yelled or anything of the matter. The reader should be able to tell the intonement of the dialogue from its surroundings or language.

cf

The man stormed into the room. "What the hell do you think yer doin'?" he said. (Said works fine, we can tell from his stormy entrance that hes not best pleased).

Sorry, but you did mention Enid Blyton and exclaiming.

Where was I? Asimov. He's a very interesting character, and let me tell you why. Didn't like ghost stories. Actually, thats an understatement. He abhorred them. Thought them full of cliches and bad prose: imagine that! And yet, Frederick Pohl (the editor) once suggested a ghost story idea that interested Asimov so much he wrote it. "Legal Rites", co-authored by Pohl and Asimov. And I tell you this - its one of the best ghost stories ever written. How's that for a humerous twist. The writer who dislikes the genre ends up writing one of its best examples!

His sci-fi can be varied. I'd never go as far to call him the second coming of Wells/Verne/God as some might say, but his arsenal of backcatalogue is worthy at least for many a flicker. Some of his best works are his shorts, or ones famous by default, "Flies" or Robot respectively.

I guess he needed a firm editorial hand, and I can't get into a lot of his stuff. When on form, however, he is masterful.

[quote=james campbell;6659408]I don't know about the most overrated science fiction writers.But the only one of the greats which I've read and been a little more than disappointed with is Arthur C Clarke.I don't hate his work it's just that it doesn't appeal to me greatly.[quote]

Arthur C Clarke brought us the Hubble Telescope and made a lasting contribution to science. Fiction wise, his best work was aided by a superb auteur - Kubrick - who knew how to transcribe the script on screen as best as possible. They had a fight over the film, am I right in recalling?

Quote:

Although I've always liked Phillip K Dick there are two writers who always stand out from the crowd as it were for me.

He became a real cult figure after death. With Blade Runner. In fact, after the huge buildup with Dick and Blade Runner, it would be most interesting to see how the new found fame that he would have surely recieved if he'd lived five months longer than he did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imbolc Fire I don't think I've read enough science-fiction to comment on who is overrated. However, the writer who I would personally call the greatest is Philip K. Dick. Whilst he's not much of a prose stylist and his characterisation can be rather pulpy, the depth of his vision and particularly his ability to realise its metaphysical and epistemological complexity without creating too much confusion, is humbling. The reputation of Gene Wolfe's 'Book of the New Sun' should also be unassailable, for its extraordinary atmosphere, the subtlety of its plotting and the beauty of its symbolism. I'm also fond of Ursula le Guin's science fiction work, Moorcock's 'Dancers at the End of Time,' Roger Zelazney's 'Lord of Light,' and M. John Harrison's 'Light' and 'Nova Swing,' although I adore anything Harrison writes, so that's hardly surprising.

I shall have to give Wolfe a look out. Moorcock has never really done it for me, I find him by degrees too disillusioning and loose as a writer.

Do androids dream of electric sheep? If you were to tell Dick he was the best, I think he'd have been too paranoid to believe you meant it. Good? Yes. Influential? Certainly. The best? Nope.

And here comes a pet peeve of mine. How come every sentence Dick ever wrote gets put on screen, but no one's made a decent Wyndham adaptation in 40 years, and never attempted The Kraken Awakes or The Trouble With Lichen. It's not that hard, surely?

Quote:

Originally Posted by james campbell I've always had a problem with English/British Science Fiction.I have no idea why but I've always preferred American Science Fiction.I know it's irrational and I can't explain why.I think another problem is , that Clarke when he was alive he was always referred to as "the greatest Science Fiction writer in the World".This is the same rational that makes B.B King "the greatest Blues guitarist".It was just that he was the last one standing I suppose.

There was a recent documentary series, The Martians and Us, about British sci-fi. It suggested during its run the reasons for the gulf between British (Call it British, the difference between Scottish, English, Welsh and Irish Sci-fi is so small as to be almost entirely negligble) and American sci-fi tastes.

American sci-fi is primarily of the Star Trek/Flash Gordon variety. That being, that the overall message is "Humanity will prosper and go out in to the skies together to seek new worlds". There is a buzzing, almost naive at times, positivity to it. It's exploration out there and we all live on and expand.

British sci-fi is primarily of the War of the Worlds/1984 variety. Namely, "Oh no! Our colonisation of "lesser races" is going to bite us in the ass and we'll all die doomed and painfully, and its all irreversible!". British Sci-fi, by and large, is distinctly downbeat. If we don't have alien invaders making us feel like the colonised we had already crunched underfoot, then we have dystopian near futures to look forward to.

Its very much a sign of the times. Whereas the British writers mind tends to make his cuirrent living much worse on paper almost to either hope or prove it wont go that far, the American writer tends to look to positivity far quicker. So, for example, whilst the end of the Second World War brought 1984, the Great Depression brought Flash Gordon.

I have a theory, not one I can back up without lots of undone research, concerning the birth of American sci-fi. Now, all sci-fi came to be through the work of Verne and Wells primarily. (And if you want to be pedantic, Poe, de Bergerac and Shelley). I think one day Hugh Gernsback sat down and said, "This War of the Worlds stuff is all well and good, but I want my science-fiction to be a little more upbeat." And thus the era of pulp sci-fi, and the American wave of positive sci-fi was born. I have nothing to prove this, but the point of convergence appears here and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if my conjecture was true.

Maybe that explains why you like one over the other?

I will say this though, and I say this as someone who would never call themselves the biggest fan of the genre as a whole. (Legitimately ironic, that, but then I am a hypocrite.) The fact that both differing uses of the genre as shown above can be used to great effect and even together without dilluting or wrecking the premise as set forth by Jules Vernes and H.G. Wells, is the greatest single point that shows the worth and scope of science-fiction writing.

Quote:

For me the only science fiction writers to have blown me away upon first reading them were Weinbaum and Cordwainer Smith. Clarke on Weinbaum: "During the single year of 1935 Astounding published seven stories by Weinbaum and in March 1936 his obituary.His entire career had spanned little more than eighteen months and is the saddest "what might have been" in the history of science fiction"."Never before -and never since-have I turned back to the beginning of a story immediately on finishing it,to read it straight through again". Asimov on Weinbaum: "I marvel at the sight of Weinbaum heroically hewing modern SF out of a lump of granite,using primitive tools and raw power." "Like a nova,capturing the imagination of the readers at once,altering the nature of Science Fiction and converting every other writer into an imitator."

In the space of eighteen months, American writing lost Weinbaum, Howard and Lovecraft all at stupidly premature ages. A waste, in all instances. Weinbaum, of his cancer. Howard, of his suicide. Lovecraft, of his incessant drinking in despair that was all but a second suicide on hearing of the death of his friend, Howard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aloysius No one else comes close to Asimov for me, particularly his short stories.

"Legal Rites". I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe King In a strange way, I think Philip K. Dick manages to be both the greatest and the most overrated SF author. Greatest in the sense that as his peak, writing exciting potboilers that are at once thrilling, unpredictable, funny, satirical and paranoid, he is unsurpassable, a true original. Overrated in the sense that he has become the science-fiction author its OK for "real authors" to admit they like and read, ignoring the many other SF authors who have also written truly great literature. Also, his final three books - which are highly feted among his fanbase - are to me the biggest load of overblown, drug-addled cobblers it's ever been my misfortune to read.

Oh dear. We're not going to get into a "real author" vs "popular" one again are we? It was bad enough agreeing with Matt Reilly.

I have never seen why anyone would feel they need to apologise for liking sci-fi. It's not exactly akin to liking child porn or illicit affairs, is it? Why apologise for enjoying writing? It makes no sense, and is symptomatic of the current age of writing, which I strongly deteste. Enjoy what you like, dislike what you don't. Don't put ludicrous boundaries and excuses up as to why you do or don't though. They impress very few.

Quote:

A close second for me for the crown of greatest SF writer would be Christopher Priest - probably the only writer who matches Phil Dick in the way in which he can distort and question the nature of reality. It's a shame he's not better known - I had hoped the (excellent) film adaptation of The Prestige would have raised his profile somewhat but this, sadly, doesn't seem to have happened.

The Prestige was a film I liked - the first one me and Mandy went to see together, in fact - but am I right in thinking there was a similar contratong between Priest and the director of this film as there was with Kubrick and Clarke? I think I recall reading some articles.

I'm sure I've read some of Priest's shorts, and enjoyed them. I can't for the life of me remember what they were though.

[quote=WSK;6712067]Pah! Turned down for Doctor Who; what does that make him? [/QUOTE

Yes, the Christopher Priest. Joe King explains...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe King Christopher Priest was commissioned by Chris Bidmead to write Romana's leaving story for Season 18. He wrote a story called "Sealed Orders" in which the Doctor would be ordered by the Time Lords to kill Romana to prevent some future catastrophe happening. The story was (obviously) never completed. Bidmead puts it down to lack of time available to help Priest - who is, after all, a novelist not a screenwriter - turn the story into a workable script. I do recall reading an interview with Priest some years back in which he laid the blame squarely on JNT, however. Doctor Who wasn't Priest's only foray into telefantasy though - he wrote an episode of Into The Labyrinth!

To quote Steve Lyons, "A script by acclaimed sci-fi author Christopher Priest had to be at least better than a script by someone who wasn't an acclaimed sci-fi author, but sadly Sealed Orders remained so." Sounded quite interesting, and wouldn't have changed history much as akin to Big Finish. After all, they wouldn't have killed off Romana for real, would they? Would they? Quick, someone phone up Mr Priest and check.

A lot of talented people were brought into Doctor Who by Jon Nathan-Turner and very few stayed long in the show, be they Priest, Grimwade or Gallagher. Though I wouldn't put the blame at JNT's door for that: the strain on his shoulders must been incredible with executives on his back, and I'm a grrry soul at the most relaxed of times!

Quote:

On the subject of overrated authors - can I mention Orson Scott Card? I read Ender's Game long before I learned about his reprehensible politics so I'm not motivated to include him here because of that. My reaction to Ender's Game - which I know is loved by an awful lot of people - was very much one of "what's the big deal?" It's not a bad novel by any means but I really don't understand what all the fuss is about.

He just rejected one of my stories. I'm almost secretly glad. Two things put me off about Orson Scott Card.

1. Eumenides in the Fourth Floor Lavatory. Not a good start to read for any author, one of the most abusively disturbing stories ever written. And worse, its all in plain Wodehousian language! Covering the loathsome tale of our main character being

haunted by the many abortions and miscarriages his teenage daughter had as a result of sex with him

(Warning - I strongly recommend not clicking that spoiler link)

2. His recent homophobic outpourings have lost him much sympathy I had. And not sure how to feel about him inducing mental health problems in his arguement. Hey, don't bring me into your bile!

http://www.afterelton.com/people/2008/7/orsonscottcard

http://mormontimes.com/ME_blogs.php?id=1586

If you must read more on this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benjamin Adams To be fair, neither Decalogs 4 or 5 were Doctor Who anthologies. xx Ben

Neil Williamson was published in Decalog 4. I have it. And I will read it one day. Just thought I'd give that a shout out, Neil being a good friend of mine.

Quote:

I highly recommend this essay if you fancy learning a bit more. It's the best analysis of Van Vogt's work that I've read: http://www.enter.net/~torve/articles.../vanvogt1.html

And since I have been wittering on for several hundred - maybe thousand words - this transcript will be blogged and this is quoted merely as a reminder to myself to read it later.

Quote:

In all of science fiction which writer or writers rate as truly great and why do think they are ? Who is the most overrated science fiction writer and writers and why? Does the passage of time play a role in any of this?

In conclusion, time to turn to the final question. The only one asked, to be fair. Who are the best writers of sci-fi? I can give you two names. Wells and Wyndham. Now Wells has been mentioned. He is the undisputed king of British sci-fi, and invented almost every trope that Verne had failed to. Imagine life without time travel ideas, alien invasion stories and natural disasters. Wells has had such an impact on modern culture that not including him here would be a disservice.

Might I also ruin the flow of the conclusion by stating that Wells also wrote a few nifty ghost stories, the best of which is almost certainly "The Inexperienced Ghost".

But best of all is Wyndham, a man who in our household or namely my mums, is sci-fi. Of that there can be little doubt. Look at his resume.

Day of the Triffids.
Midwich Cuckoos
The Kraken Awakes
Chocky
The Chyrsalids
The Trouble With Lichen
Planet Plane (or Stowaway to Mars, his lesser known debut)

Some of the greatest stories ever written by a British novelist, not just one of science-fiction, and Wyndham wrote them in a nine year spell. Sure, he's not the most famous. He's not the most finesse of writers. He's not the most original either, having adapted ideas from others. And he never seems to get the praise he deserves.

But that is immaterial. For you will find, in Wyndham, five superior novels (Chocky and Planet Plane I remove here) that others would have struggled to match. The style, sheer imagination and cultural relevance and revival that surround Wyndham's work means that he should be thought of much higher than he is. He deserves, on Triffids alone, to be consider one of the better writer. Add Midwich, Kraken, Chyrsalids and Lichen to that, and Wyndham stands proudly on the pedestool next to Wells. Anywhere else would do the man a disservice.