YAHOO users are idiots

[Koyaanisqatsi]

John Ringo?

[snoopy369]

OH JOHN RINGO NO!!

His Posleen stuff and some of the other stuff is pretty good reading, but he's definitely no master. Scalzi is a much more polished writer.

Weber... I swing both ways on him. I suppose he's written enough decent stuff and mentored enough people that he might qualify, but I just don't consider any of his stuff amazing... Honor Harrington was good for about five books and then it became MY CAT AND I ARE IN SPACE SHOOTING AT BAD GUYS WOW for way too long.

And about Asimov... I think one of the issues here is simply one of age/perspective. Kuci, you grew up in a world where SF is commonplace, and is accepted as decent literature if not as high-class literature.

This is basically because of three men: Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, and Arthur C. Clarke. There were certainly others that had a significant effect (DAW, for one), but these three guys were ultimately the biggest factors.

Regardless of your opinions of their writing, or the stories they wrote, the effect they had on making SF mainstream and bringing in both new authors and - more importantly - new readers cannot be overstated. For this reason - if no other - they are the greatest authors of their age, regardless of one's opinion of their writing.

Rowling may well deserve similar credit in thirty or forty years (though she was working with a much easier situation, in terms of Fantasy's place in literature) ... we'll see. Asimov/Clarke/Heinlein were essentially the Rowlings of their era ...

[Kuciwalker]

Influence doesn't make something good reading. My point stands.

[Jon Miller]

David Weber is pretty bad, I could only read the first Honor book...

JM

[snoopy369]

First off, the stories are quite good reading... but secondly, it makes them Great Authors, in the same sense that, for example, Milton is a Great Poet regardless of your opinion of his actual writing (which I don't care for much).

You're also reading them fifty (ish) years later, in a time with very different writing styles and expectations in terms of what a story is. It's common for people to dismiss older authors/movies/etc. as not very good by the standards of a later era; it doesn't make it right.

That would be like calling Star Wars crap because the special effects weren't that good...

[rah]

Koyaanisqatsi, thanks for that link

OH JOHN RINGO NO!!

I have read all those books and with the exception of the second story in the first book. (on the boat sex) I found them very entertaining. But only because you have to take them for what they are 'very laughable'. The scenes are so outragious that they're funny. Anyone that takes them too seriously is going to be quite disturbed. The author of that link understood it perfectly. Totally making fun of it but seemed to have enjoyed reading it despite the perverse nature of the material.
And Yes, thankfully once he got to Kildar he actually pretended that there's a plot.
I'm awaiting the next book.

And just for the record, none of his stuff is really science fiction. Not great literature, but if entertainment is the ultimate objective, Ringo usually succeeds.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by rah
But only because you have to take them for what they are 'very laughable'. The scenes are so outragious that they're funny.

I read Clive Cussler for pretty much the same reason, though Ringo sounds a couple of steps up/down from him. Getting into Mack Maloney territory, even.

[snoopy369]

Most of Ringo isn't quite like that... That is quite extreme for him. I recommend either the Posleen stuff (his first series) or his collaboration with Weber.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by snoopy369
You're also reading them fifty (ish) years later, in a time with very different writing styles and expectations in terms of what a story is. It's common for people to dismiss older authors/movies/etc. as not very good by the standards of a later era; it doesn't make it right.

I absolutely adore plenty of their contemporaries (CS Lewis for example), so this is a non-starter.

[rah]

Yeah, I liked the series that included March Upcountry that he did with Weber.

[GePap]

Originally posted by MrFun



Okay, "bad writer != bad story" - I might be able to buy into that.


But "bad writer != bad author."

Correct, which is why I have the Potter books, but don't agree that JKR is any better a writer than Clarke, which was what Kuci claims.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Asimov was a horrible writer for a good three decades. But his books were/are certainly worth buying. Bad writer != bad author or bad story.

The true pioneers and ground-breakers get marks for great ideas as much as for writing skill. But after the field has been explored for decades it gets harder and harder to find ground-breaking ideas and skill becomes critical.

I didn't care for the Foundation series, myself. I did like Asimov's shorts.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by snoopy369
See, statements like that make you sound like an idiot, Ben.

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).

The giants of today (arguably, of course; and off the top of my head, which has not enough RAM these days):
Robert Sawyer
Charles Stross
Greg Bear (though declining)
Gregory Benford (also not publishing as much)
John Wright
Jack McDevitt
Iain Banks
Robert Charles Wilson
Ken MacLeod
Cory Doctorow
L.E. Modesitt
Charles Sheffield
Joe Haldeman

Short form:
Nancy Kress
Ted Chiang
Mike Resnick

Up and Coming:
John Scalzi

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).

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.

Not a big fan of SF novels, the only author on that list I've read is Modesitt, who I like very much.

ACK!

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by snoopy369
This is basically because of three men: Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, and Arthur C. Clarke. There were certainly others that had a significant effect (DAW, for one), but these three guys were ultimately the biggest factors.

What about John W. Campbell, Jr? As editor of Astounding Science Fiction, he had huge influence on the field.

[rah]

If not for DAW, there would have been a heck of a lot less to read. Many authors would have remained not found.