![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The good news and the bad (old) news
Tue, Jul. 29th, 2008 12:17 pmThe good news is that Arthur C. Clarke, in collaboration with Frederik Pohl, left us one last hard science fiction novel called "The Last Theorem," which I'm looking forward to reading. Yay--new book!
The bad news is that in the article about said book, Pohl perpetuates the crappy ole stereotype that unlike science fiction, writing fantasy is easy and doesn't require thought. You can read the whole article here at CNN.com.
Money shot:
Pohl said the type of work he and Clarke did was different from much of what is written today. He said that rather than delving into difficult subjects like astronomy, math and physics, young writers sometimes turn to an easier route by writing fantasy.
"Science fiction is sometimes a little hard," Pohl said. "Fantasy is like eating an ice cream cone. You don't have to think a bit."
I shouldn't be surprised by this attitude; it's nothing new but it still irks me, knowing well how much research goes into the fantasy novels published today and how thought-provoking so much of it is in one way or another. Sure, some fantasy is written for the thrill of the ride (like some science fiction), but that's not all of it. There's meticulous world-building going on, and attention to issues and subjects that never got addressed by writers like Pohl and Clarke.
Pohl's comments put me in mind of something![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
matociquala noted in her journal recently (though she was talking about short fiction, not novel length work). She said, in part, "We don't read them. And they don't read us.... There's a generation gap in SFF; we're having different conversations, the Greatest Generation, the Baby Boomers, and Generation X..." I don't want to misquote or misinterpret her, so go have a look at the discussion yourself. I'm not saying there's a direct relation here, but the one put me in mind of the other, and I think Pohl's comments bear out some of what matociquala is saying if that's what he really believes. It also spins her observation and basically confirms a known truth about the genre--a lot of SF readers don't read fantasy and vice versa, which makes me a little crazy when they make blanket statements about genres they obviously don't read.
That's today's rant, FWIW. I'm going to back to preparing for my trip now....
(ETA:suricattus speaks her mind about the subject here.
The bad news is that in the article about said book, Pohl perpetuates the crappy ole stereotype that unlike science fiction, writing fantasy is easy and doesn't require thought. You can read the whole article here at CNN.com.
Money shot:
Pohl said the type of work he and Clarke did was different from much of what is written today. He said that rather than delving into difficult subjects like astronomy, math and physics, young writers sometimes turn to an easier route by writing fantasy.
"Science fiction is sometimes a little hard," Pohl said. "Fantasy is like eating an ice cream cone. You don't have to think a bit."
I shouldn't be surprised by this attitude; it's nothing new but it still irks me, knowing well how much research goes into the fantasy novels published today and how thought-provoking so much of it is in one way or another. Sure, some fantasy is written for the thrill of the ride (like some science fiction), but that's not all of it. There's meticulous world-building going on, and attention to issues and subjects that never got addressed by writers like Pohl and Clarke.
Pohl's comments put me in mind of something
matociquala noted in her journal recently (though she was talking about short fiction, not novel length work). She said, in part, "We don't read them. And they don't read us.... There's a generation gap in SFF; we're having different conversations, the Greatest Generation, the Baby Boomers, and Generation X..." I don't want to misquote or misinterpret her, so go have a look at the discussion yourself. I'm not saying there's a direct relation here, but the one put me in mind of the other, and I think Pohl's comments bear out some of what matociquala is saying if that's what he really believes. It also spins her observation and basically confirms a known truth about the genre--a lot of SF readers don't read fantasy and vice versa, which makes me a little crazy when they make blanket statements about genres they obviously don't read.That's today's rant, FWIW. I'm going to back to preparing for my trip now....
(ETA:
suricattus speaks her mind about the subject here.