YAHOO users are idiots

[Ben Kenobi]

See, statements like that make you sound like an idiot, Ben.

An admission of not knowing something is the furthest thing from being an idiot.

The giants are different now, but they're still just as big... SF is much more complex and interesting now than it was 30 years ago (in my opinion) (though there was a lot of good stuff then too).

I think the most recent work of science fiction which I've read is the PD James book, which I thought was very well done. I've read Andromeda Strain and a few others.

I'm not fond of recent works, and most writers these days, there are a few who stand out to me, Bernard Cornwell being one of them, and so I pretty much read his stuff exclusively today.

That's pretty much how it works with me. If I read an author, and I like his stuff, I'll read all of his stuff.

I won't try a new author, unless he comes recommended from someone else.

That's just 'greats' who still regularly publish great things... I could add a bunch more who don't put out as much anymore, but still write occasionally (vinge, for example).

Well I don't see how you can compare the list with Heinlein, Asimov, and Arthur C Clarke in the 50's and 60's, 70's and 80's.

Heck Bradbury didn't even win a Hugo at all!

If those are the greats then they are midgets.

There is an incredible amount of great SF coming out - to the point that I can't remotely keep up with it, and I buy a TON of SF (probably about $200-300/month at full retail, though of course I get it cheaper). The 'giants' from 30 years ago are ... dead, retired, or writing slowly, because they're in their sixties.

Couple points here.

1. It is much easier now to win a hugo/nebula then it was in times past. Prior to 1960, only three were awarded retroactively, including Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451.

How can you measure the standing of an author through Hugo awards?

I think the quality has gone down substantially. There are more awards and more categories, hence it is easier to win.

Dune didn't even win an award outright, which should tell you something about the quality of the science fiction coming out every year. Asimov won 3. Arthur C Clarke only won 2! Heinlein won 5.

In contrast the 'winningest author' has won 1.5 for best novel.

In 2001, it went to JK Rowlings. So I think the award is worthless now.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I'm a huge star wars fan - probably nearly as much as you (though i'm not one to tend towards the extreme fanatic). If that is the ONLY sf-ish thing one follows, or the main one, then that doesn't count, though... an avid SF fan will read many authors. Someone who was an avid Arthur C Clarke fan wouldn't be an avid SF fan, either...

Yes, but someone who loved SW, and ST, and BSG, and Andromeda, etc. would, IMO :P

What are the last ten SF books you read (for the sake of argument, exclude Star Wars), and who won the Hugo award last year, without googling; and who is the winningest Hugo/Nebula combined author of all time?

In reverse chronological order:
The Diamond Age
Snow Crash
Cryptonomicon
A bunch of 19th-century short stories
From the Earth to the Moon
One of Greg Bear's books, forget which (in his big series)
Tales of the Dying Earth
... can't put anything in order past this.

(None of this includes rereading books.)

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Read Stross He is the most versatile writer I've read in years.

Neil Gaiman does not write SF by any definition of the term (though great stuff).

Bujold is one of the correct answers, depending on how you look at the award

Not all of the folks I listed would be in my top choices, either... I don't read all SF; and some of my favorite authors are a long way from being 'greats'. I'd say those are at least a good sampling of the 'greats' of today, if you use a fairly broad definition that allows for more than 3 or 4 'greats'.

If I had to pick 3 'greats' (ie, the Heinlein/Asimov/Clarke of today), and limited it to relatively newer authors (excluding folks like Vinge, Haldeman, etc. who are at the end of their careers, and excluding those who did the bulk of their great writing in 90s or earlier) it's probably Sawyer, Stross, and ... the third would always be heavily up for debate; i'll throw Iain Banks in the ring, though his better writing was ten years ago; you could argue McDevitt, Kress (for her short writing), Willis, or Doctorow easily. None of them are truly 'greats' by the definition of 'stood the test of time', because we haven't had enough time with them yet to decide that I am to some extent projecting forward, those authors who I think in 20 years we'll consider the greats of this era.

My memory was that some of Gaiman's short stories or whatever were sci-fi, but I could have gotten mixed up with another short story collection I read at the same time.

I honestly think that in 20 years, Bujold will be one of the greats of our era.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Heinlein is not the most hugo- or hugo/nebula- award winning writer any longer, and has not been for some time. There are multiple correct answers to this question, by the way, depending on how you interpret it.

For Hugos he has 5 for best novel. I don't consider the other categories as good, because they haven't been around as long, and so favour the later authors.

Farmer in the Sky
Double Star
Starship Troopers
Stranger in a Strange Land
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Bujold is next up with 4. Again, someone who really doesn't match up well with the folks from the 50s, 60s and 70s.

Seems the Hugos don't do 'science fiction' anymore. Everything is fantasy.

[Jon Miller]

I thought that Heinlein and Asimov had a decent number of good or better novels. Clark only has a couple (that I read), his short stories were better.

Many of the people who are publishing better I think are better.

I will say that Bujold is better than Heinlein, Clark, or Asimov. She is definitely a better writer.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Also, Heinlein sucks, and Asimov/Clarke are overrated.

Cool ideas do not excuse mediocre writing.

[Ben Kenobi]

I will say that Bujold is better than Heinlein, Clark, or Asimov.

Better author. Worse at science fiction.

[Jon Miller]

Exactly.

My issue with Stross is I don't know where to begin.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Better author. Worse at science fiction.

She writes science fiction, so better at science fiction.

Worse at speculating about science or writing hard science fiction perhaps.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

I honestly think that in 20 years, Bujold will be one of the greats of our era.

If she wants to be.

I really think the trend for the last 20 years has been away from the hard science fiction. I don't see how it's more difficult to write. You have to know your stuff and do research, but the best writing has solid research behind it.

Anyone can bang out a book like Rowlings does, but it takes considerable effort to write one that holds up.

[Ben Kenobi]

She writes science fiction, so better at science fiction.

Worse at speculating about science or writing hard science fiction perhaps.

Most of it is fantasy. I honestly don't see the case for it as science fiction, or with Harry potter as science fiction, yet both her and Rowlings have Hugos.

[Ben Kenobi]

Also, Heinlein sucks, and Asimov/Clarke are overrated.

Cool ideas do not excuse mediocre writing.

I'm guessing you aren't a fan of Hemingway either.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Also, Heinlein sucks, and Asimov/Clarke are overrated.

Cool ideas do not excuse mediocre writing.

Okay, you're in the pool with Ben... this is one of your earlier arguments, "you can think what you want, but when 99% of the world disagrees with you" (and not just the random public who gave **** harry potter a hugo, but in the pretty much every good author disagrees with you sense). Heinlein wrote amazing novels, in addition to a lot of random trash that he wrote to make money... MIAHM and SISL are incredibly well written, for example. The Foundation series is generally well written, though it does suffer from some of the long-series problems if you go beyond the original 3. Norby was some of the best youth SF I've ever read. Clarke ... that's just not funny anymore. He's probably the best pure writer of the three...

To condense a bit ... some other replies.

Ben, I don't consider winning a hugo the definition of a great author either. I consider knowing something about the awards to be one element of being an avid SF reader (not a requirement, but a strong indicator, just as an avid baseball fan should know who won the world series last year).

Bujold is a great, but she's not known primarily as an SF writer - her best writing is fantasy, with a lot of space opera before that (which has some SF elements, but most if it is straight space opera; her quaddies storyline is the most SF of her stories, really). She is one answer to my original question, because she has won the most Nebula and Hugo awards combined for novel (6, to Heinlein's 4 or 5 depending on how you count the retro award). IIRC she's also won more hugos than heinlein if you count short fiction; however, I think she has been surpassed (by Connie Willis, I believe) if you count short fiction. Willis has something like 8 or 9.

Hugos, by the way, do not exclusively go to SF - they can go to Fantasy as well (though mostly they are for SF).

Jon, with Stross you can start in a number of places. Most of his SF is not related to one another. Accelerando or Glass House are both great books to start with. I love the Atrocity Archive stuff, basically James Bond with demons and computer hacking (to get rid of demons, of course!); not as serious as his 'serious' stuff, but a lot of fun. His fantasy (the Merchant Traders or whatever it's called) is also quite fun, if you like alternate-world-hopping fantasy anyway. Really just grab something ...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I'm guessing you aren't a fan of Hemingway either.

That would be a good jab if it weren't for the fact that Hemingway is hated by an awful lot of people and considered lousy writing by a lot of his peers. (I love hemingway, myself, but that doesn't change this.)

[Kuciwalker]

Okay, you're in the pool with Ben... this is one of your earlier arguments, "you can think what you want, but when 99% of the world disagrees with you" (and not just the random public who gave **** harry potter a hugo

Wow, you're delusional. You appeal to "everyone knows this is good" in the same breath as you decry it.

And unlike Heinlein, Asimov, or Clark, JKR is a really good writer.