Comments on: Guest Post: Invisible Ink

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:06:19 +0000

Mike Brotherton’s wonderful Guest Post is still listed on the SFWA site, though one has to go back a bit. He, too, lists 10 great SF novels (probably personal favorites) to read or rediscover.

By: Athena Andreadis

Athena Andreadis — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 16:31:16 +0000

I want to thank everyone who found the list interesting and perhaps even useful! I may compile an equivalent list of newer works at some point, despite my allergy to such endeavors — for the sake of showing that there are bona fide alternatives, if nothing else.

By: William Pietri

William Pietri — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:01:53 +0000

Fab! Enough old favorites that I can’t wait to read the rest.

I’d love to see a list of newer things you like, too.

By: Embers

Embers — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 10:47:49 +0000

Thanks for the list – loved Asimov and Niven for years, but always looking for ‘new’ writers that haven’t caught my eye before. I think some of these didn’t get across the Atlantic! Really don’t care about what colour/sex the writer is, but always interested in the sort of books I’ll be thinking about for ages afterwards.

By: Katherine Traylor

Katherine Traylor — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 07:52:30 +0000

These look fantastic! Thanks.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 07:21:00 +0000

Actually, the same nuancing does not hold, and the only overlapping is the same, sad, tired, politically correct drivel vommited up when a writer and/or fan does not see their favorite author on the bookstore shelves.

The fact is geeky fanboys were the primary (but not exclusive) buyers of the pulps in the 40′s and 50′s. The magazine editors knew and understood this, and bought stories accordingly. A lot of it was disposable, but there was some great SF published as well.

I’ve read nearly all the books on your list; some are really good (Kingsbury and Kress) but some are just plain awful. No amount of “scientific accuracy” can save a bad story, then or now.

And story matters. A lot of golden age SF was serialized in magazines, where the emphasis was on plot and story, leaving characterization on the backburner. Unfortunate, but there it is. The golden age standard of a “hard sf” story was science embedded so intriquely into the story that, if removed, the story would collapse. Again, characterization suffers, but some really good science fiction was produced.

As to the “withstood the test of time” bit, it safe to say the only reliable measuring stick is the economic one. Heinlein, Clarke and Asimov are all in print and available at bookstores everywhere. Withstood for what? Withstood the test of someone deciding to spend his or her hard earned money on these authors. That’s what.

By: Athena Andreadis

Athena Andreadis — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 14:31:13 +0000

Arilou, short stories across languages and eras actually excelled in characterization (beyond the US/UK consider, as a few examples, Chekhov, Turgenev, Dinesen, Daudet). The techniques are different from those used for a novel, but short stories can and do contain sharply etched character sketches. So that excuse just doesn’t hold up.

By: Arilou

Arilou — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 06:46:58 +0000

I’ve always assumed at least part of the lack of characterization of godlen-age SF is due to the roots of the medium in the short-story (where characterization by neccessity tends to be compressed) A lot of the “old masters” show much better mastery of the short story format than of the novel format. (Asimov’s novels tends to be all but unreadable, but a lot of his short stories are brilliant)

It’s not until the 70′s and New Wave (with the possible exception of Dick) that we get authors who are genuinely comfortable in the novel format.

By: Sabrina Vourvoulias

Sabrina Vourvoulias — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 19:50:31 +0000

Nicely done.:)

By: Katie

Katie — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 13:48:28 +0000

Quite. I could never get through much of Asimov or Niven. Clarke was much better. A little Heinlein. L’Engle was far better.