Over rated Authors-Isaac Asimov

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

She can say whatever she wants of course. But attempting to lift it out of the mire of science fiction, as some people see it, doesn't mean it isn't science fiction. It reminds me of an old joke: how many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg. Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

She can say whatever she wants of course. But attempting to lift it out of the mire of science fiction, as some people see it, doesn't mean it isn't science fiction. It reminds me of an old joke: how many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg. Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

I don't care how people categorise any particular book by Atwood or anybody else, it makes no difference to the quality of the book (though it will probably affect the writer's income).
I merely wanted to point out that your amusing analogy is unhelpful, because it simply begs the question (in the classic sense of that term).

[Fat Abe]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

She can say whatever she wants of course. But attempting to lift it out of the mire of science fiction, as some people see it, doesn't mean it isn't science fiction. It reminds me of an old joke: how many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg. Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

This is the author's prerogative, so why deny them that privilege? There is a tendency in book stores, libraries, and even academic institutions, to categorize works of literature. One can go further and state that this is a habit of human nature, pigeonholing art and people. Science fiction is strong enough as a genre to not need any particular writer or book. No single author or book is so critical to the history of the human race that its loss would cripple civilization. Maybe the Bible or Koran might be considered sacrosanct, but life goes on. Anyway, if we ever get back on topic, I will say that the world is a better place because of Asimov. His books are a welcome addiction to the library of any devoted fan of science fiction. If a reader dislikes SF, then that is their personal choice. It does not render any author's work as insignificant.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Fat Abe

This is the author's prerogative, so why deny them that privilege?

She has the prerogative to call the book whatever she wishes. I understand that if a book is categorized as science fiction it's less likely to be taken seriously by certain people. But declaring that a book isn't science fiction doesn't mean it isn't science fiction.

[applesauce]

My husband has read everything Isaac Asimov has written. He is one of his all time favourites. I would rather watch paint dry than read him.

applesauce

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by applesauce

My husband has read everything Isaac Asimov has written. He is one of his all time favourites. I would rather watch paint dry than read him.

applesauce

Tastes vary. Some like applesauce, some like bran.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

She has the prerogative to call the book whatever she wishes. I understand that if a book is categorized as science fiction it's less likely to be taken seriously by certain people. But declaring that a book isn't science fiction doesn't mean it isn't science fiction.

I have read a Handmaidens Tale and fail to see how it could be called Sci Fi

[kennyc]

It's an alternative society that is one branch of SF.

[ProfCrash]

Pretty loose connection if you ask me. But that is me.

The Game Theorist in me loves the Foundation Series. Good stuff there.

[kennyc]

"Alternative history" is the least sf-like to me.

[BenG]

It has a SF premise, but it has a more literary style than genre fiction.

[BenG]

Originally Posted by kennyc

"Alternative history" is the least sf-like to me.

The only reason alternate history is sometimes considered SF is that it is often written by SF authors; like fantasy used to be considered SF because it was written by the same authors that wrote SF and was published in SF magazines.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

I have read a Handmaidens Tale and fail to see how it could be called Sci Fi

It takes place in the future and imagines a future society and culture (based on an extrapolation of existing trends in current society and culture). Like, say, "Logan's Run" or "Stand on Zanzibar."

Originally Posted by kennyc

"Alternative history" is the least sf-like to me.

Usually to me, too, although I wouldn't call this alternative history.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

...


Usually to me, too, although I wouldn't call this alternative history.

Nor did I.

[fjtorres]

Alternate history requires the same discipline and techniques as SF. Both are examples of world building (roughly) within the range of known science. And both are (at their best) about exploring ideas. If alternate history isn't SF it is so darned close as makes no difference.
And some, like GUNS OF THE SOUTH, AXIS OF TIME, and the 163x series require a SF staple just to get started: time-travel.
One might argue that some steampunk is fantasy instead of SF (AGATHA H, for one) but most alternate history is SF.