Someone asked about reading as a writer. It's true, if you want to be a writer, then you must be dedicated to reading the best stuff you can. And if you want to write in the SF/F field, there's absolutely no better place to start than with these books.
Particularly, in my opinion, the Hugo Winners. In case you don't know, the FANS -- that is, the READERS -- pick the Hugo Winners.
posted
I dunno if we're commenting on books here, but since I don't hear any dispute *listens*
Spin was terrible, though I admit my lack of finishing the book because its written in the first person dialect and I absolutely can't stand that probably disqualifies me from making that assesment.
American Gods wasn't very good either. The characters are all cardboard, especially the main character, and a broken plot that plodded on for far too long, emotional scenes that seemed far too forced, and an ending that was just plain dissapointing. Though I have to give Gaimon credit for coming up with the most unique way of killing a guy ever... I'm talking about the god who eats a guy through her.. you know..
Enders game, obviously if you haven't read it why are you here.
I'm currently reading Speaker for the Dead. I'm only in the first chapter, and desperatly hoping it gets more exciting than this or I'm going to have to put it down soon. (then again, now that I think about it, Ender didn't exactly start off in the most exciting fashion either...)
I think the last book in my pile is Hominids. Which I'm not sure I knew what I was thinking when I bought that. See I have this wierd quirk... You know how when you notice something for the first time, and then every time you see it from then on you notice it, or other things remind you of it... When I was a copy editor for TWG we had a 13 year old Canadian boy who used to submit fiction to us, and just based off of his concept I would go off on how inept he was (I was only 18 at the time) and he pointed out that "how could I say he was inept if I hadn't even read any of his work." So as proof I read his work, and of course regretted it deeply, because this person was the worst writer on the face of the planet. Granted he was 13 and has since gone off to college and I admit is somewhat better.. But ever since then I have not been able to shake this feeling that everything that comes out of Canada says "I'm from Canada, and I'm better than you." And it's never even remotely the case.
But, that's me and my emotional issues, don't take my word for it.
I'm curious about this Jonathan Strange and Mrs Norrel. It doesn't look like my slice of scifi, but I like that its a first book published by a first timer thats won the Hugo. I think that gives a lot of people an ego boost to try and write the best work they can, because it makes the Hugo more acceptable to them.
But in the comparitive analysis, I will say this. Reading from the Hugo list will only benefit you if you also read the runner ups, and can identify what it was and why, the reason why that book won over the others. Because how will you know what makes a good book unless you know what that book was better than?
posted
Well, among the half-or-so of them I've actually read, there are many that I've enjoyed and a few that I loved. I can't recall any outright clinkers...though in the shorter categories, I recall a few I could never figure out how they got nominated, much less won.
I'm forced to query Asimov's The Mule and Heinlein's Farmer in the Sky as Hugo winners. As I recall, the award didn't start till 1953, skipped a year, then started up again in 1955. Do Retro Hugos count as Hugos? (Asimov's The Foundation Trilogy, of which The Mule is a part, won a special "Best All-Time Series" about 1966 or so, beating out, among others, Tolkien's Lord of the Rings)
[edited to correct rampant italicism]
[This message has been edited by Robert Nowall (edited April 12, 2007).]
"It is therefore essential that society defend itself against cultural breakdown. The best way it can do this is by grasping the importance of art to the well-being of mankind: as many people as possible making it their business to examine art constantly, inform themselves about it and develop their faculties of understanding and loving it. For the love of art is a subjective phenomenon, which comes to us through our sympathetic eye, and no expert should be allowed to mediate. In the end, our own eyes are the key to making art our guide and solace, our delight and comfort, our clarifier and mentor -- in short, the God-given staff of life in this vale of tears. We should use our own eyes, train them, and trust them."
Yes, Johnson is talking about art in a restricted sense, i.e., painting, sculpture, architecture, etc. But the same applies to reading, too.
The books on these lists aren't the be-all and end-all of good SF, but if you're making that transition from consumer of SF to producer of SF, you can't do better than spending a year or so reading most of these novels. First, you'll discover first-hand just how big the field is, and second, you'll learn what kind of SF you like and what kind you don't like. It would be a rare individual indeed who liked every novel that won either the Nebula or Hugo or both. The goal isn't to like them, the goal is to learn from them. And from you post, Dubshack, it looks like you doing just that.
Is there another way, a quicker way, to give yourself the necessary education in the field while, at the same time, exposing yourself to the best the field has to offer?
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited April 12, 2007).]
posted
Robert -- point taken about retro Hugos, and a point that can be argued. Are the novels that win retro Hugos really the best published in those years . . . or have they bubbled up to be the most popular from those years?
Posts: 130 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was listening to one of the podcasts today, I forget which one, but Michael Stackpole was talking about the importance of reading not just the Hugo list, but more important the most recent Hugos, the ones nominated, those on the NYT Bestseller list, Nebulas, etc, because then you know whats currently popular and selling well in todays market. I would definately agree with that, with the caveat that you don't write MORE of whats in todays market, look at whats popular and write with RESPECT to it, originality is always the most important factor.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're absolutely right -- originality is the most important factor . . . which is why you need to read across the tradition, not just what's new. If you only read what is current -- or if what is current makes up the bulk of your reading -- then you have nothing new to offer.
As C.S. Lewis pointed out, people read old books because they are not new books: because old books don't presuppose our world views, they're able to teach us to see the world differently.
This is certainly true when we read the likes of Homer or Tolstoy, but it's also true within a field as new as SF. Older books give us a way of seeing SF in a way different than how it's presented today. Of course, the reverse is true, too: current books have a way of seeing SF in a way different from old books.
Which is why the reading strategy I advocate, as well as the one I use, is to read across the discipline as much as possible; to do my best to alternate between new novels and old novels, between new anthologies and old anthologies. A deep knowledge of the tradition along with the necessary discipline one needs to become a proficient writer is the only way to guarantee originality.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
