Heresy

[hirez]

Thanks to the quercus mobile library, I'm 30 pages into Niven's Ringworld. Thus far, I have put up with clodhopping sexism, amusing one-dimensional aliens with bizarre-physiology-for-the-sake-of-it (including some cheerily stereotypical 'noble savage' types who act like Klingons but have 'learned to respect US human firepower'. Still I suppose this was written mid-Vietnam), spacecraft-porn and eugenics off-hand enough to make me consider hoofing the book through the (closed) window.

Does it get better, or should I be content in the realisation that I've become one of those annoying lit-snobs who sneer at all genre fiction, but especially the 'nude alien totty having sex with machinery' stuff?

If so, four-fifths of my books are going to have to find a better home...

(That's yer hyper-bowl, that is. No-one's getting near the Ballards or the Wyndhams without a fight. I would also imagine that the only easier targets would have been Doc Smith, Piers Anthony or Lionel Fanthorpe. Oh, and Martin Amis. Jesus. 'London fields' was just bloody grim)

Comments

[solipsistnation.livejournal.com]

Hmmmmm. Okay, yeah, Niven is pretty dated. He's got neat ideas, though, once you get to the actual Ringworld thing. And rememebr that a lot of that stuff is only cliche because people since then have been ripping him off. Niven is old-school hard SF, and you don't read it for the characters, you read it for the ideas and the huge things in space.

[zotz]

Umm . . . those factors are pretty much constant not just through Ringworld, but Niven's work as a whole. I've spent many enjoyable evenings with friends testing our knowledge of Niven clichés wiht questions like "Which of his heroes actually has an identifiable job or career?" (Beowulf Schaeffer, a pilot) or "Which of his species of alien actually has sentient females?" (errr . . . trick question, actually. Ringworld Kzinti are a subspecies and sperm whales aren't aliens).

Either you'll find it an engaging travelogue or you'll want to throttle the author with a wet octopus. There probably isn't much middle ground. Still, at least he wasn't collaborating with Pournelle on that one.

[hirez.livejournal.com]

True.

Chaos Manor put me off Pournelle for life.

[feyeleanor.livejournal.com]

I can't say I'm happy that Dr Dobbs Journal are now wasting space on him either...

[bloodnok.livejournal.com]

Wish I could tell you, but it's been far-more-years than I care to remember since I ploughed through those. Hmmm, didn't lodge in the brain under anything other than "have read", so that may say it all. Especially as I don't recall Niven being an author that I ever had an urge to chase down. I too am afraid to revisit some of this in the vague fear that I may be disgusted at the crap I used to read as a yoof.

E.E. "Doc" Smith? I remember being quite addicted to the Lensman series until something turned me off it big time. Can't remember what. Possibly just got bored with a never-ending series, much as I did with the Foundation *cough* trilogy, HHGTTG, LotR, etc.

However, amongst the deluge that this has brought forth, I do suddenly recall James Blish, and trying to explain Black Easter and Day After Judgement to my RE teacher. He was not amused.

*more eddies amongst the filth stirred*

Any idea who wrote the books concerning the (possibly) crusading knights that managed to capture themselves a UFO and went crusading in wooden spaceships? That's been bugging me for years.

Tonight, I also unearthed a seam of James White and Robert Sheckley running through my forgotten bookshelf. I may be gone awhile.

One to leave you with, and close to my ancestral home: Stanislaw Lem. Polaris was a slog (I'm ashamed to say I never really got it until I saw the Clooney film), but I loved the various Pirx The Pilot books.

[hirez.livejournal.com]

I think Tarkovsky's version of Solaris (which I think is Really Very Fine) and the original are two different things.

Unfortunately, I went through a Lem phase when I was trying to distract myself while in mid tube-fear. From what little I remember, I recall that the Cyberiad was... Odd.

While recovering from that, I could deal with nothing more emotionally involving than a pile of Discworld.

[lproven.livejournal.com]

Bounced off Solaris a few weeks ago. Very unreadable and deeply tedious. I may try again.

Never seen any of the movies, mind.

[hirez.livejournal.com]

The Russian version of Solaris is... Long. It's sort of vaguely coherent, in that I recall being deeply moved by a longer-than-usual cut shown on the BBC in 1991 when I was coming back down after a weekend of chemical and alcoholic extravagance.

[lproven.livejournal.com]

I'll look out for it.

[spride.livejournal.com]

Tying the last two themes together, you have read the two Pratchett semi-straight, semi-spoof novelettes "Strata" and "The Dark Side Of The Sun"? The former kinda spoofs Ringworld (and has a real Discworld in it) and the latter is sort of like Dune, only not.

[hirez.livejournal.com]

Strata, yes. I rather liked it.

[feyeleanor.livejournal.com]

I can't remember the author of the Crusading Knights in space off hand, but I do have a copy of Ares magazine (#15 I think) with that info in as well as a fun boardgame based on the book(s). Unfortunately it's packed away in a box in the attic right now...

I seem to recall there was a really cool article in the same issue on the economics of space travel and how the only likely reasons for interstellar trade would be food and works of art as everything else was far too expensive to lift into orbit. Then again, that was pre Marshall Savage and the Millenium Foundation (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) and their plan for us all to live in cute, inexpensive space bubbles orbiting the sun like a low-density ring-foam (which sorta comes back to Niven).

I'm sure it was also the issue with the fluffy article on Dyson spheres as well...

My how the world has changed in the last twenty years...

[quercus.livejournal.com]

Stop yer whining...

I've got Michael Moorcock here, and I'm not afraid to use it.


You can stun a hepstar at 20 paces with an Eric of Marylebone.

[girfan.livejournal.com]

You don't have to lend any Moorcock-I have some on the shelf if he cares/dares to read it.

[oryctolagus.livejournal.com]

I have loads as well - never got round to throwing any of it out. Although a re-read now rather makes me curl up!

[lazrus-armagedn.livejournal.com]

He can have all my Moorcock - I'm not sixteen any more

In fact, he can have just about ever fantasy book in my collection - Like I said, I'm not sixteen any more


Although I am half tempted to hang onto my Edgar Rice Burroughs Martian series, for some odd reason

--
Your ever lovin' groovy vicar

[hirez.livejournal.com]

Thank you all very much, but I did the Moorcock thing in my teens as well. (Dancers at the end of time, which will surprise no-one.)

God.

I'm getting the distinct impression that a set of people here have assumed I've only just jumped onto the coal-fired skiffy bus and am doing that 'Ugh! Icky genre fiction!' thing that the poorly-read perform whenever someone mentions Adams or Pratchett.

The place that is further from the truth is a very long way from here.

I think what happened was that I discovered people who could write reasonably early on (Varley, Haldeman, Ballard, Wyndham) while at the same time steaming through the Usual Suspects (Asimov, PKD, Harrison, Campbell) in my youthful 'reading SF by the yard' phase.

Now I'm older and a lot less uncritical, I've got a reasonable idea what I want out of a book, and it's rather more engagement than 'Oo! A mile-long spaceship! And aliens with funny names!' It's also become apparent that the fifties Americana period of the genre with the poorly-disguised commie nuke paranoia - pretty much the written equivalent of a Norman Rockwell painting in the Saturday Evening Post - drives me up the wall. Even the Ballards that emulate that style (The Subliminal Man, IIRC) grate somewhat.

[lazrus-armagedn.livejournal.com]

I'm getting the distinct impression that a set of people here have assumed I've only just jumped onto the coal-fired skiffy bus and am doing that 'Ugh! Icky genre fiction!' thing that the poorly-read perform whenever someone mentions Adams or Pratchett

No, just trying to offload a laod of books that have been sitting in the loft for some twenty years or so ;P

As for Prachett ... Anyone who doesn't think that he is last (and possibly this) Century's greatest social commentator gets put on my list of "people with whom I don't need to discuss anything more taxing than what their plans are for the weekend"


When I was younger, I deliberately read everything I could get my hands on (especially the big names) in the fantasy and sf genres because I really should know what I'm talking about

Having read them, I don't feel the need to be anything less than exceptionally critical about what I read ... Which is why, in the last twenty-odd years, my book collection has expanded by text/factual books rather than fiction - I'm remarkably disinclined to read anything with the words "series", "cycle", "trilogy" or whatever on it unless it's by an author I know and like (very few of them) or I like the sound of the idea and reading a bit from the start, a bit from the middle and a bit from the end doesn't put me off (which is why I haven't read any Harry Potter ... She can't write)

Oh, and I don't read fantasy any more either

If I had to recommend Authors, they would be (in no particular order):

Pat Cadigan
Michael Marshal Smith
Clive Barker
Ben Elton
Karl Hiaasen
Terry Prachett
Christopher Fowler
George Alec Effinger
Ray Bradbury

And latterly, (Some) John Courtenay Grimwood and Lury.Gibson (remains to be seen what they come up with next)


After that it's individual books by authors (another book by whom I might read if it grabbed my attention enough, but there's no guarantee)


--
Your ever lovin' groovy vicar

[perlmonger.livejournal.com]

Nowt wrong with Moorcock when he bothers to write well - Mother London is still probably my favourite novel thus far read - and his heart is in the right place even in amidst all the multiversal tosh. Some of that bears reading for it's own sake too: Blood, for example.

[feyeleanor.livejournal.com]

Much underrated by those who can't see further than Elric or Corum. I started off on Jerry Cornelius in my pre-teens (The Final Programme) and still find those stories far more insightful than many obstensibly serious attempts at post-modern fiction. JC beautifully (and often farcically) captures the supposedly non-linear, fractured state of the world we've been busily building for decades without ever suggesting that any sane human(s) will save us from our own irrational ways.

It's true that the main Eternal Champion cycles are formulaic in composition and often the result of a few mammoth alcohol-fueled sessions at the keyboard, but so what? Viewed as pulp they're top notch, and view from a literary perspective they're a fine continuation of the Anglo-Saxon tendency towards dark, doom-laden story-telling. Most of these heroes come to a dark and painful end, and Moorcock is good at using the classic mythic themes of wyrd and the otherworldly that most modern fantasy seems to ignore in favour of happy endings and central-casting approved elves and dwarves and orcs. He's also come up with some intriguing villains, who are often better characterised than the Champion him/herself: Baron Meliadas; Gaynor the Damned; Arioch.

His writing is at its worst more competent than the majority of his contemporaries, and even though many of his heroes are difficult to empathise with directly, their stories do at least attempt to wrestle with genuine human dilemmas. If anything I think the EC books are more relevant now in a world where identity is preceived to be breaking down than they were when written (unless you happened to be a stoned-out-of-your-gourd hippy attempting to find your way back to spaceship Earth that is).

Now if you'll all excuse me I've a lovely new copy of Zones waiting to be ripped into iTunes.

[perlmonger.livejournal.com]

What you said.

The JC (and related) books are interesting to reread; they're more relevant now than when they were written. On all sorts of levels: corpse boats out of Dubrovnik have a particular resonance...

[lproven.livejournal.com]

Never could /stand/ Moorcock, as a teen or later. Despite this, at times when I could get nothing else, I read lots of the /DateoT/ stuff. All shite, IMO.

[zoo-music-girl.livejournal.com]

I couldn't finish London Fields. Absolutely hated it.

[inulro.livejournal.com]

I couldn't even finish an Amis short story!

[hirez.livejournal.com]

I'm sure I explained how I feel about the thing elsewhere, but it's covered by the thought that struck me this morning: There's a Milligan sketch (in the Q Annual) which concerns David Attenborough's adventures among the lost tribe known as the Cock-er-nees. This was the entirety of London Fields in three pages, only funny. (If you like Milligan, anyway.)

[jhaelan.livejournal.com]

As others have mumbled, the concept of Ringworld is pretty interesting.. plus I guess it's what you're reading it for: I read far trashier trashy genre fiction when I'm in the mood for trashy genre fiction and snobby highbrow interllectual genre fiction when I'm in the mood for that. Horses for courses, eh?

[sheepthief.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm getting a bit more tolerant of 'easy' reads, though I still wouldn't do anything with Battlefield Earth other than set fire to it.

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

I loev my trashy Sci-Fi, but even I struggle with Piers Anthony these days. I did read Ringworld many years ago, and don't recall being bothered by it. But then Xanth didn't bother me when I was a teenager either (*shudders*).

Even when young though, I could never stomach EE Doc Smith.

[aoakley.livejournal.com]

No, Ringworld doesn't get any better, all the other Ringworld books are the same dreary "sci-fi premise dressed up as fantasy", and most annoyingly, his compendiums of short stories and other novels which are set in exactly the same universe with the same common characters are far, far better.

Having said that, he is my favourite author of all time. I've got everything he ever wrote, if you want to borrow anything. Including "The Long Arm of Gil Hamilton" which was only printed in the USA, is out of print now anyway, and is virtually impossible to get hold of over here.

I recommend starting over from scratch with "Neutron Star" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345336941/202-7809755-4498248).

Niven is much like PK Dick; the short stories are great to the point of brilliance, the slimmer novels are okay provided you've got a grounding in the short stories, and the heavier novels are complete and utter tosh. Some authors, particularly sci-fi ones, just can't do character development; once you've got over that, then you can really start to enjoy the conceptual science. Niven is all about the science and politics of physical space exploration, so don't go expecting any cyberpunk info-tech in there.

[edwards.livejournal.com]

You're a snob, but you phrase it so well it's enjoyable.

Ringworld isn't actually bad. It gets better. I preferred the other ones... Mote in God's Eye and Gripping Hand, written with Pournelle (IIRC).

[hirez.livejournal.com]

I rather dispute that - were I any sort of lit-snob, I'd bang on about Umberto Eco (Although that's just so 90s, dahling.) and the slew of tedious bloody kitchen-sink potboilers the establishment shovel at the be-brogued hordes who've just come back from Hay-on-Wye.

As it is, I tried wading through some of the 'exciting new British authors' to be found in the Guardian and/or Waterstones some years back.

Good God, but it was horrible. I made a veritable dive for the comforting vistas of Vermilion Sands and never went back.

Apart from Elmore Leonard, Sara Paretsky and Ian Rankine.

[lproven.livejournal.com]

Reread it a couple of months back, and the 2 followups. It remains amongst my favourite novels of all time, partly for the richness of the ideas and the clarity and occasional beauty of their exposition, but also for good oldfashioned sensawunda.

I am not a very political, or politically-correct, creature, but even so, I do not think it is reasonable to reject a work of art because you may not care for the viewpoints of either its author or its characters.

Mind you, I still agree with a lot of what Heinlein wrote, myself. As Steve Cassidy once almost said, I generally aim to be about as politically correct as a year's subscription to /Loaded./

[hirez.livejournal.com]

I do not think it is reasonable to reject a work of art...

A good and sensible point. One that I've been thinking about myself since getting halfway through a long reply to someone else and realising I was being stupid.

So. One should mentally hold one's nose and trawl through 'Mein Kampf', in order to find out what the hell was going on in the chap's head. Or indeed (re)read Reich's 'The mass psychology of fascism', which will mean an entirely different subset of people will come up and speak to you.

I suspect that it's probably me - I have difficulty dealing with books that contain (to me) repugnant ideas. 'The handmaiden's tale' for instance, took two attempts, because I was incensed by the contents. In that case, that was quite obviously the point and Ms. Atwood clearly did a damn fine job.

It's also reasonably obvious that a good storyteller should be able to take a set of Nasty Ideas and construct an internally consistent world for them, in order to play hob with the reader's head, and not have that reader go 'By Jebus this fellow's a Lysenkoist charlatan! I'll have him horsewhipped for his trouble!'

However, life is short, and I am unlikely to become a better person by sticking pins in myself. (or functional equivalent thereof)

[lproven.livejournal.com]

[Nod] There are some things I won't read about, too. I found parts of Bank's /The Player of Games/ deeply repugnant, but again, as you say, I think this is intentional. /Trainspotting/ got abandoned in disgust.

But I wouldn't do it over politics, or any ramification thereof. I just don't care enough.

Entirely agree re. the pin-sticking, though.

[hirez.livejournal.com]

Ah! And well now then.

There's an entire range of Fucked Up in Banksie's work, both with and without the M. For whatever reason, which it would be obviously interesting to narrow down, I don't have a problem with reading any of it. I may well need to go for a walk and not think about too much when things get particularly unfortunate, but there's never been an incident of book-hoofing.

I can say the same about the Welsh I've read, too. Trainspotting's grim stuff, but it's a sort of visceral grimness that you're elbow-deep in before you notice what's going on, rather than the London Fields grimness which just sucks the will to live out of a chap.

And, oddly, Ken McLeod can do No Wrong, even though his various books contain something to offend wherever you stand politically.

[lproven.livejournal.com]

Banksie: ho yus.

Welsh: that's the only thing I've tried and thus I'm disinclined to do any more. Life is short and books are nearly infinite. I won't live long enough to read all I want to unless I get my way and get uploaded.

McCleod: so true! And a lovely chap, an' all. Chatting to him last November, we were talking of relationships and splits and so on. When he learned my ex was a Norgie goth, he said, "oh, she - or you! - might know this girl I knew. Not seen her about for ages. Gorgeous thing, she was a Norwegian goth. Very tall, very slim, long long long black hair. Called 'Kirsten' or 'Kristen' or something."

"Yes, that's my ex. Kjersti, or Kirsty."

"Ohmygod, I'm sorry, I'm really really sorry. [short, thoughtful pause] Can't fault your taste, though."

[G]

I did like his expression of acute bemusement when he won a major award for Libertarian SF, too.

[siani-hedgehog.livejournal.com]

it does improve. the plot starts, in fact. if you find the entire "rollicking space opera" genre unbearable, you're unlikely to really enjoy it, though. you have to kind of consider it a period piece i think.

also, the Mote in God's Eye books are much more interesting - a much better, and more interesting basic principle.

what do i know, though? a few years back i got nostalgic and read all the Heinlein books over a summer, and kinda enjoyed a lot of them. they'd have been much better if he weren't so clearly obsessed father/daughter sex, but they weren't totally shit.

[perlmonger.livejournal.com]

It gets worse, but (as with all the Known Space gumph) is still huge fun if you can get into space-opera-with-dodgy-physics and filter out the politics.

Plenty of hard sf around with something resembling social and political awareness, but not a lot from that era (Delany is an obvious exception): Niven et al. really *were* reactionary, being as they couldn't deal with New Wave stuff happening elsewhere, other than by including lashings of gratuitous heterosex...

FWIW, I still re-read Doc Smith's Lensmen series roughly once a year - but there again, that's well over the threshold of bad->good.

[spride.livejournal.com]

Martin Amis has been crap since a) he bred and b) his Dad died. His Dad, now, rarely put a toe wrong, let alone a foot.