Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Discussions About Orson Scott Card » OSC's place in Science Fiction

   
Author Topic: OSC's place in Science Fiction
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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?

Posts: 2203 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 4048 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A couple of years ago, I listened to a very enjoyable From Here to Infinity: An Exploration of Science Fiction Literature and was surprised that OSC wasn't even mentioned in it.

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.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tara
Member
Member # 10030

 - posted      Profile for Tara   Email Tara         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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).

Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
umberhulk
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for umberhulk   Email umberhulk         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Were any of the other authors just as recent as card, or was it mostly amisov/clark era writers?
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clumpy
Member
Member # 8122

 - posted      Profile for Clumpy           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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 [Smile] .

Posts: 127 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 4048 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Magson
Member
Member # 2300

 - posted      Profile for Magson   Email Magson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Read any Christopher Stasheff? *Heavily* Catholic. . . .
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or C.S. Lewis?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
umberhulk
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for umberhulk   Email umberhulk         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And maybe Philip Pullman's atheism.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 2203 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
plaid
Member
Member # 2393

 - posted      Profile for plaid   Email plaid         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.)
Posts: 2910 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Matek
Member
Member # 9065

 - posted      Profile for Matek   Email Matek         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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?

Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Magson
Member
Member # 2300

 - posted      Profile for Magson   Email Magson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll also toss my hat in for the Reality Dysfunction. Heck, I like all of Hamilton's work.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 4048 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Matek
Member
Member # 9065

 - posted      Profile for Matek   Email Matek         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My personal fave is Bova's Asteroid Wars series.
Posts: 36954 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
umberhulk
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for umberhulk   Email umberhulk         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Golden Compass is one of my favorites. And, you, know what, I would add Warren Ellis in there. Transmetropolitan (comic series) is excellent.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 2203 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
plaid
Member
Member # 2393

 - posted      Profile for plaid   Email plaid         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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?)

Posts: 2910 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 7924

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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).

Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are plenty of SF authors prior to card that wrote characters with depth, though.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CRash
Member
Member # 7754

 - posted      Profile for CRash   Email CRash         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 973 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*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?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 981 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 3257 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 981 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 7924

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"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.

Posts: 2203 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 14505 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Agreed. OSC is very good at what he does, but there's not much innovation in his books.

Which, for me, is fine.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not I.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.
Posts: 4048 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

Which, for me, is fine.

:: nod :: Yeah, same here.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 2203 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
docmagik
Member
Member # 1131

 - posted      Profile for docmagik   Email docmagik         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 1862 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 9655 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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?

Posts: 14505 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Posts: 9655 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.

Why science fiction authors just can't win

My take on the article

Posts: 14505 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2