The latest New Scientist magazine has soundbites from writers like Gibson and Atwood and much else. Give it a read.
E M Forster in Aspects of The Novel, asks a pertinent question: Will the mirror get a new coat of quicksilver? Will the creative process itself alter? (By mirror he means novels, and the creative process is story telling - through words, paint, clay...).
This is the kind of meta question about art that only those who engage in speculative fiction can address, IMO. Science, of course, is the best possible vehicle for speculation because it is more consistent than most other quicksilver coatings.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Books: "Rainbows End" by Vernor Vinge.
It's 2025 - What happened to science, politics and journalism? Well, you know I'd be intrigued. After all, a person whose taste in science fiction I trust (my brother) told me to read this and particularly to read it just before my interview with PLoS. So,…
What is your list of essential science-fiction books? I composed mine back on December 27, 2005 and I still agree with myself on it. Click on the spider-clock icon to see the comments on the original post.
A couple of months ago, Brandon (of Siris) wrote a post in which he listed twenty must-read…
First of all, let me start with what I like about Jim Kunstler's writing in _The Witch of Hebron_. The thing I enjoy most is that he navigates the shoals of post-apocalyptic fantasy extraordinarily well. He neither falls into the masturbatory apocalypticism of something like _The Road_ nor the "…
There has been a lot of stuff written in response to the Hugo award nomination mess, most of it stupid. Some of it is stupid to such an impressive degree that it actually makes me feel sympathetic toward people who I know are wrong about everything.
One of the few exceptions is the long essay by…
SF is a zombie genre. At least as a commercial publishing category, it is, as Le Guin and Sagan noted, a backwater of reactionary nostalgia. It's been that way for a long time now. I don't expect that to change.
I doubt it was foreseeable before 1965 or so that within a quarter-century, science fictional ideas and outlook would become part of the "mental furniture" of the general population. The SF genre burst its bounds, evolved and dispersed and attenuated to some degree; but of course remains at least generally aware of its roots.
What this ongoing evolution signifies for SF, for science, and for society, is a subject that continues to fascinate me ....
I think science fiction nowadays suffers from too much science. When Clarke and Asimov wrote, the science was only a backdrop. The story was always human and well-told. Maybe it was Campbell and other editors who kept things sane. Books nowadays seem too full of plot and science to have any story; even authors who can write seem to focus on intricacy, scientific detail, and infodumps rather than storytelling. It's the same with sci fi movies: they're so full of special effects that we're overloaded.
But is it possible to have interesting science fiction stories? I think so. In the good sci fi, the science itself was always less interesting than the (nontechnical) problems and solutions it induced.