DISQUS

"TV is the low-hanging fruit..." How true. As I've written, I have no idea where people find time to follow a TV show--there aren't enough hours in the day for me with writing and family and I refuse to subject my brain to the pap found on commercial television. We don't have cable, but we do have a houseful of books and two teenagers who are reading wayy above their grade level. Television and video game raised children are unoriginal, hyperactive, lack critical thinking skills...but they do have over-sized thumbs and tweaked amygdalas, giving them ADD-like personalities and a distorted, cartoon-like view of the consequences of their actions. No thanks...

Not familiar with this sub-genre "mundane SF", shall have to check it out. If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Ryman is a Canadian writer, isn't he?
Smart devil too, more talent and brains than eight Robert Sawyers.
Literary SF is not popular with the punters--I've been on forums where people confess not to read "difficult" books, they're only looking for entertainment/escapism. They equate literary writing with elitism. Sigh. Just proves that geeks, in their way, can be as dumb and close-minded as the rest of us. Good post, enjoyable points...

CJ: Thanks, Cliff. Just glad I made sense... Ryman is Canadian, I think he's lived in England for awhile. Certainly a beautiful writer. I think literate SF is why I loved Spin so much... and Timescape blazed the trail.

Mundane SF is interesting, it's kind of a sub-genre that's just crept up out of nowhere. I'm a little confused about it myself; seems a little unnecessary to me, as the works all tend to fit into other categories anyway. Ian McDonald did an interesting post about it. Head's Down

Your Sc Fi Monthly site has always tempted me--popping by for beer and peanuts, hash out the latest books to be discussed. But...why waste time on someone like Kevin J. Anderson? This guy put the "ack" into "hack". D'you know he wanders around with a tape recorder, reading whole chunks of narrative into it, banging a novel out later and then zipping the mish-mash off to his publisher? You can't be as prolific as he is (Modesitt is another guilty party) without sacrificing writing quality. Writers like this don't have the slightest consideration for their readers or the legacy of fine scribes. They're part of the reason why mainstream and literary critics don't take sci fi seriously. They are mercenary talents who should have their thumbs cut off as a deterrent to others.

I don't necessarily despair for the future of books but I wonder about the QUALITY of writing as publishing becomes more and more corporate and the small presses get squeezed out. Will we have the kind of diversity we had in the past-or will there be more movie and gaming tie-ins and the superficial writing that will produce? Will we see literary writing continue to deteriorate as pop/celebrity scribbles and phony memoirs proliferate? Writing may not die but it can be devalued and reduced to the point where the art form languishes and innovation is nonexistent. THAT is my greatest

concern.

I agree the Bester book has its flaws but compared to most the stuff being published at the time, it's a keeper. What about Bester's other celebrated novel, THE STARS MY DESTINATION? And there have been some recent lovely editions of Bester's stories. I've been a fan of Phil Dick, have just about all of his books and he's been a major influence on my own work. Look forward to more postings and can I direct you to Library Thing which has a lively forum of SF readers?