Iain M. Banks vs. Alastair Reynolds

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by HarryT

EVERYBODY does characters better than Asimov. I would say that Asimov's characters were "two dimensional" if that wasn't an insult to two-dimensional objects . I love Asimov as an author, but "character" writing was not his strength.

"Action" wasn't his strong suit, either. A lot of people panned the movie I, Robot, but I remember thinking at the time after watching it, "Wow, who knew Asimov could write something so exciting!"

[Shadowplay]

Originally Posted by Rafardeon

I love the books of Raynolds. Are there other authors with the same stlye you can suggest?

From what I know so far, Iain M. Banks is another great suggestion.

I'll also recommend Vernor Vinge if you haven't read his books yet. In particular, I'd suggest "A Fire Upon the Deep". It has a very, very different take on the galactic space opera tale that I don't think anyone else has ever touched on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fire_Upon_the_Deep

[queentess]

Originally Posted by HarryT

EVERYBODY does characters better than Asimov.

Much as I'd love to defend Asimov... yeah. I think that tends to come with the genre, where situations/science are the focus instead of characters.

The one glaring exception that comes to mind is Rama II (co-written by Clarke and Gentry Lee). I wanted to punch the authors in the face for that one. Soooooo much focus one-dimensional characters; there really wasn't a story there.

[ahi]

Stanisław Lem "never had a high opinion of American science-fiction, describing it as ill thought-out, poorly written, and interested more in making money than in ideas or new literary forms." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislaw_Lem)

Here is an essay of his that, in part, elaborates on his views on science fiction: http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/5/lem5art.htm

- Ahi

[queentess]

Originally Posted by ahi

Stanisław Lem "never had a high opinion of American science-fiction, describing it as ill thought-out, poorly written, and interested more in making money than in ideas or new literary forms." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislaw_Lem)

If you read the actual reference it says

Lem has always been critical of most science fiction, which he considers ill thought out, poorly written, and interested more in adventure that ideas or new literary forms.

Of course, I'm also not sure why I would trust the random opinion of someone whose name I've never even heard. Or why any genre of writing must be concerned with "new literary forms". I would argue that sci-fi, in general, does push new ideas.

[ahi]

Given the discrepancy, I'm guessing there might be multiple sources for such quotes from and/or about Lem. Not that the phrasing makes a huge difference, most Science Fiction being American Science Fiction.

In fact upon further reading, it seems to me that the quote(s) originate from material that was originally in Polish, then translated (among other languages) to German, then from the German adapted (i.e.: translated/edited liberally) to English. (see: http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/14/lemaffair14.htm)

But what's the eye-roll for?

If nothing else, I have difficulty disagreeing with Lem's assertion that most science fiction is poorly written. Comments about two and one dimensional characters well illustrate that some of the genre's greatest achievements are subpar in some literarily fundamental ways. (Despite obviously excelling in other ways generally considered more important to the genre, but which ought not impair literary fundamentals.)

As to your dismissal of him on account of never having heard his name before... I'm left a little astonished.

- Ahi

[queentess]

Originally Posted by ahi

Given the discrepancy, I'm guessing there might be multiple sources for such quotes from and/or about Lem.

That was the actual paragraph that your wikipedia "reference" cited. Whoever notated it in wikipedia was biasing the quote.

Originally Posted by ahi

But what's the eye-roll for?

We were talking about how Asimov is a great writer but his characters are a little lacking. You chime in with "random author who was snubbed by science fiction writers believes that all American sci-fi writers are only interested in money". It's a big generalization, not very relevant, and was designed to be inflammatory (esp after I saw what the original quote says) and I assumed you were trolling.

Originally Posted by ahi

If nothing else, I have difficulty disagreeing with Lem's assertion that most science fiction is poorly written. Comments about two and one dimensional characters well illustrate that some of the genre's greatest achievements are subpar in some literarily fundamental ways. (Despite obviously excelling in other ways generally considered more important to the genre, but which ought not impair literary fundamentals.)

That really depends upon what the reader gets out of the novel. I love science fiction and don't see characters as a short-coming if the rest of the story is strong enough. Human characters alone do not a story make, especially in sci-fi where the planet, universe, alien culture, etc, can become a fleshed out character. Novel ideas are also important to me.

Originally Posted by ahi

As to your dismissal of him on account of never having heard his name before... I'm left a little astonished.

Why? I haven't ever heard of him, therefore using him as your Appeal to Authority argument isn't working on me. I don't see him as an expert in the field. And after reading about the little incident he had with the SFWA, it seems like he was just having a tantrum about not being included. So now I really don't trust his opinion or believe he is an authority on the subject.

[Sparrow]

Guardian reports:
"SF's rising star Alastair Reynolds has just signed a £1m contract to deliver 10 books over 10 years."

[Shadowplay]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Guardian reports:
"SF's rising star Alastair Reynolds has just signed a £1m contract to deliver 10 books over 10 years."

Wow congratulations to Reynolds! I'm not sure I like "10 books over 10 years" as that feels a bit rushed, but hopefully he can sustain some quality through it all.

[Rafardeon]

Originally Posted by Shadowplay

From what I know so far, Iain M. Banks is another great suggestion.

I'll also recommend Vernor Vinge if you haven't read his books yet. In particular, I'd suggest "A Fire Upon the Deep". It has a very, very different take on the galactic space opera tale that I don't think anyone else has ever touched on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fire_Upon_the_Deep

Thanks for your suggestions. I definetly will try those books!

[mazzeltjes]

Thanks
Nice interview

[m-reader]

Originally Posted by HarryT

EVERYBODY does characters better than Asimov. I would say that Asimov's characters were "two dimensional" if that wasn't an insult to two-dimensional objects . I love Asimov as an author, but "character" writing was not his strength.

Thanks for saving me the effort of replying HarryT. I couldn't agree more. Some time I think Asimov just had to fill up the contracted number of pages ...