Is SF dying?

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Shakespeare may be a classic, but most of it is morose, hard to read and quite boring. Many of the characters are overly-dramatic and none-too-bright. I do not find Shakespeare great at all. That is not to say he couldn't piece together a story--he does. But I find his work very avoidable and were it up for nomination for anything other than "Depressing" I wouldn't vote for it.

He wrote some pretty good comedy too

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by shalym

...and just for contrast, my 19 year old son loves Shakespeare. He loves the characters and the stories, and doesn't find it hard to read at all.

Shari

He might like Wuthering Heights too, then. That was another classic I did not like (or finish despite 3 tries).

There are books for everyone!

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

He wrote some pretty good comedy too

People keep trying to convince me of that, but I would have to make it THROUGH one of them and be "entertained" and that has not happened. Humor is actually another one of those genres that is very difficult to write such that it appeals to a large audience. There are many variations on it from juvenile humor, to wit, to silly to actual comedy and so on. One man's humor is another man's 'huh?'

[pdurrant]

Shakespeare's play were written to be watched, not read, IMO.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Shakespeare may be a classic, but most of it is morose, hard to read and quite boring. Many of the characters are overly-dramatic and none-too-bright. I do not find Shakespeare great at all. That is not to say he couldn't piece together a story--he does. But I find his work very avoidable and were it up for nomination for anything other than "Depressing" I wouldn't vote for it.

A Midsummer Night's Dream is easy to read and hilarious.

Hamlet's my fave:

Now could I drink hot blood. And do such bitter business as the day would quake to look on. Soft, now to my mother...

Lmao. What's not to like?

[crich70]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Shakespeare's play were written to be watched, not read, IMO.

Yes, but it is possible to visualize the characters,settings, etc. in your head to a degree as well (IMO). Of course I have seen several of his plays performed (on TV) so that also helps in the visualization.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

How does "I've read both books in full and I can say that The Hunger Games is the better book IMHO" sound? I assume that is what you meant...

IMO it is absurd to require everybody on nearly every post on these boards to post IMO. It's a given. IMO.

[murg]

Originally Posted by Rizla

IMO it is absurd to require everybody on nearly every post on these boards to post IMO. It's a given. IMO.

IMO this is just a ridiculous statement!

[pdurrant]

Some statements are clearly opinion. Some statements have the appearance of objective fact. It is when the latter are really opinion that an IMO is required. IMO.

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Shakespeare's play were written to be watched, not read, IMO.

I don't get the reputation that Shakespeare carries. His is an acquired taste. I also think that it's misguided to compare him to modern writers. I think he should be compared to tv writers and showrunners. E.g I think the brilliant contributors to the great Simpsons years ( George Meyer, Al Jean, Mike Reiss) are Shakespeare's modern versions. Since Shakespeare's plays reportedly have a lot of dick jokes(something which I've not read for myself, mind) he could also be compared to Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

[Alpha o]

Originally Posted by crich70

Yes, but it is possible to visualize the characters,settings, etc. in your head to a degree as well (IMO). Of course I have seen several of his plays performed (on TV) so that also helps in the visualization.

We learned to visualize when studying Shakespeare in school.

Shakespeare gets the credit as he was close to the first to write in fairly understandable English.

Chaucer was a good observer, but you need a dictionary to read his works, and if someone read it to you in the original language that Chaucer used, you wouldn't understand a word of it.

Here's another of that era:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Faerie_Queene

Le Morte d'Arthur precedes Shakespeare. (Written in 1465)

Here's an article about some facets of publishing today:
http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/killi...ertain-length/


Get marketing out of awards and read what you enjoy.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Alpha o

Get marketing out of awards and read what you enjoy.

I would agree ... except for one small change: I would say "read whatever it is that motivates you to read more." Be it enjoyment, or entertainment, or challenge, or inspiration, or what-have-you.

Many make the mistake of believing readers are motivated by the same things; so naturally, things like "enjoy," "appreciate," "entertaining," "good," and "value" tend to get conflated. People read for different reasons (for some people, that reason might even change from book to book).

There will never be a consensus about what is "good" (especially as it pertains to award-worthy), so there's no real point in trying to achieve such a consensus. Understanding what motivates people other than yourself to read is well and good, but it's not really all that necessary either. Allowing/tolerating reasons/criteria other than your own is where the middle-ground comes from.

Some days I want to be entertained ... some days I want to be challenged. I don't see either as being a particularly "better" (or worse) criteria for determining a book's value.

[Geralt]

Fantasy which I mostly read has been really thriving for the past few years. The problem I have with science fiction in particular (not fantasy or horror) is that lots of books are very cold when it comes to characters. Most of what I've read wants to deal with big ideas and concepts, and character development takes the back seat. There are always exceptions of course and some of those exceptions are my favorite books (for example The Stars My Destination by Alfred Bester, but that's an old book I know).
Maybe my viewpoint is skewed because as a fantasy reader my number one interest is in characters, then comes the world building, and then the plot. But from what I've heard from my fellow fantasy readers a lot of them have the same problem, where SF is too dry, sterile and cold. I tend to agree in general.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Geralt

Fantasy which I mostly read has been really thriving for the past few years. The problem I have with science fiction in particular (not fantasy or horror) is that lots of books are very cold when it comes to characters. Most of what I've read wants to deal with big ideas and concepts, and character development takes the back seat. There are always exceptions of course and some of those exceptions are my favorite books (for example The Stars My Destination by Alfred Bester, but that's an old book I know).
Maybe my viewpoint is skewed because as a fantasy reader my number one interest is in characters, then comes the world building, and then the plot. But from what I've heard from my fellow fantasy readers a lot of them have the same problem, where SF is too dry, sterile and cold. I tend to agree in general.

I agree with this. It's why I don't read a lot of sci/fi. I'm a very character driven reader. There is some sci/fi that has great character development, but as a genre, I tend to expect less of it because there seems to be less robust character development. World building is dead last for me and plot is second. I require logic in all three of those components, but if the world building is weak and the other two strong, I usually still finish the book.

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by Geralt

Maybe my viewpoint is skewed because as a fantasy reader my number one interest is in characters, then comes the world building, and then the plot. But from what I've heard from my fellow fantasy readers a lot of them have the same problem, where SF is too dry, sterile and cold. I tend to agree in general.

Funny thing is, as someone who reads a lot of modern/urban fantasy but still considers himself mainly an SF reader, I feel the same way about epic/high/"traditional" fantasy. Tolkien bores me to tears, even though I was fine watching the movies - just too much poetry and description, plus all the medieval courtly stuff. Same goes for a lot of his spiritual heirs; it just seems like cut-and-paste with the same parties, quests, and murky prophecies.

On the other hand, give me something a little more grounded and I'm all over it. Simon Green's Haven books, Alex Bledsoe's Sword-Edged Blonde, practically any "modern world meets traditional fantasy" book, urban fantasy, comic fantasy... practically anything but capital-F Fantasy.

I've read some dry explore-an-idea SF, but there's some good character-driven stuff out there as well. If you like mil-SF, David Weber's got a big cast in his Honor Harrington books, and I've never found them to be interchangeable faces. Peter David's Star Trek: Excalibur series scratches some of the same itch Joss Whedon's Firefly does: a crew of quirky misfits that manages to get the job done despite all the odds.

If I had to guess, I'd say we're both seeing Sturgeon's Law in action: 90% of everything is crap. (Or more; I think he was an optimist.) The trick is finding that other sliver.