Worst science fiction writer of all time

In terms of the majors, it has to be Asimov, don't you think? Absolutely tone deaf in terms of dialogue, no lyricism to his sentences, his characters indistinguishable from each other (male or female). I read somewhere that SF fans voted his FOUNDATION series the best books the genre has ever produced...one more reason I give such little credence to the views of SF fandom. I'll earn even more ire from fans when I put Heinlein a close second to Ike. NUMBER OF THE BEAST may be one of the worst SF novels ever committed to print and even so-called "classics" like STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND date well not at all. Only a few of Heinlein's stories (GREEN HILLS OF EARTH) redeem him and I mean few. One other name comes to mind and that's Michael Crichton. I've been doing a bit of research into nanotechnology and picked up a copy of his novel PREY. This man sells millions of books? Christ! As far as I can tell, it's a re-telling of ANDROMEDA STRAIN and boasts, except for stupid, intrusive info dumps (exposition, the bane of SF writers), about a Grade 8 level of writing. I rail away about people needing to develop critical thinking and reading skills and it's authors like these that make my blood boil.

You can't really claim these are the worst unless you present ones that are better. What do you like?

Nope. Clearly Philip K. Dick is the worst. Writes like he was on drugs or drunk or something. Incomprehensible gibberish filled with unbelievable cardboard characters. What a disgrace.

Then J. G. Ballard. He could definitely put androids to sleep with his hackneyed pastiches. If someone gave him a map to the idea shop he'd probably get lost on the way.

Seriously for worst writer I would go for Lionel Fanthorpe - well who wouldn't be if you write over 160 books in 12 years in your spare time.

Paul James is a contender.

At his most productive Fanthorpe produced 89 books in 3 years. In one book the protagonist brushes her teeth in detail for a page and a half. More detail here along with book covers etc.

I'll certainly say prey was rubbish, by far the worst of Crichton's work, but one bad book doesn't make him the worst writer in all time by any means.

I'd also say Asimov isn't the worst either, yes his characters are see-through thin, his world building isn't brilliant but he has an ability to portray complicated ideas and their consequenses way above many other attempts to do so. the prose is light and flows well.

Of the other names i've only read one or two of their works and it really isn't fair to judge them on that, although the difference engine certainly put me off reading any other William Gibson.

I am very impressed all of you can come up with a list of authors, you must possess more persistance than I do - I would have to have read more than one book by an author in order to be able to label him/her worst. And I can't imagine reading more than (at the most) one book by an author who is a candidate to 'worst science fiction writer'.

But with that caveat, my suggestion is A.A. Attanasio - based solely on In Other Worlds

>3 bluetyson: Thankyou, I'm glad I'm not alone. Philip K. Dick just frustrates me. And I *have* read several of his books, mostly in effort to try and figure out what I'm missing, why I just don't "get it".

8

aw, can't agree with attanasio, a recent story was rather good.

Telefunken Remix http://www.librarything.com/work/3687193&book=19778898

7

rf, The Difference Engine is easily the worst Gibson I have come across. I thought that was poor.

Given something else a go. Neuromancer is certainly worth a look

In terms of actual writing, I'd move Mr. Heinlein to the top of the list ... Asimov's style is dated, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as Heinlein's ... regarding Dick, some of his books are certainly terribly written, but I always thought it was lack of effort on his part, not lack of talent ...

I love a lot of Dick's stuff...and dislike nearly as much. When he's on, as with A SCANNER DARKLY, DO ANDROIDS DREAM, THREE STIGMATA, UBIK and ten or twenty of his short stories, the guy is amazing. And then you read something like VULCAN'S HAMMER or UNTELEPORTED MAN and wonder if it's the same person. I had to smile at the notion of Dick writing on drugs (guilty as charged). Yup, the guy gobbled speed like Smarties--remember he had five wives to support and had to work fast. It was a contributing factor to his early demise. Ballard's novels tend to bore me but I like his short fiction. I've listed my favorite SF authors in other posts so I won't go there. I've always been skeptical of the notion of a "Golden Age" of SF, particularly when I realize I like so little of the work written during those wonder-filled times. Science fiction authors from the 40's and 50's proved to be rather poor prognosticators, one of the reasons why I put little stock in the supposedly coming "singularity". SF scribes have no better luck at predicting the future than the ancient temple priests sifting through the innards of animals for signs and portents. Yes, Clarke predicted Earth satellites...but it's 2007 and we don't seem to be anywhere near a manned mission to the moons to Jupiter (to my eternal sadness and regret)...

#13

Although when he wrote most of his books he did not have five wives to support. When he wrote The Unteleported Man he was still on his third wife. When he wrote Vulcan's Hammer he was still on the second.

I am also unsure as to how much he would have to support his first wife - it ended after 6 months.

Friends of mine used to do Fanthorpe Readings at cons and other events. It was usually a fund-raiser, and people would bid against each other to have the readers either stop reading or keep going. It was hysterical.

In terms of actual writing, I'd move Mr. Heinlein to the top of the list ... Asimov's style is dated, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as Heinlein's ...

You do know that Heinlein is dead, don't you? That could perhaps account for why his style is 'dated'.

I'll earn even more ire from fans when I put Heinlein a close second to Ike. NUMBER OF THE BEAST may be one of the worst SF novels ever committed to print and even so-called "classics" like STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND date well not at all. Only a few of Heinlein's stories (GREEN HILLS OF EARTH) redeem him and I mean few.

I'll admit that I'm not a fan of Heinlein's later work but his earlier work was groundbreaking. Remember he first started writing in 1939!

Also indicating someone is the worst writer presumes that a) you have read enough of their work to be able to judge this and b) that you have some sort of skill or ability to judge this.

It's like my kids when they say they hate something. Hate is a strong word. So is worst. One definition of worst is 'not good in any manner or degree.' You are well within your rights to say that you don't like Heinlein (or Asimov, another author from the same period) or that you don't care for their work. That's fine, nobody asked you to.

But to say that these are the worst writers is, in my mind, the worse kind of presumption there is. You are presuming you know enough about all SF writers to be able to label these two the worst.

Certainly these two writers had their flaws (who doesn't) but to start a thread called 'Worst SF Writers of All Time' is arrogance and ignorance mixed together. Perhaps if you wanted to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of these fine gentlemen rather than tossing around inflammatory statements I could see the merit in this post but I don't.

tardis,

Do you have an example of such horror? Sounds entertaining.

If that fails, there is the 'try and find an author andyl hasn't heard of' game.

:)

Isn't the point of these posts to create discussion and debate? Why shut things down simply because you don't like the thread? I'm presuming to speak of these things because I do have some knowledge of these matters, as a longtime writer and as a critic. "Arrogance" and "ignorance"...those are pretty rough words too (right up there with "hate" and "worst", in my view, particularly when these remarks are directed at me). I'm curious why any kind of controversial or prickly topic seems to bring out these personal attacks, especially in the SF forum. When Tyson picks Dick as the worst, do I go after him saying, "hey, man, you don't know anything about SF, why even bother showing up here"? I respect his right to post and his right to express himself. What's wrong with adding a little spice to discussions, as opposed to "Who's your favorite STAR WARS character" or "Who's got the nicest knees, Joanna Russ or Arthur Clarke". Don't take things so bloody seriously and kick back and enjoy a little healthy give and take. It's the sign of a mature mind...not to mention a sense of humour.

#17

follow the link in my message #6 for some quotes and even an entire story.

Also from SFX on Fanthorpe

Desperate to keep the words flowing, he was reduced to describing a rock on his mantelpiece as an alien landscape:

"There were pinkish streaks among the rock, and it seemed that the chromatic tint from the atmosphere owed something to these. There were a number of white veins in the rock, which bore some resemblance to marble, but the majority of it was grey. It gave an over-all impression of greyness streaked with pink and white, rather than an over-all impression of whiteness tinged with grey and pink, or an over-all impression of pink streaked with grey and white."

The next paragraph starts, "Greyness was the predominant shade; neither black nor white but something midway between the two ..." And so on, and on. The maestro of padding had barely begun.

I've posted this quote from British scientist Sir Martin Rees apropos to another discussion but I think it bears reprinting here because it relates to what I've just written:

"The internet is allowing all of us to 'filter' our input. Rather than sharing experience with those whose attitudes and tastes are different, many...live in echo chambers of their own design and need not come across topics and views that you have not sought out. Without any difficulty, you are able to see exactly what you want to see, no more and no less...there is a danger that (the internet) promotes isolation and allows us (if we choose) to evade the everyday contacts that would unavoidably bring us up against conflicting views. Sunstein discusses 'group polarization', whereby those who interact only with the like-minded have their prejudices and obsessions reinforced and shift towards more extreme positions."

'Nuff said.

Andy:

That Fanthorpe quote was truly terrible. (Shudder)

Cliff

I used the word 'hate' as an example but in your response you seem to think that I used it in reference to you or your post, which I did not.

If you had called your thread with 'The Most Overrated SF Authors of All Time', that I wouldn't have a problem with. Overrated is a personal opinion, worst is a definitive statement. 'Worst sf writers of all time' It presumes that you have read ALL sf writers EVER written and that your judgment is correct.

Even if you went with Overrated, I would still disagree with you in regards to Heinlein. :)

I would agree about Number of The Best and Stranger in a Strange Land being overrated but not Heinlein as a writer.

bluetyson - I don't have any exact quotes, but the one given by andyl was fairly representative. There was one that took about 3 pages to say "the spaceship landed" (down, down, down...). Fanthorpe got paid by the word and it showed.

Years ago, I heard a guy called R.L. Fanthorpe being interviewed on CBC Radio's "Basic Black" show. This guy did a tv show or something in UK about the paranormal. I wrote the host, Arthur Black, about what an odd coincidence that this guy had the same name as the worst SF author of all time and Arthur actually called the guy back to ask if he was that SF writer, and he was. I earned a t-shirt out of it for suggesting a story idea.

#23

Yep Fanthorpe is a bit of a legend. He did the SF stuff, he is into paranormal and Fortean stuff, he is a fully ordained Anglican Priest, he is a weight-lifting and martial arts instructor, and does lots of other stuff as well.

His novels (not all of which are incredibly bad) were paid at 10/- per 1000 words and novels usually had to be written in a few days.

Worst science fiction writer of all time L Ron Hubbard
writer of the worst science fiction - Harder.

You'd be amazed at the rubbish that I'll drudge through if it has half a claim to be science fiction, so it's fairly easy to identify the worst author that I've come across. I only recall one 'science fiction' book that I've given up reading through being bored out of my skull, and that is Vellum by Hal Duncan. It took a distinct effort of will to refrain from using swear words in my review of that book.

David:

Both "worst" and "most over-rated" are subjective terms, don't you think? Entirely relating to personal opinion. And both, I think, are pretty damning. My very first message begins "In terms of the majors..." so I have little interest in flaying those idiots who pounded out Perry Rhodan novels, etc. That's far too easy (and most of those cowards used pseudonyms anyway to protect their, cough cough, "literary" reputations). A good thread requires a good topic, worded to draw people's interest and curiosity. "What's this? I want a piece of that discussion!" Why be tepid? "Worst" it is...

What's this? I want a piece of that discussion!"

Cliff

You've certainly succeeded in that regard. Suffice to say that I disagree with you about Heinlein, even for the majors (and who would you include in this group btw?).

Like any art form, it evolves and becomes more sophisticated. Given what Heinlein has done for the genre and the time he lived in, I think he did a damn good job. So perhaps that is why I take offense to calling him the worst (or second worst) SF writer of all time.

It's unfortunate that his older works didn't live up to the promise of his earlier works but Heinlein's earlier works are my first love in terms of SF. They will always have a place in my library, regardless of what else I read.

When I think of the majors, it's Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, Bester, Silverberg, Pohl, Anderson, Dick, Ellison, Farmer, Sturgeon, Herbert, Wolfe, Zelazny, Niven, LeGuin, Gibson...those are the names that immediately come to mind. Readers form sentimental attachments to authors, I understand that, especially works that introduced you to a certain field you came to love. Sometimes these attachments can withstand critical scrutiny, in other cases our tastes change, develop, because of subsequent authors we come across, life experience, what have you. There's an old SF book called LUKAN WAR that brings a smile to my face, so much so that when I spotted it in a library book sale for two bits, I was delighted to pick it up. Read it first when I was twelve or thirteen, re-read it two years ago and it was utterly dreadful. I appreciate that the book helped feed my interest in SF but my reading has led me to better and better authors, so much so that when I do re-read books I have fond memories of, I am amazed I once held them in such high esteem. I don't think this situation is unique to me...at least, I hope not...

Cliff

I actually re-read his earlier work quite a bit and I still like it but I get where you are going. It's also a matter of taste.

Before we agree to disagree, I'd like to know what causes you to ascribe this label to Heinlein. What is about this writing that you don't like? I'd like an example from one of his earlier works, if possible, as I would agree with you regarding the books you already cited.

Thanks

David

# 17 said- If that fails, there is the 'try and find an author andyl hasn't heard of' game.
*****************
OK, I'll try. I just picked up a book from the library called Discipine by Paco Ahlgren put out by Greenleaf Book Group Press out of Austin TX. I just started it. I'm not sure how SFish it'll turn out to be but it seems like it's going to be a quantum physics Eastern Religion mash-up kind of thing. The LOC categories include SF, occult fiction, cosmology fiction and time travel fiction.

David:

Hmmm...I cared not a whit for any of Heinlein's characters and find his writing sophomoric, technically workmanlike and aesthetically undemanding. Facile wording, his sexual politics embarrassing. Literally Grade VIII level writing. I think of him, mostly, as a young adult author and when he tried to write for grownups he fell flat on his face. I've often heard people say that John Varley was a "disciple" or heavily influenced by Heinlein, a notion I find laughable. Heinlein in a hundred thousand years could never have come up with a novel as fine as STEEL BEACH (a book on my list of the 10 or 20 essential works of SF). Is that sufficient? I don't want to indulge in a session of "bash the Grandmaster" but...you asked...

19

Andy, thanks, will check out the link, missed it before.

For your consideration, I present some passages from Robert Moore Williams, who had at least eight novels (including World of the Masterminds, King of the Fourth Planet, and The Day They H-Bombed Los Angeles) published by Ace in the 1950s and 1960s. These passages are from The Second Atlantis (1965).

Panic was instantly in him, such fear as he had never known, panic that seemed to sweep up from his subconscious mind's winnowing of fearful incidents across many centuries. Never in his life had Jim Gray thought of himself as a fearful man. Nor had he been. He had not known such fear was in him or that it could erupt so suddenly and so violently out of nowhere. He was a kind man, an intellectual. Suddenly he perceived one reason he had become an intellectual - it was to escape this panic!

...

Along and above Sunset Strip, where beauty in butt and bust walked in the late afternoon hoping to catch the eye of a movie producer, were dozens of apartment houses. These perched on the steep hillsides. Some were supported on steel poles which left their backsides hanging out over nothing like Mexican women defecating into a ravine. This imitation of one of the worst features of the Hanging Gardens of Ancient Babylon was considered by the Hollywood hill apes to be the maximum utmost in modern architecture.

...

At the moment, the ground was not shaking. Far under the surface were muttering sounds as if the earth giants down there had stopped chewing with their teeth of granite and were holding a conference to decide where they would next work.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present this prose as the apex - the maximum utmost, so to speak - in bad writing.

Edit: a minor typo.

That Sunset Strip paragraph is awesome.

:)

Well, I'll be. I read portions of THE DAY THEY BOMBED LOS ANGELES at one of those convention fund-raisers (WesterCon?) where, as mentioned above re: Fanthorpe, people pay you to stop/continue reading. I also add that my mischievous wife kept priming the pump--every time someone, to my great relief, paid me to stop, Sherron would plunk another bill into the jar. I don't know how much money they raised that night but I don't think I've ever forgiven Sher for forcing me to read paragraph after paragraph of that godawful book. Funny how these titles crop up. I broke into sweat when I saw it...

Pawcatuck, you've convinced me! This may well be the worst writing I have ever had the misfortune of reading.

Not sure whether to thank you (at least I now know to stay far, far away from anything by this author) or to flog you 50 lashes with a wet noodle ;-)

#31

OK you win. Never heard of Ahlgren, let alone read anything by him.

The Four Lords of the Diamond by Jack Chalker is one of the most infuriating books I've ever read, and convinced me not to waste my time on anything else he's written.

I admit I have one little pet peeve: I expect an SF writer to create worlds that are sensible from physical standpoint; i.e. the guy had better get his numbers right. Three of the four novels managed to offend me in this way.

But first...obviously the whole project was done on contract, paid by the word. The first chapters of EVERY novel were literally identical except for the name of the world that the 'secret agent' was about to infiltrate. I suppose if I hadn't read the novels one after the other it would have been less irritating but...why put them all in one volume, then?

The gimmick in all four books is that the star for this system of planets ('The Diamond') emitted some kind of mutagenic field (or something) that caused humans to rapidly adapt to whatever environment they happened to land in. The kicker is that this process is irreversible; once you land you are stuck there.

I won't spoil the plot(s) for you in case you are crazy enough to try to hack through them but I will describe a situation in the last volume that finally 'broke my back':

The protagonist and friends are escaping from something or other in the sub-cellar of a large city; due to the 'mutagenic effect' (field? critters?) the party is able to escape when they fall into a large cistern and rapidly (within seconds) turn into seal-like things. Slicker than snot, they zip out through the storm drains and bug out for the countryside.

Only a few dozen pages later, the same group come to a river, which they apparently they must cross. There is a big hullaballoo among the characters about just how they are going to solve this dilemma.

(Does anyone see a problem here?)

Has anyone else read these things and have an explanation for this type of laziness?

I've never read anything by Mr. Chalker, just didn't seem like the type of books for me. I feel a little empathy for the guy, I suppose, owing to his recent death and the financial difficulties his wife is having and her struggle to secure royalties so she and his surviving children can have a decent life. The situation is outlined in her blog, which you can find at:

http://evawhitley.net/2007/09/

Sci fi fans should maybe think about helping these folks out, perhaps fund-raising or what have you.

>40 CliffBurns:

(taking the foot out of the mouth).

hmmm..

(sticking it back in.)

No, no, I wasn't rebutting you or trying to tweak your conscience. As I said, I myself avoid Mr. Chalker's work, it's not an oeuvre for which I have the slightest interest. I was simply making people aware of a sad situation confronting a family and getting it out there. Has anyone else been monitoring what the Chalker family has been going through? There seems to be a lot of sadness and bitterness on Eva's blog and I felt for her when someone brought it to my attention. Sorry, Wyrd, if I came across as a wanker...

No one has mentioned Harry Turtledove yet? He used to be a decent writer, but he has become so much worse over the last decade that I wonder whether he is employing ghost writers? He writes several books a year.

His common faults now include endlessly repeating himself, mixing up the names of different characters, writing stuff that contradicts stuff he wrote earlier, and of course, padding.

What gets me with authors like Turtledove is, okay, they employ padding to flesh out their novels...where are the editors? Who is gently saying to Harry (or his ghost-writers) "this should be cut, this is awkward, this is a run-on sentence, you're repeating yourself, etc."? Genre editors are uniformly godawful and whenever I read that ____________ editor at Tor or wherever, has won a Hugo for "Best Longform Editor", I laugh my head off. In 20+ years, I have yet to find a single genre editor worth their salt. As I wrote apropos another post: "Where are the Maxwell Perkins today?" Nowhere to be found. We're left with people like David Hartwell or, God help us, Patrick and Teresa Neilson Hayden. Not exactly Perkins' quality in terms of aesthetic sensibilities. The bad writing in SF can often be laid at the door of bad, incompetent editors. The genre deserves better...

Just joined your group, and have only entered a small sample of my books. I have about 1000+ SF's SFF etc. The worst Author I have read would have to be (IMHO)
E.C.Tubb. I am seriously thinking of NOT entering him on LT. In my author cloud I do NOT want to see his name in large capitals. OK I bought about 20 books at 10c/book
back in the 80's.
I am sure he used a boilerplate (long before computers). Every story is the same. And
the writing...
Several other "things" amuse me as well. I think A.E. van Voght (Voyage of the Space
Beagle?) has his space ship travelling at 100? light years/sec. No attempt to get around Einsteins universe eg, no Hyperspace, Warp, plain old thought POWER, non of the usual ways.
A couple of other "things" have stuck in my mind, but unfortunately (or maybe not)
I can't remember the authors. Consider the atom as a solar system and have
miniture humans land on an electron. Or a book set in the 1980/90's ( the future) which talks at great lengths about computers in terms of
PUNCH cards and FORTRAN. I know that FORTRAN is still used, but why?
To leave on a positive note, remember STURGEON said 90% of everything is crap, but
people such as Jack Vance, Benford, Clark produce far less than others.

One of the worst SF books I read recently was Jeffrey A. Carvers Eternity's end, but I remember liking his The Rapture Effect when I was boy so I can't say he really is "the worst".
William Shatners SF works are pretty bad too. And there are some german authors that will probably never be translated to english, rightfully so.

That said, to balance my post: I really liked Robert Charles Wilsons Spin and China Melvilles The Iron Council

On E.C. Tubb I have just heard that the Dumarest series is getting reprinted including the final novel (the thirty-third) in the series has just been written. According to the editor it wraps up the series neatly but leaves a hole for a new series.

Sure his stories are never going to win any awards but you have to admire the old codger for his persistence.

Tubb is a dreadful hack, he used to do the novelizations for the bad old Brit SF series "Space: 1999". Another one of those guys who works for money rather than devotion to the printed word. There's really not that much difference between him and (today's miscreants) Kevin Anderson, Steve Jackson, Modesitt, Timothy Zahn. What talent these people might have had at one time in their lives has been bargained away to the great god Mammon. They are a discredit to the genre and should have their fingers broken, one by one, as an example to those of their kind. Critical reading is a dying virtue in an era when people want distraction, entertainment--non-demanding efforts for folks who spend too much time with their eyes stapled to the front of idiot boxes...

They are a discredit to the genre and should have their fingers broken, one by one,

You know, I dislike bad writing as much as the next person, but give me a break.

#49:

"Hyperbole: exaggeration for effect, not meant to be taken literally..."
-WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY

I do realize that, yes, but even as hyperbole goes, that was ridiculous.

Not to me, mate. The hacks of the world discredit writers who have given their all to advance the cause of fine writing, sacrificed body and soul and very often their mental and physical health to create the finest prose they are capable of, day in and day out, never compromising their integrity. The Tubbs and the Tamora Pierces of the world shouldn't be paid by the word or by the book but by the poundage of material they create. They don't respect readers, don't you understand that? They literally laugh all the way to the bank. Didn't Fritz Leiber spend the last of his days in a small apartment, in poor health and finances...while hacks pound out 6 or 8 titles a year and live high as well-fed hogs. Read critically and demand the very best from writers and maybe, just maybe, the fields and genres you love will start producing consistently better work. Every time you buy a book by a hack, you are turning your back on the legacy of far better writers who, as Harlan Ellison has said, "aren't fit to carry Fritz Leiber's pencil case".

Tubb should come up with an occult mystery novel instead then, make some high art, rather than a popular space hero series, is what you are saying?

:)

There's an SF story in there somewhere. X number of years after first submission those stuck in mediocrity never getting anywhere in particular and just causing editors and readers to waste their time get writing suppressant implants.

"I am sorry Mr. Smith, you failed to reach your sales quota. Time is up. This will only hurt for a second."

:)

I'm saying if there was a God who watched over literary quality, Tubbs and his ilk would be stricken with a crippling case of palsy or a paralyzing rictus that would negate their ever picking up a pen or tapping a keyboard again.

I doubt if Tubbs could make high art out of an occult mystery...I don't think Tubbs could make high art period (unless he somehow swapped brains with Robert Stone or Rene Magritte). There ARE terrific occult mysteries out there and a number of them were written by the aforementioned Fritz Leiber...

#46

Maledei:

William Shatner doesn't actually write his books (I doubt is he could spell "cosmos"). His stuff is ghost-written, usually by two Canadians (I'm embarrassed to say) a husband and wife team (let's pray for a bitter divorce) Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens. See, what happens is Bill comes up with what he thinks is a neat idea, writes down a brief outline or (more likely) reads it into a handheld recorder and then it's up to Ju and Gar to bang it out and put his name on it. Isn't that disgraceful? But that's what you're getting, fans! And don't you feel lucky...

FWIW, I remember reading a couple of Chalker's "Dancing Gods" books and finding them entertaining light comedic fantasy. They're way down on page 59 of books I would recommend to someone, but they're not something against which I would warn unwary readers. And Chalker didn't seem to take himself seriously. Writers who take themselves seriously and still produce dreck are the ones that really make me cringe. What if Asimov had written just a third of the number of books he produced, but spent that much more time on each one? We'd be able to say something other than, "Ths guy has some really good ideas, you just have to hold your nose while reading."

#48

Cliff - you posted a list of good stuff to the Outstanding Overlooked SF thread. Of those Jeter has done loads of media tie-ins and Sean Stewart has done a Star Wars book.

Do you have the same opprobrium to those writers?

Jim:

Couldn't agree with you more. If Asimov had worked harder on the books he wrote rather than scribbling with one eye on the bloody GUINNESS BOOK OF RECORDS, he would've been a far more effective writer and whole forests would have been spared.

Andy, I ended my posting on Jeter (in "Overlooked Books") with these words:

"It's a shame about Jeter--he went from being a writer of promise to a hack, a sad state of affairs for, I think, a genuinely talented author."

Andy: have you seen my latest thoughts on that thread? And do you know the book I mentioned, THE LAST WESTERN by Thomas Klise? I know people try to stump you with obscure titles so there's mine...

(I wasn't aware that Sean Stewart has written a "Star Wars" book. What a waste of talent. He's his own man but I'm disappointed in him...)

54

Exactly the story's point. Anyone that has been writing for years and years and hasn't remotely approached Fritz Leiber could do everyone a favour and give up and stop wasting our time, thus saving whatever trees they would kill or resources they would have used into the bargain.

Bluetyson:

Can you clarify #59 for me? I'm not sure I see your point. Am I a bit dim this morning (that was a rhetorical question)? If you elaborate a bit maybe I can answer with some degree of intelligence (though that might be expecting too much before my second cup of coffee).

#58

Stewart's Star Wars book was Yoda: Dark Rendezvous published in 2004.

Not even heard of Klise to be honest. It is quite easy to find things I haven't heard of, just pick US small press from before the mid-80s with authors who never made it and certainly didn't get a UK publication deal.

Not what I heard, Andy--your reputation as a bibliophile precedes you.

THE LAST WESTERN is, as I recall (haven't read it in at least 18 years), a fairly decent book, not nearly as bad as that jacket copy I quoted makes it appear. And, hey, blurbs from Farmer and Miller...that's not bad. It takes a kick at organized religion and that's always a big attraction to this reader/ curmudgeon...

Sorry, I won't be putting YODA: DARK RENDEZVOUS on my wishlist and if I ever run into Sean again I'll ask him point blank "What got into you? What the hell were you thinking?"

He talks about it on his website

When he says "I liked the idea of writing a straight-up space opera, a swash-buckling story that would be fun – fun to write, fun to read — fun." that echoes what I have heard Ian Watson say about his Warhammer 40K work.

Very interesting. I like Sean, he's a smart man and a good writer. But, I have to say, writing a book in 4 months, working in a share-cropped universe seems to me to be an anathema to someone who should be bending his brain to reinforce his reputation as a writer of stature. Notice that he says he "likes" the finished book rather than putting it forward as an offering right up there with everything else in his body of work. Writing for "fun" is an interesting concept but alien to my way of thinking and my approach to creation. Perhaps as an experiment...the question is will Sean repeat the experience? I'd like to think not but...

Isn't more likely than Watson and Stewart wrote these novels for money? It's better than toiling in Starbucks while you write the masterpieces. Writing can simply be a job, not a calling. What's more delusional? Writing hackwork for money or doing a day job while fooling yourself that you are working on a novel of pure genius in the evenings?

In the end, whether you are a 'writer of statue' will be decided by other people, not by how much effort you put in? A writer may dedicate every waking hour to mastering their craft and achieve nothing, while another writer may spend a fraction of time doing the same but achieve much more, simply because they have more talent.

Give me StarBucks any day. It's these kinds of decisions that tell us what sort of people we are, where we put our priorities as people...and artists. I've worked various jobs to support my writing and that has helped me gain valuable life experience which is then reflected in my writing. I don't take on writing projects to support my lifestyle because, to me, that is abusing my gift for monetary gain. My wife and I have made a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to scale back our way of life--no cable TV, no restaurant eating--and allow me to be a full-time writer (and stay at home dad). There's something mercenary about taking on a project that you normally wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, producing a workmanlike effort of little redeeming literary value. I think it brings discredit to you as an artist and puts you on a slippery slope that eventually leads to whoredom. Writing has always had a spiritual component for me and though, God knows, I'm sorely tempted at times (when the car or house insurance comes due) to sell out, write some piece of drek under a pseudonym, my respect for the printed word prevents me. And, it's funny, something always comes through at the last minute to save our bacon, reduce our debt load and keep us going for another year. I'd claim divine intervention but that might get me accused of being pompous and, well, we can't have that...

Unlikely that Ian Watson needed the money - he made a quite a bit of money messing about with Kubrick doing AI. It is detailed on his web site (and in print) so I don't feel like I am betraying a confidence that in 1990 he was paid $20,000 for 12000 words and then $3000 a week for the next eight months (oh and a big bonus if there was something usable at the end).

A lot of why the Warhammer books got people like Newman, Stableford, and Watson was because David Pringle was the editor. Oh and the almost guaranteed royalties were a nice lure as well.

There's a terrific YouTube clip of Stanley Wiater's interview with Harlan Ellison:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI2XuMoQOCU&mode=related&search=

Harlan talks about a reading where he asked a college audience if any of them had REAL jobs and people put up their hands...then he pared that down further by saying "not sitting on your asses at computers" and all but a few dropped their hands. "Midwife", "cab driver". Those are good jobs, Harlan insists, because (apropos #66) they give you experience in the real world, exposure to people, fodder for stories.

>68 CliffBurns: - it's interesting that you mention Ellison because you could easily make an argument for him being one of the most over-rated writers in sf, not because he isn't good, he can be very good but a lot of his work is average* at best. He has a very big reputation based on a relatively small number of short stories. He's the Norman Mailer of sf, larger than life, outstanding at telling everyone how brilliant he is but unlike Mailer he can't walk the walk - when Mailer says he's writing a novel on the history of the CIA he produces a 1000+ page monster on the subject, when Ellison says he's doing something who knows it anything will ever appear.

*Of course, the fact that a story is average is not Ellison's fault, it's usually the fault of interfering editors and publishers who don't understand the vision of a great artist like himself.

>56 Jim53: I really would like to find the time, someday, to read (and re-read) Chalker just to see if my first (well, 1-4th) impression was right. But my usual rule (and I used the same one with Steven Baxter and L.E.Modessit) that if I picked up a book from a new (to me) author at random and it managed to piss me off in the first 10 pages, that guy/gal was probably someone I could safely avoid.

Only got so many hours in the day, you know, and more wonderful things to read (and not just SF) *rolling eyes, grin*.

J: I'm telling Harlan on you!

Well, to some extent I agree that Harlan's reputation is based on work done quite long ago but I think anybody's roster of "Ten Best" SF stories would likely include a couple of tales by him whereas other authors would only get a single slot. Cripes, they include "Repent Harlequin..." on college syllabuses and I think "I Have No Mouth.." vies with the best SF stories of ALL TIME. A "relatively small number" of terrific stories? --I might put the total closer to a score, maybe more. I've got most of his collections released in the 1970's and 80's (those reissues with the gorgeous covers) and I could make up a helluva Greatest Hits collection out of those babies. I think it's a matter of taste (as these things often go) and I also think the author's irascible reputation sometimes clouds people's judgments as to his merits as a writer.

>71 CliffBurns: Concur there. Don't get him (Harlan) pissed at you either or you're askin' fer trouble (hehehaha).

Even though Harlan's not always my cup of tea, I have a hell of a lot of respect for him; just like Heinlein (no more flames, please.. *grin*), you may not like it but you sure can't ignore it.

No flames from me--as I said, a few of the tales from GREEN HILLS OF EARTH are still worthy. I think Harlan's like those guys from Spinal Tap who always have their amps turned up to "11"--unfortunately, that has taken its toll on those around him and the man himself (which is why he's suffered heart problems for at least a decade). All that intensity and rage can eat you alive and Harlan's living proof. Bit it's also fueled some stellar tales and one good novel (SPIDER KISS)...

I've tried, but I have to agree that Asimov is one of the worst. Drier and duller than sawdust. In fairness I haven't given him another go in awhile, but mainly because I painfully slogged through the Foundation series and swore him off!

I actually remember enjoying the Foundation series when I was in high school. I read the Robot series last summer, though, and found it mediocre at best. Worst ever? Maybe not, but I certainly won't be reading any more of his books.

I have never understood why ANYONE with the slightest grasp of literature would recommend anything by Asimov. While he was alive he was ubiquitous; so many non-fiction books and TV and Con appearances. A personality more than a writer. I think we owe him a debt of gratitude for helping popularize science and explaining (in his non-fiction) difficult scientific theories and processes to a lay audience, but that is as far as I'll go. Why anyone would name a FICTION magazine after one of the worst fiction writers in the genre (my opinion, right?) is a mystery to this correspondent. But, then, Ellery Queen was no great stylist either...

>76 CliffBurns: Cliff, have you ever tried The Gods Themselves? I slogged through the Foundation series too, but the latter was, IMHO, pretty damn good.

And Jack Vance WAS Ellery Queen, for four or five novels at least....*smirk*.

Wyrd:

I...can't. Just the notion of opening as Asimov book makes me shudder. I even hated the robot stories and if I so much as think of Asimov's "style", I start to shake like a dog crapping razor blades. Sorry...that was hyperbole and people seem to take exception to that.

I didn't know Vance was Shayne. Good Lord.

I detest pseudonyms, they're so cowardly...

>78 CliffBurns: There were several 'Ellery Queens', actually. Avram Davidson and Theodore Sturgeon also wrote (collaborated on?) some later novels.

Three of his (Vance's) books are The Four Johns, The Madman Theory and A Room to Die In... He also published some under his real name, John Holbrook Vance.

Oh, and he won the Edgar Award for 1960.

Heh-heh.

As for Asimov... I know how you feel; that's how it is with me and authors like Chalker.

Between Planets is also considered Heinlein's most sophisticated juvenile; lots of complex themes hiding underneath the 'pulp'.

What makes it tough sometimes is that some REALLY bad authors are actually decent people so it's hard to dump on them with a clear conscience. I could've probably shared a few brews with Asimov, had some laughs. Chalker was a big favorite at conventions, wasn't he, very popular as a person? These folks have pets and spouses and all sorts of mental and financial problems and to give 'em a kick in the nards (my sons' term) tweaks at my conscience...

>80 CliffBurns: Yeah, I have to admit that it (nad kicking) bothers me too. I try to restrict criticism to my pet peeves (clearly marked I hope) and what I hope are legitimate gripes about SF in particular: getting the science right!

Have never been able to get to a con; when I've had the money to go, have been to busy, and vice-versa. Would be wonderful to meet some of these people, but I'm afraid it might ruin my appreciation/disgust with the work.

Jack Vance specifically avoided interviews/appearances for just this reason; he thought that it was a disservice to the reader to insert himself between the reader and the material. Herbert and Heinlein were also recluses, and I'm sure there are other examples.

I DO try to read the Wikipedia entries for anyone that is controversial: I am generally not very pleased with what they say (heh), which is a good indication that they are relatively objective. If one doesn't like something there, one can always fix it, right?

There's something mercenary about taking on a project that you normally wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, producing a workmanlike effort of little redeeming literary value. I think it brings discredit to you as an artist and puts you on a slippery slope that eventually leads to whoredom.

If the resulting work isn't one that the author is proud of, then they shouldn't have written it.

#82

I couldn't agree more. And if you have to put a pseudonym on a project, that means it likely wasn't good enough to use your real name and, again, crap results. There's a big difference between art and commerce, genuinely inspired writing and share-cropping. But as long as the yokels and great unwashed keep buying the junk these people bang out in a few short weeks (4 months in Sean Stewart's case for his "Star Wars" novel) then we're just pissing in the wind as me Irish father used to say...

re: 83—And if you have to put a pseudonym on a project, that means it likely wasn't good enough to use your real name and, again, crap results.

Not always—oftentimes a pseudonym is used to work around the automated ordering systems for chain bookstores (especially when writing in multiple genres). In such cases, though, you'll almost always see the author owning up to it. (Hell, I've seen cases where the copyright listed was for the author's real name!)

There's a big difference between art and commerce, genuinely inspired writing and share-cropping.

Maybe, maybe not. But that's an entirely separate discussion from that of accountability. :)

I think a lot of this depends on what you expect from an SF (or indeed any other type of) author. I like Asimov because he can tell a story in fairly straightforward terms based around some interesting ideas, without the endless description, poor execution of often good ideas and the general feeling of "I must write 600+ pages for a decent SF novel" that seems to afflict a lot of more modern SF writers. I like H G Wells and John Wyndham for largely the same reasons. They are all just so much more readable to me than (for example) Kim Stanley Robinson, whose novels have interesting premises, but which I have always found disappointing (apart from the non-SF Years of Rice and Salt).

It all depends on what you want out of what you read. A novel written by someone over a period of years shivering in a garret while munching on their last crust of bread, dropping crumbs over their paper and pen (because of course they are more artistically honest than a PC or word processor) isn't automatically better and worthy of more respect than one written under other circumstances. Sorry about the sarcasm but some of the posts in this thread have taken the point about artistic integrity to rather absurd lengths in my view.

John

"Artistic integrity taken to absurd lengths..."

Can't concur there. And some of those authors who slaved in garrets (Baudelaire, Alfred Jarry, Rimbaud & Verlaine) were pretty darn great.

What I expect from an author is literate, carefully crafted prose. I expect to be respected as an intelligent reader and not subjected to clunky writing, mind-numbing exposition, brittle syntax and facile word choices. I expect writers to be aware of and carry on the legacy of the finest prose writers of all time. I expect them to be well-read and discerning in their reading habits (after all, you are what you read). I expect them to be critical and demanding editors of their own work. I expect them to put art before commerce. I expect them to REVERE the printed word and sacrifice mind, spirit and body to create the best possible fiction or verse they possibly can, pushing themselves to the limit (and beyond) to do so.

Does that clarify?

I will have to concur with the sentiment expressed in # 85, and cite # 86 as an example of "Artistic integrity taken to absurd lengths...". So absurd, in fact, that I would have expected them to be satire, if it wasn't because the posts keep coming without any emoticons.

Yeah, that clarifies that it sounds like you have some sort of masochistic ubernerd writer fetish. :-)

Psedonyms are absolutely for crap hacks.

Look at the rubbish Twain, Conrad, Virgil, Williams, Bachman, Voltaire, Wyndham, Le Carre, Caroll, Orwell et. al. turned out. Complete waste of trees.

We agree to differ...

Sorry, I had to dodge off and do something.

Further on this point:

All I wanted to say was the sentiments I expressed in #86 wouldn't be considered elitist or absurd by the writers I know. I also firmly believe that if you approached the finest literary writers and showed them my remarks, many of them would nod in grim-faced agreement...and probably add a few choice remarks on their own regarding those who diminish the printed word with their mercantilistic leanings and derivative hackwork.

Tyson, we've talked about pseudonyms before on another thread and I believe it was AsyouknowBob who corrected some of your misapprehensions regarding why certain great authors have used pen names. Those who employ pseudonyms because they genuinely don't want to be associated with the finished "product" are the ones I detest. In LeCarre's case, he was employed as a civil servant in Her majesty's government and didn't want to get in trouble for writing about spooks. I'm a LeCarre fan (PERFECT SPY is a great book) so I ain't kicking at Mr. Cornwall...

I expect that at least 1% of the books in my favorite genres is worth reading. I've done some estimates and calculated that it will take me about 20 years to read them all. If no-one has written any new books in that time, I can start on the second percentile. Or try a new genre.

>89 CliffBurns: Cliff, I'd really like to know how Nabokov, when he was writing as V. Sirin, failed you and your standards. Or how Eric Blair, who barely made it through 1984, didn't suffer enough for his art.

You've spent a lot of time and energy on this thread doing things like wishing palsy on a writer who didn't meet your approval (>54 CliffBurns:) and equating pseudonyms with cowardice (>27 CliffBurns:, >78 CliffBurns:). Before deciding that "we agree to differ," maybe you'd consider telling us in what way Stendhal was an aesthetic failure. Or -- more importantly -- why you feel like you can toss out fatwas against hack writers (your reference to the great god Mammon, >48 CliffBurns:, makes that loaded term applicable). Wishing painful illnesses on anybody is usually considered impolite; but if you simply have to do it, save it for a mass murderer, not someone who wrote a book you didn't like and didn't even stand behind your shoulder and force you to finish it.

Er...as I just indicated...I discriminate between the LeCarres and those who use pseudonyms to disguise their involvement in hack work.

As for the rest, my hyperbolic remarks merely showed the level of disdain I have for people who abuse their talents (?) to serve the Dark Gods of Money, Commerce and Product. These views have been consistent and consistently stated throughout my career and, yes, they tend to piss off people who look to reading for entertainment or escape or who have formed sentimental attachments to writers I scorn. I don't blame people for that--believe me, as a longtime reviewer I've gotten plenty of hate mail and the ol' "Oh, yeah? You suck!" comebacks from those who sign their names in crayon and buy anything with a dragon or unicorn on the cover...

(#89) I also firmly believe that if you approached the finest literary writers and showed them my remarks, many of them would nod in grim-faced agreement...and probably add a few choice remarks on their own regarding those who diminish the printed word with their mercantilistic leanings and derivative hackwork.

And how many of those authors have ever sold a book? Or perhaps more importantly, sold a book and had it sell well enough that the publishing house invited them back for more?

In my opinion Cliff Burns rants and rails against successful writers because in his twenty plus years of being a professional writer he has not become even remotely successful himself.

A.T.:

"What I expect from an author is literate, carefully crafted prose. I expect to be respected as an intelligent reader and not subjected to clunky writing, mind-numbing exposition, brittle syntax and facile word choices. I expect writers to be aware of and carry on the legacy of the finest prose writers of all time. I expect them to be well-read and discerning in their reading habits (after all, you are what you read). I expect them to be critical and demanding editors of their own work. I expect them to put art before commerce. I expect them to REVERE the printed word and sacrifice mind, spirit and body to create the best possible fiction or verse they possibly can, pushing themselves to the limit (and beyond) to do so."

Drop a note to Richard Ford, Robert Stone, Thomas Pynchon, James Crumley, Don DeLillo, Paul Auster, Wilton Barnhardt, Ian McEwan, Julian Barnes, Martin Amis, Annie Dillard, Margaret Atwood, Will Self and _______________ (you fill in the blank this time) and show them what I said. If they all don't pipe up with "Right on" or the equivalent, I'll make like Werner Herzog and eat my damn sneaker.

Er, sorry, I don't have their e-mail addresses or phone numbers right at hand but...see what you can do...

I'll wait with bated breath to hear what they say.

That is the Julian Barnes who sometimes writes far more low-brow fare as Dan Kavanagh?

How about Martin Amis's dad - I assume he is in your group Cliff? Of course he wrote a shared universe novel (well James Bond) and Bond non-fiction.

I am just saying that you have a rather more purist attitude than most. Your reply about "fun to write, fun to read" was probably the most illuminating thing about your attitude to writing and writers that you have yet come out with.

Andy:

I don't know how "low brow" you consider Kavanagh--a glance at his website reveals glowing blurbs from THE TIMES and SUNDAY TIMES and THE LISTENER. I don't know why Barnes chose a pseudonym but it doesn't seem to be, based on those reactions, because he wished to hide hack work.

Yup, purist, that's me. Yup, literary writer, that's me. Yup, hack-hater, that's me...

Well the little I read of one shows little of the sophistication of his Julian Barnes books. They are competently told with rather straight-forward language I suppose but they were bashed out in a few weeks (according to interviews) which doesn't seem to fit the extreme care and attention that you expect a writer to lavish on his creations.

Barnes has also said that a second-rate writer is worth more than a first-rate critic.

The relationship between writers and critics is always fraught with love-hate so Barnes' comments don't surprise me. The bugger always seems to get great reviews (regardless of what name he uses) and ends up on shortlists for big prizes so I dunno what he's barking about. I'd sell my corneas to get that sort of acclaim.

Erm, that was hyperbole, by the way.

Can't answer specific details on Barnes/Kavanagh so I'll leave it there.

The real puzzler for me is why someone like Sebasian Faulks (or John Gardner) would want to write a James Bond novel. That's like...Colson Whitehead sharecropping "Star Wars". These guys should be using their not inconsiderable talents on more creative and daring projects. Maybe they need a second house in the country or have an ailing mother they need to buy a chunk of the Caribbean for...

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world...

(95) I expect them to put art before commerce.

If something doesn't sell, then it's not art—or at least, not successful art. Not art that will survive, to be cherished by future generations, because nobody will care enough to preserve it.

Obviously, I disagree. We'll leave it there. This thread on "Worst SF Writer" is getting awfully long innit? But...keep it coming, maybe we'll have a meeting of minds somewhere along the way.

If something doesn't sell, then it's not art—or at least, not successful art. Not art that will survive, to be cherished by future generations, because nobody will care enough to preserve it.

In today's fractured market, you don't need that many fans for your work to be preserved. For example, i really like A.A. Attanasio and buy his work when i can find it, but it can be hard to find.

Cliff, I think your desire, nay passion, to produce truly excellent writing is admirable. And obviously, I wouldn't try to insist that you read any of these hacks at whom you sneer. However, please consider this: particularly for someone starting out, aspiring at first--not as an ultimate goal--to journeyman-like competence is not a damnable sin. For example, I occasionally entertain myself with the fantasy of writing a couple of mystery novels. As I read mystery novels, I find that many are, shall we say, less than paragons of style; however, I manage somehow to enjoy them without giving myself too hard a time for not spending every reading minute on the top 1%. So if someday I indulge my fantasy and write something, I would be delighted if my first effort were to achieve the quality of, say, one of Kate Wilhelm's novels, which I would describe as good but not great. (In other words, I would not, even on a maiden voyage, settle for Stephanie Plum). Eventually, if I pursue the practice further, I would want to do different things, and do things better each time. And if you would still want to say that my books should not be tossed aside lightly, but thrown with great force, I guess I would ask you to consider the value of a bit of humility and tolerance.

In terms of mystery novels, are you aware of the work of James Crumley? He's a staggering brilliant novelist and I highly recommend him. Far better than the usual run-of-the-mill mystery scribe. And his collection of Vietnam stories, ONE TO COUNT CADENCE will knock you on your butt. Read the best mystery writers (Raymond Chandler too, of course) then try to top them. Why be average? Set your sights considerably higher than that...

Thanks for seeing my passion for writing as admirable. Most on this site seem to think of it as mere pompousness...

> (last 20 or so posts)

Man, you guys, lighten up (*grin*). Cliff meant the original post to be a little controversial. If we've started descending to personal attacks we're really starting to lose our sense of humor...if you want to engage in a flame war move over to "Happy Heathens" and join the 'atheist vs. agnostic' tornado. (LOL!)

Spider Robinson, a fairly famous SF *reviewer*, made a distinction between reviews and critiques; I'm paraphrasing here, but I think I've got it straight.

A critic is a person who reads a book and *judges* it on subjective literary standards; problem with this is that standards and taste change. Key word here is *judge*; the reader is trying to tell EVERYONE that his opinion on the work is an *expert* opinion.

A reviewer ONLY says why he/she does or does not like it personally, and tries to steer away from personal attacks on the author or his fans. The material in the book (which may be more complex than a reader can detect in one reading) should stand by itself.

We should ALWAYS be hoping for better writing; and since we're SF readers we should ALSO hope that our books teach us something new about science. Sometimes these aims come it conflict, but IMHO the attempt some novels make against these problems is a Good Thing.

Thanks, Wyrd, I think that's an important message.

These debates shouldn't deteriorate but, sadly, all too often that's what happens. No one likes their favorite pet author slagged. I've got a thick enough skin that little digs don't much matter to me (one glance at the profile page of my most virulent opponents usually makes me grin and realize what I'm up against). I enjoy a well-reasoned, well-articulated debate and even acknowledge, gasp, I might be wrong on occasion. Critical thinking is in short supply on the Net--might be the brevity of the format encourages flame wars rather than polite discourse.

I'll leave it there...

Cool. My evil plan to single you out for special abuse has now succeeded. Muahahahaha!

I'm here at LT (and I stay here) because the level of discourse is generally a little higher (well, quite a bit higher) than the average blog. I've been slapped down here a few times for stepping over the line, and I DO appreciated it. Eventually.

Bring on the abuse, kid...

Really, the little slings and arrows don't bug me. But I get a little saddened when I see reason mastered by anger and logic over-powered by a mean streak I don't usually associate with bibliophiles.

I think we can all do better...

Thanks, Cliff, for the pointer to Crumley. I hadn't heard of him and will track him down.

Jim:

You won't be sorry re: Crumley. Another strange mystery type novel you might want to have a peek at is WORD MADE FLESH by Jack O'Connell. Kafka meets Chandler, if you can believe it.

I wish you good reading...

I wasn't going to enter this discussion with Cliff because we've already had it,on an earlier thread, and neither of us changed the other's mind.

Cliff thinks literary aesthetics are the most important part of SF and discounts big new ideas as not important. A large part of SF is presenting new ideas, some on a grand scale. Asimov is still being remembered, chosen, and read for a couple of ideas not his writing skills. Psychohistory and the three laws of robotics.

Psychohistory brought together cybernectics, information theory and statistics to introduce a huge new idea. Mention psychohistory to most SF readers and they know what you're talking about. One word for a huge sprawling idea. The theories have expanded but the foundations of psychohistory are being used in the real world. It doesn't matter if it holds over time. It was big. And it changed the thinking of not just the common person but also the powers that be.

Marx was not a good writer either but at one time 70% of the world's population lived under some form of Marxism. I'm not saying Asimov is Marx-like but am saying there is nothing more world changing than ideas.

Vernor Vinge will likely not be remembered for his writing style but for his Singularity paper and then his novels about it. It will be remembered for a long time even if it doesn't to pass. Coming up with pretty little sentences is hard, I admit, but coming up with the big new ideas and concepts is harder still. Very few do it. Dismissing Asimov because of his writing style is completing missing the point of SF where ideas will always reign over style. If that ceases to be then SF will also cease to be. There are other genres that deal with the aesthetic novel but SF is one of the only genres where the so-new-it's-not-yet-understood type of book can be written and accepted by a small but open-minded audience.

Asimov is well into picking up his third generation of readers which is hard for any author in any genre to do. The majority of writers never even pick up a first generation of readers much less a second or third. If an author wants a little slice of immortality then hit the readers with a big new idea like psychohistory because that's not easy to do.

> 112 - if it was all about big new ideas why not read "Nature" or any other number of science publications, they have the big ideas without the poor narrative. The truth is that most sf writers DON'T come up with big ideas, they utilise ideas that already exist. It is a myth that sf is flooded with writers coming up with cutting edge ideas.

Psychohistory wasn't new, it is actually a reformulation of Marx (Historical Materialism) or Kant's theory of controllable history.
The psychohistory that is studied in academia has nothing to do with Asimov, it is an attempt to understand the psychological motivations behind historical events.

Re - Vinge with singularity. He didn't develop that idea either, it has been around since the 1960's.

#113 Nature articles do very little speculating on how new findings will impact society and the individual. That's where the SF writers come in. I don't mind dry scientific writing but most people are never going to read it.

Dialectic moments or stages of history theory did not include cybernetics or information theory.

Can you cite me the paper that beat Vinge to the Sigularity punch? There were forerunners but he put it all together.

But you defended sf writers like Asimov on the basis of their ideas, their fail as writers when they attempt to create believable characters to deliver that idea.

That's a disingenuous defence of psychohistory - pyschohistory only works with humans because it can only analysis their psychological patterns, therefore theoretically everything that is part of that pattern is included. The difference between Marx and Kant, and Asimov, is that they actually developed working theories whereas there is no real basis to Asimov's, he simply says that psychohistory is a product of history, psychology and mathematical analysis (strangely similiar to Marx and Kant really) but doesn't explain how it works. Then as his series continues, Asimov throughs in new branches of science of cybernetics or information theory but he still never explains how it works. In that way it is a hyper-galactic inter-galaxy drive - a concept with no real depth.

In 1965 the statistician I. F. Good wrote -
Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an ‘intelligence explosion,’ and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make.

Even before that,in 1958, the physicist Stanislaw Ulam in conversation with John Van Neumann -
One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.

Visible:

You reduce my comments on aesthetics to "coming up with pretty little sentences" which, really, is a simplification I cannot allow to stand. I believe I have replied to posts and rebuttals with much more detail than that.

I'll leave you and jargoneer to debate the merits and originality of psychohistory and its possible antecedents--knowing Asimov, I find it highly unlikely that he'd come up with a completely original concept--my specialty lies elsewhere. I can comment with some credibility as to Asimov as a writer, I can talk about his tone-deaf prose, etc. and have.

Big ideas are fine but to say that should be or is the raison d'etre of working science fiction writers is a grotesque generalization. My argument all along has been that science fiction scribes should spend more time improving and honing their writing skills and less time getting the bloody physics right. My opinion hasn't changed and, yes, you're right, I can see yours hasn't either.

So be it.

It is of course, a false dichotomy, this either/or choice of ideas over prose or vice versa. A well written book with poor ideas is just as bad as a poorly written book with good ideas. As very very few authors ever manage to achieve high acclaim in both (candidates and supporting eveidence welcome), then you have to decide of the remainder where would you prefer the balance to lie. Slightly poorer writing for some excellant consequences of ideas, or slightly better writing even if it features somewhat triveal ideas.... you choose!

For me with SF I find the consequences of the ideas key - yes I want decent writing to go with it - but its the thoughts that count.

Note having an idea, pyscohistory is one thing. Expanding that to what it means for a specific individual in the future is the key. Marx may have "invented" the concept, but he didn't tell the story of the impact a practical application of such a concept could be, Asimov did.

Cliff, why is Asimov the 8th most popular author on LT according to the number of copies listed here? Don't worry about offending me, I just checked and I only have one Asimov listed here, if that makes a difference. You might offend the tens of thousands of other owners though. Why is Asimov still available in nearly every bookstore one walks into? From your OP, why is Foundation voted one of the most influential series in the field?

Ghost:

Re:#118

I have no idea why Asimov rates so highly among SF fans and readers. Source of bafflement to me, as my first post confessed. It MIGHT have to do with the mentality that neat ideas are more important to SF fans than good writing. Will the stature of the man be maintained as the years go by or diminish? Beats me.

I strongly suspect name recognition might have something to do with it. Poll SF readers as to the greatest Sf writers of all time are and they would likely answer with the usual suspects, (Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, Niven) simply because their names come swiftly to mind. But a more specific question might be helpful: "who is the finest literary writer in the history of SF" or "what SF writer has created the most work of lasting literary merit". Putting it that way, the roll call of names might change drastically. Like most polls, it's the wording and framing of the question that determines the answer.

Is that helpful?

> 118 - Asimov didn't create the impact of psychohistory in the original Foundation trilogy, he simply swiped the whole plot from Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It's no big secret, he was quite open about it.

Why is Asimov 8th? Why is Rowling 1st? Most people don't read critically so they don't care, this why you get so many reviews along the lines of "this book is great" or "this book is boring".

To be honest, when I read the Foundation trilogy as a teenager I enjoyed it (although I quickly realised the sequels were naff) but I couldn't read it now - Asimov's clunky prose would just grate.

I agree that the Foundation series is one of the most influential in the sf field, when Asimov and Heinlein were writing they were in at the beginning of the genre (modern American sf begins in 1920s with the pulp magazines) and they were expanding the limits of the genre. That is why they are important, along with a few others. Serious writers didn't really hit the genre until the 1960s when the New Wave writers appeared - they had different agendas, they wanted to explore more personal ideas on the whole, and they forced the genre to grow up a little. Unfortunately, Star Wars then appeared and the sf market descended back to a state of adolescence. Now SF as genre seems to be aimed at teenagers in the same way as Hollywood blockbusters - it's a 'whiz bang boom' mentality. That's not to say there aren't good writers in the genre, there are some very good writers but "strangely" they don't seem to be the bestsellers. Reading the average sf novel (or fantasy, for that matter) is a Peter Pan experience, it's for the inner child that doesn't grow up.

I absolutely concur that it was the New Wave writers who finally introduced some literary sensibilities to a field that, until then, read more like the Young Adult category. That's why the New Wavers were vilified by the old guard--John W. Campbell et all--who couldn't comprehend where these folks were coming from and were threatened by the ground-breaking work they were presenting. I mean, this is the same Campbell who championed Dianetics (thanks, John!) and gave Hubbard a platform to preach from. Meanwhile, he was turning down everything Phil Dick was sending him and anything else he couldn't abide politically or philosophically (never mind literary merit).

It's helpful. Besides the idea thing I think there is a second reason. SF readers as a rule start reading in the field when they're young. The ideas in SF have built-up over time and it's hard to jump into some of the latest stuff without the background. Heinlein and Asimov are still good starting points in the field for the young and the not so young. I don't know of many SF readers that kept reading in the genre that stayed with those two exclusively. A lot of readers will remember those two as their first loves/teachers in the field and the feelings that came from reading and understanding SF for the first time.

...and that, naturally, gives them a sentimental attachment to those writers so

1) they vote for them as greatest and 2) resent anyone who questions the stature or literary merit of their old faves. I understand that. But my point is, can these writers withstand critical reading and scrutiny and do they really deserve their inflated reputations. Reading Asimov at fourteen is one thing...but re-reading him at forty offers a completely different perspective and one's entire view of his oeuvre changes.

But this dead horse is starting to look a bit flyblown because of the beatings it's taken so I'll leave it at that.

Good discussion today--and, see, no personal swipes. Terrific stuff...

I am rather pleased to see that my post stimulated some interesting debate. I hope it was not seen as a personal attack on CliffBurns or anyone else - it was certainly not meant as such.

Aside from whether Asimov is a great or awful writer (and I am 40 and still enjoy reading his books), I think there is a broader point about what is the purpose of literature (I mean the term in its broadest non-value judgemental sense). I am not ashamed to say that at least one of those purposes is to entertain and divert the reader. And I say that as one who is no stranger to reading difficult literature (see my catalogue) as well as less demanding fare. The variety of literature available to be enjoyed is one of its great strengths and why I am a life long bibliophile.

John

John:

No slight perceived if no slight intended.

Your thoughts on Asimov and the purposes of literature are appreciated...and respected. Thanks...

sorry for my long absence/silence. was doing a quick scan of "interesting" topics so of course this one caught my eye.
RE: bluetyson Message 3
PK Dick i can see your point though has some great moments of clarity and characterization (but 'clearly' the worst is quite a leap; have you read some of the contemporary SF and Fantasy out there?). perhaps as a speculative idea-man he is able to compensate for some of his failings in writing skills (and perhaps his voluminous output and own drug use are culprits); but it's a bit funny you would highlight cardboard characters and 'incomprehensible gibberish' considering some of your own favourite authors?, comic books you seem to like/enjoy? :) though you include quite a bit that stand out as expectional writers and idea people.

Ballard: in that case it's obvious you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about so i'll leave you to pull yourself out of that self-inflicted quicksand. are you referring perhaps to some of his short stories and shorter novels of the 70s?

as for worst SF writers that i can offer i will have to review. since i rarely go back to a bad writer even if he/she offers some interesting speculations, i tend to relegate them to the 'trash bin' and try to forget...

cheers

*edited to apologize to Blueytyson for what could be construed as a 'personal swipe', but was intended as observation/confusion of why Dick and particularly Ballard would qualify as bad writers in comparison to his own favourite authors....

also, I notice few posts singled out William Gibson's The Difference Engine as quite poorly written ... please note that book is co-authored with Bruce Sterling which is perhaps an important observation.
if someone already called attention to this obvious point then please excuse me.

so certainly that one novel where the two authors took turns writing chapters, etc. is by no way indicative of Gibson's writing....

*edited to try and include touchstones which for some reason are not appearing despite the use of single and double brackets... any suggestions/ideas for the cause? it says 'loading' but nothing happens.