![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Top 10 SF writers
May. 13th, 2010 08:45 pmThis is not one of my lists, I promise!
A friend of mine, Iain Thompson, co-wrote this piece for the American arm of what used to be VNU:
V3's top 10 science fiction writers (Handy single-long-page printable link here.)
I have no real argument with the list, myself. I am not sure Roddenbery should be on there, no matter how influential, as he wasn't really an author per se.
But it's the comments after the article which are, I think, most interesting and amusing.
For starters there are all the risible idiots who pan the piece's writers for omitting authors who actually are on the list. Perhaps they only read page 1, but if so, they're still bloody fools if they didn't spot a Top Ten list with only two entries on it. Morons, the lot of them.
But then come the comments about who should be on the list as well. Most of them don't seem to consider that there are, by definition, only 10 spots on a Top Ten list, and they want an extra half a dozen or more names add.
Some question Douglas Adams. Well, perhaps fair enough; he didn't write much, and not all of it was SF. However, for his towering influence over a generation of people and of books, I think he merits it, myself.
Jules Verne. Well, one could indeed argue that much of his output wasn't SF, either. But the SF he did write is absolutely seminal. I think he merits his inclusion.
Dick. Ah, now, Dick. I always thought PKD vastly overrated, myself. The books are frequently very confused and somewhat impenetrable. A lot of it seems to me to be the drug-addled ramblings of a deranged mind. I found them hard to read, hard to follow and generally very unrewarding.
(I'd say much the same about Kurt Vonnegut, as well, for what it's worth. Barry Malzberg wasn't much better, either.)
Bradbury: yeah, big name, but it's badly dated, trippy stuff, not hardcore SF. Almost more fantasy, or magical-realism or something, than SF. I think he is one for the wannabe literati, myself, just as Dick is. And the same goes for Delaney, Disch, Lem, Spinrad & so on: loved more by the critics and poseurs than by the readers and fans.
Crichton did write SF but was mainly known as a non-SF writer, as is Dan Simmons, so I'd argue they're thus excluded, or at least excludable.
Norton, Zelazny, even arguably Le Guin: equally known as fantasy writers (possibly even juvenile fantasy) which the writers specifically excluded - and rightly so.
OK, now, some megastars arguably did belong on there. Niven is a master, and his stuff with Pournelle is too, although I'm not sure about Jerry on his own. I liked his solo work better as a BYTE columnist.
Frank Herbert... hmmm. Tricky. I loved Dune and even really liked the sequels. Most of the rest of his stuff was fairly forgettable. I remember vague details and outlines, which is more than I can say for a lot of writers, but that's hardly a glowing recommendation. I don't think that for Dune et seq alone he counts as one of the all-time greats.
Pete Hamilton's stuff is wonderful and I love it to bits, but it's light entertainment, mostly, not a big heavy contribution to the genre. Except in terms of number of pages, anyway. I fear the same might be said of someone else I much admire, Al Reynolds.
Silverberg is wonderful, as is Anderson. Haldeman is damned good. Both did a lot of turkeys as well as golden eggs, though.
Aldiss I adore, but he might be a little specialist, I'm not sure.
Haldeman I see as workmanlike, not a megastar. I love some of the books but he's not in the pantheon for me.
Asher I covered in a previous blogpost. Morgan - only read a few, and they were great, very original, very visceral, but again, he's not yet earned a place in the all-time top 10. Stephen Baxter and Adam Roberts definitely haven't.
I could go on... but who would you folks see in the top ten, or see excluded therefrom?
A friend of mine, Iain Thompson, co-wrote this piece for the American arm of what used to be VNU:
V3's top 10 science fiction writers (Handy single-long-page printable link here.)
I have no real argument with the list, myself. I am not sure Roddenbery should be on there, no matter how influential, as he wasn't really an author per se.
But it's the comments after the article which are, I think, most interesting and amusing.
For starters there are all the risible idiots who pan the piece's writers for omitting authors who actually are on the list. Perhaps they only read page 1, but if so, they're still bloody fools if they didn't spot a Top Ten list with only two entries on it. Morons, the lot of them.
But then come the comments about who should be on the list as well. Most of them don't seem to consider that there are, by definition, only 10 spots on a Top Ten list, and they want an extra half a dozen or more names add.
Some question Douglas Adams. Well, perhaps fair enough; he didn't write much, and not all of it was SF. However, for his towering influence over a generation of people and of books, I think he merits it, myself.
Jules Verne. Well, one could indeed argue that much of his output wasn't SF, either. But the SF he did write is absolutely seminal. I think he merits his inclusion.
Dick. Ah, now, Dick. I always thought PKD vastly overrated, myself. The books are frequently very confused and somewhat impenetrable. A lot of it seems to me to be the drug-addled ramblings of a deranged mind. I found them hard to read, hard to follow and generally very unrewarding.
(I'd say much the same about Kurt Vonnegut, as well, for what it's worth. Barry Malzberg wasn't much better, either.)
Bradbury: yeah, big name, but it's badly dated, trippy stuff, not hardcore SF. Almost more fantasy, or magical-realism or something, than SF. I think he is one for the wannabe literati, myself, just as Dick is. And the same goes for Delaney, Disch, Lem, Spinrad & so on: loved more by the critics and poseurs than by the readers and fans.
Crichton did write SF but was mainly known as a non-SF writer, as is Dan Simmons, so I'd argue they're thus excluded, or at least excludable.
Norton, Zelazny, even arguably Le Guin: equally known as fantasy writers (possibly even juvenile fantasy) which the writers specifically excluded - and rightly so.
OK, now, some megastars arguably did belong on there. Niven is a master, and his stuff with Pournelle is too, although I'm not sure about Jerry on his own. I liked his solo work better as a BYTE columnist.
Frank Herbert... hmmm. Tricky. I loved Dune and even really liked the sequels. Most of the rest of his stuff was fairly forgettable. I remember vague details and outlines, which is more than I can say for a lot of writers, but that's hardly a glowing recommendation. I don't think that for Dune et seq alone he counts as one of the all-time greats.
Pete Hamilton's stuff is wonderful and I love it to bits, but it's light entertainment, mostly, not a big heavy contribution to the genre. Except in terms of number of pages, anyway. I fear the same might be said of someone else I much admire, Al Reynolds.
Silverberg is wonderful, as is Anderson. Haldeman is damned good. Both did a lot of turkeys as well as golden eggs, though.
Aldiss I adore, but he might be a little specialist, I'm not sure.
Haldeman I see as workmanlike, not a megastar. I love some of the books but he's not in the pantheon for me.
Asher I covered in a previous blogpost. Morgan - only read a few, and they were great, very original, very visceral, but again, he's not yet earned a place in the all-time top 10. Stephen Baxter and Adam Roberts definitely haven't.
I could go on... but who would you folks see in the top ten, or see excluded therefrom?
