what i want to know is how the hell you think yourself qualified to pontificate on the quality of today's SFF if you say shit like:
I am basically disatisfied with what is produced and so I read very little of it. (the person's currently favoured reading material is bujold's vorkosigan romp).
or
I've been very, very disappointed in what science-fisction releases have made it to the shelves the last few times I've been in a mainstream store. I think my last actual purchase was a reprinted Heinlien novel.
catch-22, anyone?
oh, and i am gonna take your opinion real seriously if you can't even spell the name of the single famous author whose work you consider worth buying. nevermind that if your taste is stuck on heinlein, and that is what you consider "good SF", we don't even need to bother talking.
I am basically disatisfied with what is produced and so I read very little of it. (the person's currently favoured reading material is bujold's vorkosigan romp).
or
I've been very, very disappointed in what science-fisction releases have made it to the shelves the last few times I've been in a mainstream store. I think my last actual purchase was a reprinted Heinlien novel.
catch-22, anyone?
oh, and i am gonna take your opinion real seriously if you can't even spell the name of the single famous author whose work you consider worth buying. nevermind that if your taste is stuck on heinlein, and that is what you consider "good SF", we don't even need to bother talking.
no subject
on 2006-10-25 23:51 (UTC)But ye Gods! China Miéville! (my current "I'd give my left bollock to write so well" writer)
no subject
on 2006-10-25 23:55 (UTC)no subject
on 2006-10-26 00:29 (UTC)indeed, miéville, and he's only one of many. iain banks, octavia butler, greg egan, ian mcdonald, connie willis, charles stross, karl schroeder, robert charles wilson, gwyneth jones, nicola griffith, ken lacleod, samuel delany, nalo hopkinson, cory doctorow, and i could go on and on. i have a reading list a mile long, and that's not counting the happy escapist stuff (eg. bujold) at all. and now there is even some fantasy i like reading, which wasn't always true.
and no, my taste has not declined. :)
no subject
on 2006-10-26 03:01 (UTC)no subject
on 2006-10-26 14:21 (UTC)It's more complicated than it ever used to be, that's all.
no subject
on 2006-10-26 19:34 (UTC)i would say that it's hard to find writers who defy easy genre classification, because many bookstores have yet to learn to double or triple-shelve, for heaven's sakes. but has that ever been any easier? at least more of them seem to exist now.
i don't see how it's more complicated to find what one wants to read, could you explain?
i find it less of an effort now (which isn't exactly the opposite, i know), what with even online tools that occasionally produce a total unknown to me when i ask to see something "similar to what i liked before". and online buying in general -- i can now easily pick and buy books even from abroad. and i can look inside books that are nowhere near my physical location. and read reviews and recommendations somewhere else than in my local newspaper (which way way back hadn't ever heard of SF). now the local bookstores all have SFF sections (wasn't true way way back either), as does the library. they're not all great, but at least they're there.
if i had my act together i'd subscribe to locus so i'd know what's coming out. but i don't. which means i often run years behind in reading what's hip. :) but i keep lists. this is actually a side effect of me having so many more sources of books now; i read a lot fewer reviews and rely less on recommendations by others.
other than that, i pick the same way i always picked -- i go to the bookstore and spend hours looking at books, shelf by shelf, pulling out many of them to read a few pages. that's how i discover most new-to-me authors.
no subject
on 2006-10-26 14:50 (UTC)no subject
on 2006-10-26 19:14 (UTC)no subject
on 2006-10-26 19:42 (UTC)no subject
on 2006-10-26 20:03 (UTC)no subject
on 2006-10-30 07:58 (UTC)no subject
on 2006-11-01 16:31 (UTC)no subject
on 2006-10-30 08:01 (UTC)no subject
on 2006-10-30 09:19 (UTC)unfortunately, i didn't read heinlein until i already knew about poly, and had already read SF that suited me better. in consequence, his work mostly annoyed me. like so much golden age SF it just hasn't aged well. i think my favourite remains the door into summer; at least that's the one i didn't give away.
that reminds me -- one of the sfnal things i would really like is a time machine for my mind: i would love to be able to read something as if i lived at the time it was written, with only the knowledge of that time. i bet SiaSL was awesome when it was published.
no subject
on 2006-10-31 20:30 (UTC)that reminds me -- one of the sfnal things i would really like is a time machine for my mind: i would love to be able to read something as if i lived at the time it was written, with only the knowledge of that time. i bet SiaSL was awesome when it was published.
That would be brilliant. I'd like one too.
What Would Buddha Read?
on 2006-10-26 19:30 (UTC)But certainly people should spout off about things they aren't very knowledgable about less often.
Re: What Would Buddha Read?
on 2006-10-26 20:14 (UTC)i never talk about who is "the best" writer; i don't think it would be possible to say even if we could agree on all the factors that make somebody a good writer. i do think that there are a lot more factors than grammar that we can agree on (good grammar is not sufficient, and it is in fact not even entirely necessary if the rules are broken for a purpose and that works). besides, i am poly, i don't do "the best". :)
but i don't actually have to like reading a writer to acknowledge that they're good at their craft. i don't even have to like an entire subgenre and can still acknowledge that it contains some quality products (like, i hate reggae, but it wouldn't occur to me to claim that all reggae is crap).