bill van is guilty of <firstname.lastname@example.org> as of 6/11/2018
Post by bill van Post by Peter T. Daniels Post by bill van Post by Peter T. Daniels Post by Richard Tobin Post by Peter T. Daniels
John W. Campbell, via Asimov, said that good SF involves changing just one
parameter in the real world and chasing the consequences.
But he was wrong. That's just one style of sci-fi.
It's what there was in 1935ish. He was _the_ editor. Writers wanted to be
in _his_ magazine, and he knew what he was doing.
Campbell was the editor of note when modern SF was being invented. That
doesn't mean we have to stick with his rules and definitions forever.
Writers can write what they want. Publishers can publish what they
want. Readers can read what they want. Critics can call it what they
want. There are no enforceable rules.
I stopped reading SF when Heinlein got -- well, verbose, and when
"Neuromancer" got promoted as The Next Big Thing. Though I did keep on
Heinlein certainly jumped the shark in his later books, but that was my
reason to stop reading Heinlein, not everyone else. I reviewed SF books for
my newspaper for a time, and was swamped by the volume; I then stopped
reading SF entirely for a decade or so. I still have all the LeGuin I ever
read, and two or more books by Aldiss, Blish, Bear, Bester, Dick, Herbert,
Pohl, Silverberg, Wolfe and (for laughs) Zelazny.
The early Amber stories were good. I was already familiar with
Zelazny, I think through short stories.
I pretty much started with Heinlein's YA stuff, back in 5th grade
(pointed to it by a teacher), back when real space craft held 1, 2, or
maybe 3 people.
But ... somewhere in that timeframe I read some Silverberg (short
stories in _Godling, Go Home!_) not realizing that I was reading Scien
It was much later that I read _Bill The Galactic Hero_. I've poked at
stainless steel rats, but Bill was the fun book.
Post by bill van
I read more fantasy than SF
these days, especially Gaiman's light and dark entertainments.
Still getting there.
I tend to need more breaks from Fantasy than from Science Fiction,
probably because it's like running around without suspenders and having
loosened the belt. Hmm, there may be a better image; watch this space >
I do have somewhat eclectic tastes: Avram Davidson and Kate Wilhelm
were in there and then all that Well of the Worlds, and later on a few
of the Bad Pun series about Xanth. Flix and Pip. The Road books by
John DeLancie (or DeLancey or DeLaney ... Amazon didn't help me, nor
Current reads are the Ancillary books by Ann Leckie, _Medusa Uploaded
by Emily Devenport , and a book in a gold and red dustjacket by a
British author (circa 2016). Oh, and a recently "annual" anthology is
in the stack .
Oh, and I use the terms "Science Fiction", SciFi, and SF rather
interchangeably, so clearly my head isn't attached properly. I do use
Space Opera more specifically, thank my Lucky Starrs. Also, "hard SF"
(or a variation on that theme) for books where the science isn't just
stage dressing, but almost a character in itself. Asimov, Clarke, and
Heinlein were early examples. I think Simak was softer, and I don't
remember my Kornbluth.
 "Devenport" rings an SF bell for me, but I don't recognize the
novel titles in Emily's WP entry.
 Stacks ... the books I haven't read yet, and which will go in
storage when I have to move.
Ieri, oggi, domani