I was reading a little series called "100 Must-Read" that included a volume on Science Fiction books. One of the things that jumped out at me is how it treated Orson Scott Card. Since he is one of my favorite authors naturally I looked for his name. He was in there, but seemed to hold a very secondary role.
This isn't the first time his name has come up in science fiction almost as a must mention, but quickly skip. No doubt other science fiction authors have been more influential and historically important. What is amazing is despite the lack of attention to him, OSC has done a lot. The Must-Read book does mention him as prolific, but also is the only one whose religion was mentioned. Not sure why the author cared to include that as if it was significant somehow. The rest of the short article on him seemed to be at times dismissive. Yet, the awards list at the end showed him to be the only one to have won both the Hugo and Nebula for the same year, and that twice in a row.
Where does OSC stand in the Science Fiction universe? Has his writings influenced the style and subject for other authors? Does he stand alone as a creative outsider? What legacy will he have when he is gone?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I'm not widely enough read to assess this very well, but I think it's an interesting question. My own impression (which I recognize is not all that well informed) is that OSC made a mark with his books and his popularity, deserves to be recognized for his talent and work, but hasn't been all that influential on the genre. Some of his books will have enduring relevance long after he is dead, and that will be his legacy.
But this is not a criticism. There can only be a few Tolkiens and Asimovs. Standing out with a large body of high quality work is a HUGE accomplishment, and spawning or steering any sub-genre is, I'd guess, often a matter of timing as much as genius.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that OSC is a populist author -- his strength is in how much he's read and enjoyed by the general public, as opposed to how much he's respected and imitated by other authors.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
I think OSC is unique among sci-fi authors because many people who would never call themselves avid sci-fi readers read and love his books (I am myself am one of them). That probably means that people who ARE avid sci-fi readers don't respect his books as much as they would Asimov or Heinlein because they're not "hard core" science fiction. However, I think being able to be understood and loved by people who are not used to reading sci-fi books is a mark of OSC's genius; his writing can be understood by anyone, no matter what their background (similar, interestingly, to Ender's own talents).
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Were any of the other authors just as recent as card, or was it mostly amisov/clark era writers?
Posted by Clumpy (Member # 8122) on :
You know, I don't think OSC would consider himself primarily a Sci-Fi author, or even his most distinguished books in the genre works of "Science Fiction".
The whole debate of "hard" vs. "soft" sci-fi seems somehow beyond this, as Card works with storylines and relationships and ideas, rather than science and ramifications and ideas.
OSC tends to underestimate the value of "highbrow" writing and art, though I suspect that it's his devotions to human storylines and relationships in his writing (as well, of course, as his political opinions) that have kept him off of, or playing second tier on, literary lists such as these. I'm sure that the point he would make is partially valid - in a nutshell, he's very readable and some snobs can't handle that .
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:You know, I don't think OSC would consider himself primarily a Sci-Fi author
In a sense you're right, as the first paragraph on this page indicates:
quote:"I'm Kristine's husband, Geoffrey and Emily and Charlie's dad, I'm a Mormon, and I am a science fiction writer." Orson Scott Card describes himself in that way and in that order.
But as you can see he might consider science fiction his writerly home.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think OSC's religion is important to his work and has to be mentioned. Two of his major series are based heavily on LDS stuff (Book of Mormon Joseph Smith's life). To discuss his work without his religion is impossible. Other scifi writers don't seem to write as directly from their religion.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
Read any Christopher Stasheff? *Heavily* Catholic. . . .
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Or C.S. Lewis?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I do agree with scholarette, though, that Card's religion informs his writing, and that knowing about it provides insight into his work. It makes sense to mention it. I'd guess that if Lewis or Stasheff were being discussed, their religion would be mentioned too.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
And maybe Philip Pullman's atheism.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I have not read Stasheff actually. And Lewis I think of more as fantasy (even having read perelandra). But, the important question is really, did the other book include Stasheff or Lewis or Pullman and not include their religion? If so, then it is weird that they would talk about Card's religion and not others. But it really depends on who else they included.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I will mention books and authors they mentioned between 1990 to 2000:
Super-Cannes by J.G. Ballard. Moonseed by Stephen Baxter Synners by Pat Cadigan The Reality Dysfunction by Peter F. Hamiton China Mountain Zhang by Maureen F. McHugh Black Gods and Scarlet Dreams by C.L. Moore Altered Carbon by Richard Morgan Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson Stations of the Tide by Michael Swanwick A Fire Upon the Deep by Vernor Vinge Doomsday Book by Connie Willis
It has a good selection of Authors and books between 1930s (with a few post-golden era) and today. If there is any major criticism it leans heavy toward modern books, but there are 100 of them. The arguably important authors have more than one entry.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Who do they mention for 1980-90? That's when OSC was writing some of his best stuff (Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead, the first 3 Alvin books, Lost Boys, etc.)
Posted by Matek (Member # 9065) on :
I can vouch for The Reality Dysfunction by Hamilton as one of the best series I have ever read. His other work is amazing too.
but.... no Bova? Really?
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
I'll also toss my hat in for the Reality Dysfunction. Heck, I like all of Hamilton's work.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Matek: I can vouch for The Reality Dysfunction by Hamilton as one of the best series I have ever read. His other work is amazing too.
but.... no Bova? Really?
What from Bova do you like? I read some book he wrote about Mars and I can't even remember what happened in it; my conclusion was that I like him a lot better as an invisible editor than as an author.
Posted by Matek (Member # 9065) on :
I actually really liked Mars and Return to Mars, but all of his books named after planets (Jupiter, Venus, Titan etc..) are very good. Also his series titled Orion is awesome. Its about a time traveler with super-human powers. Sounds comic-booky, but its very good.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My personal fave is Bova's Asteroid Wars series.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Matek: I actually really liked Mars and Return to Mars, but all of his books named after planets (Jupiter, Venus, Titan etc..) are very good.
Agreed.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Golden Compass is one of my favorites. And, you, know what, I would add Warren Ellis in there. Transmetropolitan (comic series) is excellent.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Here are the 1980s books on the list. Someone asked about it, so I did the footwork:
The Player of Games by Iain M. Banks Moonseed by Stephen Baxter Blood Music by Greg Bear Timescape by Gregory Benford Ancient of Days by Michael Bishop Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card Neuromancer by William Gibson Dr. Adder by K.W. Jeter The Journal of Nicholas the American by Leigh Kennedy The Anubis Gate by Tim Powers The Glamour by Christopher Priest Life During Wartime by Lucius Shepard City Come A-Walkin' by John Shirley Tik-Tok by John Sladek The Shadow of the Torturer by Gene Wolf
The writers must have thought that 1980 was a good year for SF, because at least three of the titles are of that year alone.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Thanks for the list.
No Dan Simmons on it. He's similar in some ways to OSC -- writing about characters and general ideas but using the SF as more of a black box magic toy than anything else.
Did the book have any definition of just what "must-read" means? (For fun? For meaning? For a representative sample of SF? For if you want to be a SF writer?)
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
As long as OSC is in that book for Ender's Game, I don't think there's much to worry about. Nobody appears on the combined 80s/90s lists more than once, and if you had to pick one OSC novel to put on the list you'd probably pick Ender's Game, as I assume it's the most popular and also represents most of the innovations in characterization that OSC has brought to SF.
If the article on OSC is dismissive, maybe it's because he's not as "hard" an SF writer as the others in the book (as I'm sure OSC would agree).
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: Ender's Game...represents most of the innovations in characterization that OSC has brought to SF.
What innovations in characterization do you feel that Card brought to the genre?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
in depth characters? Maybe I'm wrong but Asimov's characters seemed more springboards for scientific debate and discussion and the other characters more on the lines of foibles for the aforementioned, very few of his characters were given much depth of course thats not WHY we read Asimov but it bears to mention.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
There are plenty of SF authors prior to card that wrote characters with depth, though.
Posted by CRash (Member # 7754) on :
Hmm...from the two excerpts Occasional posted, I'm not the SF fan I thought I was. I do shy away from books that are obsessed with scientific concepts, but I've only read a few books on there. Are most of them hard SF?
Maybe this comes from being born after a good half of those on the lists were written, but I'm feeling very ignorant right now.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*shrug* I was born before all of them, and have considered myself a SF&F fan since sometime in the 80s (never thought about it before that), and while I have heard of almost all the books and authors, have read very few. So what?
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: *shrug* I was born before all of them, and have considered myself a SF&F fan since sometime in the 80s (never thought about it before that), and while I have heard of almost all the books and authors, have read very few. So what?
Ditto.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by plaid:
No Dan Simmons on it.
If Hyperion/Fall of Hyperion isn't on a best of SF list, then the list is highly questionable.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by plaid:
No Dan Simmons on it.
If Hyperion/Fall of Hyperion isn't on a best of SF list, then the list is highly questionable.
Loved those.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
What innovations in characterization do you feel that Card brought to the genre?
I was thinking that his novels actually have decent characters, but maybe there were SF authors with comparable characterization before him.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"If Hyperion/Fall of Hyperion isn't on a best of SF list, then the list is highly questionable."
I suppose you could say that, but a little more than half of the mentioned later books were Hugo or Nebula winners.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
What innovations in characterization do you feel that Card brought to the genre?
I was thinking that his novels actually have decent characters, but maybe there were SF authors with comparable characterization before him.
Oh, yeah, there definitely were. Don't get me wrong--Card's early work is absolutely brilliant, and the characterization in those books is second to none--it's just that the difference between Card's work and some of his contemporaries is one of degree rather than kind. Actually, I'd say that Octavia Butler was as good with characterization as Card was back then.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What innovations in characterization do you feel that Card brought to the genre?
Deep penetration 3rd person limited POV.
I'm not sure it's a innovation, but I think he does it better than just about anyone. He improved on Bradbury's technique, IMO.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I agree that card is a master of 3rd person limited POV, but I don't believe that he's the first to use it, or even the first in the genre. I'm not sure who would be, though.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Agreed. OSC is very good at what he does, but there's not much innovation in his books.
Which, for me, is fine.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If Hyperion/Fall of Hyperion isn't on a best of SF list, then the list is highly questionable.
That's another one of those books that everybody else seems to appreciate more than I do.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not I.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Card actually has me spoiled for POV. I nitpick flaws in POV in other authors' stories while I read them. It's hard to enjoy a sloppily constructed story.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Which, for me, is fine.
:: nod :: Yeah, same here.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I'm not sure what it might be, but I do think that his writings allow for an easier introduction to Science Fiction reading than other authors. I was a science fiction reader long before OSC, coming from a sci-fiction family. However, I have noticed that people who wouldn't read the genre often will read at least Ender's Game or another one of his.
Perhaps its the fact that his characters, even if they become great, aren't your typical lone wolf scientist or adventurer. They often have friends and family that interact with them. Some of them are players rather than the movers. It might make it easier to identify with the characters for average readers.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
In all seriousness, if you're looking at a list of important books or authors in science fiction, here's how to tell if Orson Scott Card will be on it or not.
If the list is made by critics or some such, Card will not be on it.
If the list is made by writers or fans, Card will be on it.
For example, when Ben Bova edited "The Best of the Nebulas" and included a section on which Neubla winning books were voted the greatest by the SWFA membership, Ender's Game was right there with Dune and Ringworld among the winners.
In online polls like this Ender's Game often comes out on top.
So yeah. Like mph said about Card being more of a populist author.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Perhaps its the fact that his characters, even if they become great, aren't your typical lone wolf scientist or adventurer. They often have friends and family that interact with them. Some of them are players rather than the movers. It might make it easier to identify with the characters for average readers.
Well, we're kind of walking a line between declaring that OSC either does science fiction better than others in that aspect, or that he doesn't really *do* "science fiction" in the sense that the reading public knows it. For my part, I think OSC's fiction doesn't fit very well in the sci-fi world of Asimov or even Clarke (though more Clarke than Asimov), but OSC inhabits many of the same literary tropes as the great sci-fi writers. So to the average reader, OSC looks like sci-fi, when in fact most of his stories would be largely portable to the trappings of another genre- it just so happens that sci-fi is the most accommodating one.
But then, I'm in the camp that believes that Sci-fi is dead as genre fiction because sci-fi won the genre fiction war a long time ago. We still have the "sci-fi genre" but in my view it's fairly meaningless when talking about the great sci-fi writers, because they were great writers, not just genre hacks.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm in the camp that believes that Sci-fi is dead as genre fiction because sci-fi won the genre fiction war a long time ago. We still have the "sci-fi genre" but in my view it's fairly meaningless when talking about the great sci-fi writers, because they were great writers, not just genre hacks.
This is a bizarre combination of thoughts. I don't believe what you've posted here; I think sci-fi continues to innovate and entertain, and thus isn't "dead."
Would you like to explain what you mean?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think as "genre fiction" in the sense that sci-fi was at one time relegated to a specific genre, is dead. When I say that sci-fi won the war, I mean that all writers are now free to employ the tropes that were at one time genre-specific to sci-fi. Today science fiction is indistinguishable from mainstream fiction, in as far as all fiction writer has adopted spec-fiction tropes as tropes of all modern fiction.
So yes, I don't think sci-fi is "dead" per se, but it is no longer a genre among hack genres, if that makes any sense.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I agree that writers of other genres are employing science fiction tropes with a fair amount of success in their own fields; Margaret Atwood and Michael Chabon being the two that spring readily to mind.
While I've never thought that sci-fi is a "genre among hack genres," I'm fairly certain that others do not feel similarly.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.