Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Or perhaps too much.
SF/F is one of those genres that has it's roots in pulp. There has been a running battle between the pulp/popular side and literary side ever since I started reading it back in the 70's. The SF class that I took in high school was heavy on Bradbury, Vonnegut, Le Guin and Dick and light on Heinlein and Asimov. Doc Smith wasn't even mentioned in passing.
|
Yeah, I definitely have a preference for the pulpier origins of science fiction than the modern day stuff. Well, the John Campbell school anyway. Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, Poul Anderson, etc. Though I'd have a hard time getting through Doc Smith myself. Or L. Ron Hubbard. I like pulp, but I have my limits.
I'm not bad mouthing modern sci-fi. I just don't read enough of it.
Quote:
|
As a general rule of thumb, I've noticed that one can tell when SF/F is on the upswing or downswing by the types of authors who are being talking about. If it's the literary types, then SF/F tends to be on the down swing. If it's the pulp/popular side then it tends to be on the up swing. Right now, SF/F seems to be in a bit of a down swing.
|
Interesting. I hadn't really thought of it that way.