Kevin's Watch

danlo wrote:I never considered Asimov a teen writer...

Well, consider it.

Compare, for example, the robot short stories to the stories in The Island of Dr Death and Other Stories and Other Stories. Or compare the Foundation novels to the Book of the New Sun. Or Caves of Steel to Solaris or Light (Harrison).

I am not suggesting that these other books are better than Asimov's (although I might, but that would be another post). I am only asking--is Asimov writing to the same audience as the writers of the other books mentioned?

In regards to defining audience, I'd hazard that the author's intention is more important than readers' interpretations.

Bad analogy.

It's not a bad analogy at all. No matter what demographic enjoys Asimov the most, he wasn't writing for teens--and his publishers weren't marketing towards them. He wrote for a general audience, and when you write for a general audience, you write to the lowest common denominator. The fact that 10-to-16 year old males find his work accessible now has no bearing whatsoever on who he was writing for in the first place.

Card, I'll grant you, at least partly. The Ender books, at least, are being rereleased in YA/YR editions, and are marketed to teens. When they were first published, however--and this goes for Heinlein and Niven as well--they were marketed to an adult audience, not a teenaged one.

Asimov's books may be appropriate for a teenaged audience, and these days the teenage audience may enjoy him more than an adult one, but that doesn't make him a Teen Writer.

Myste wrote:

Bad analogy.

No matter what demographic enjoys Asimov the most, he wasn't writing for teens--and his publishers weren't marketing towards them. He wrote for a general audience, and when you write for a general audience, you write to the lowest common denominator.

Gee, I was trying to be kind. But I'll accept your judgment that Asimov wrote for the "lowest common denominator" of adults. I think we give him more credit to say that he wrote for "future readers of literate fiction."

Maybe I'm just speaking from experience. Personally, I've moved from Sword of Shanarra to King of Elfland's Daughter, from Foundation to Book of the Long/Short Sun, and from Robot novels to Fifth Head of Cerberus. I don't think of any of the latter as "better" than any of the former, any more than I think if Sherlock Holmes as better than Hardy Boys. At 37, I speak differently, think differently, and act differently than I did at 12. I also read differently.

Am I the only one?

Well, since I'm old I still like Foundation--it was definately a step up from Cordwainder Smith in it's day. I agree it lacks depth but it had alot more depth than it's predecesors. When Dune came out it absolutely buried it and now that were have writers of the caliber of Zindell, Simmons, Daniel and Wolfe Dune is beginning to pale. I'm interested in not only Banks and May but this Harrison fellow looks worth looking into.

danlo wrote:Well, since I'm old I still like Foundation--it was definately a step up from Cordwainder Smith in it's day. I agree it lacks depth but it had alot more depth than it's predecesors. When Dune came out it absolutely buried it and now that were have writers of the caliber of Zindell, Simmons, Daniel and Wolfe Dune is beginning to pale. I'm interested in not only Banks and May but this Harrison fellow looks worth looking into.

The genre has developed. It's frustrating that scifi/fantasy is still thought of as a light genre when there are Wolfes and Harrisons writing.

About Harrison, a quote from greatsandsf.com:


To say that Harrison's books are not cheerful is litotes carried to an almost absurd extreme. They can seem, at times, to be purely nihilistic. The folk who populate his tales are fully realized: human beings, grainy, gritty. Some are heroic, not always in the classical ways, though sometimes those too; some are ineffectual, empty, zombies; not a few are wretches. All live in times when things drift sideways, when ennui pervades, when the most important thing seems to be getting through to day's end, when entropy almost audibly sniggers, when everything seems trivial and nothing great.

For more see:

greatsfandf.com/AUTHORS/MJohnHarrison.shtml

Well in that case read Zindell, Simmons and Daniel! (you might also want to click my www to go to my Zindell "based" site, where I'm trying to control myself from starting a Wolfe Forum...only because I have too many forums already!)

Danlo, I tried to buy Zindell's Neverness series yesterday, but the books are all sold out!

They are very hard to find-you need the direct order Neverness from Harper/Collins or find it on Amazon or some other net source.

danlo wrote:They are very hard to find-you need the direct order Neverness from Harper/Collins or find it on Amazon or some other net source.

Thanks. Will do so!

No one writes as smooth as Card, IMO.

I loved the Ender series, but I find Card so repugnant as an individual that it's tainted my appreciation of his work. A real shame.

Edge wrote:David Feintuch. His 'Hope' series is the best thing ever written in the sf genre.

Agreed. I'm so glad (and surprised) to see another fan of this series here. While it's definitely light on science, I can't imagine anyone who enjoyed the Gap Cycle not liking it.

Mitch Romney got your tounge?

There's a lot of great work from all the choices, and from people left out.
I chose Herbert for one particular reason: in some of his lesser-known works [and in certain aspects of the "Dune" series] he created alien psychology/cultures with more real alien-ness, depth, and consistency than anyone before him. [and most since, though there are notable exceptions]

danlo wrote:Mitch Romney got your tounge?

I should probably say that I find many of his opinions repugnant -- I don't know the man personally so I'm not going to pass judgment on him. The Ender series is still a favorite of mine, especially the first two books.

A. E. VanVogt. Only because he seems IMO to be extremely underappreciated. Break-neck pace, influential stories, and further more, the publication of his short story "The Black Destroyer" is often referenced is the beginning of the Golden Age of Science Fiction! Not that that means really anything... since John C. Campbell was pretty much the mastermind behind the Golden Age.

Pohl is also amazing (especially when he is writing with Kornbluth, the Buddy Holly of science fiction).

i have to say i am a little upset to not see philip k dick on that list. what gives?

Only 10 options allowed.

--A