Book of the New Sun won the contest!

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: Just got this in my inbox today... expect a snazzy new edition from Gollancz! http://www.gollancz50.com/ -DOJP _______________________________________________

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Antonin Scriabin <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote: Great!? Glad TBONS is getting a new edition ... another one for the collection :-) On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

Just got this in my inbox today... expect a snazzy new edition from Gollancz! http://www.gollancz50.com/ -DOJP _______________________________________________

On Jul 28, 2011, at 10:27 AM, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: Sigh. Not a single book by a woman made the list. On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Antonin Scriabin <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote:

Great! Glad TBONS is getting a new edition ... another one for the collection :-) On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

Just got this in my inbox today... expect a snazzy new edition from Gollancz! http://www.gollancz50.com/ -DOJP _______________________________________________

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Lane Haygood <lhaygood at gmail.com> wrote: I thought for sure "The Left Hand of Darkness" would make it. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 28, 2011, at 10:27 AM, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Sigh. Not a single book by a woman made the list. On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Antonin Scriabin <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote:

Great! Glad TBONS is getting a new edition ... another one for the collection :-) On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

Just got this in my inbox today... expect a snazzy new edition from Gollancz! http://www.gollancz50.com/ -DOJP _______________________________________________

On Jul 28, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Antonin Scriabin <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote: Honestly I am surprised that Name of the Wind made it ... I guess there are going to be some strange choices when it is put up to a vote. On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Lane Haygood <lhaygood at gmail.com> wrote: I thought for sure "The Left Hand of Darkness" would make it. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 28, 2011, at 10:27 AM, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Sigh. Not a single book by a woman made the list. On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Antonin Scriabin <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote:

Great! Glad TBONS is getting a new edition ... another one for the collection :-) On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

Just got this in my inbox today... expect a snazzy new edition from Gollancz! http://www.gollancz50.com/ -DOJP _______________________________________________

On 7/28/2011 10:33 AM, Lane Haygood wrote: I thought for sure "The Left Hand of Darkness" would make it. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 28, 2011, at 10:27 AM, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes"<danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Sigh. Not a single book by a woman made the list. On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Antonin Scriabin <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote:

Great! Glad TBONS is getting a new edition ... another one for the collection :-) On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

Just got this in my inbox today... expect a snazzy new edition from Gollancz! http://www.gollancz50.com/ -DOJP _______________________________________________

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com>

1) Since this is a democratically selected list, you would probably have to limit the voting to exclusively to women to hope that a woman author would make the top 10. We're talking about authors whose work would inspire someone in high school or early college--at an age when a writer helps set the concrete of a reader's tastes. Stil, I wouldn't have been surprised to see "Frankenstein" on this list. But the most successful female authors among females in my experience are Rowling, Meyer, and Lackey. None of which are going to make this list. I haven't read "The Time Traveler's Wife". Is it as deserving of being on this list as "The Name of the Wind"? 2) The big names are Feminist authors whose work simply feels dated now (imagine a Pro-Suffrage SF writer). LeGuin, Atwood, Yarboro...These are all skilled writers but their Great Works are essentially museum pieces to certain themes that were current in the 1970s. An exception IMO is Joanna Russ, whose novels are still worthwhile for study by budding writers -- but I'm not sure I'd call them pleasurable.

3) The woman authors whose work still carries today, do their best work in short story format: Tiptree, Willis, and Nancy Kress (yeah! I said it!).

--- On Tue, 8/2/11, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote: From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> Subject: Re: (urth) Book of the New Sun won the contest! To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2011, 8:56 AM 1) Since this is a democratically selected list, you would probably have to limit the voting to exclusively to women to hope that a woman author would make the top 10. We're talking about authors whose work would inspire someone in high school or early college--at an age when a writer helps set the concrete of a reader's tastes. Stil, I wouldn't have been surprised to see "Frankenstein" on this list. But the most successful female authors among females in my experience are Rowling, Meyer, and Lackey. None of which are going to make this list. I haven't read "The Time Traveler's Wife". Is it as deserving of being on this list as "The Name of the Wind"? 2) The big names are Feminist authors whose work simply feels dated now (imagine a Pro-Suffrage SF writer). LeGuin, Atwood, Yarboro...These are all skilled writers but their Great Works are essentially museum pieces to certain themes that were current in the 1970s. An exception IMO is Joanna Russ, whose novels are still worthwhile for study by budding writers -- but I'm not sure I'd call them pleasurable. 3) The woman authors whose work still carries today, do their best work in short story format: Tiptree, Willis, and Nancy Kress (yeah! I said it!).

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote: --- On Tue, 8/2/11, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:

From: James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> Subject: Re: (urth) Book of the New Sun won the contest! To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2011, 8:56 AM 1) Since this is a democratically selected list, you would probably have to limit the voting to exclusively to women to hope that a woman author would make the top 10. We're talking about authors whose work would inspire someone in high school or early college--at an age when a writer helps set the concrete of a reader's tastes. Stil, I wouldn't have been surprised to see "Frankenstein" on this list. But the most successful female authors among females in my experience are Rowling, Meyer, and Lackey. None of which are going to make this list. I haven't read "The Time Traveler's Wife". Is it as deserving of being on this list as "The Name of the Wind"? 2) The big names are Feminist authors whose work simply feels dated now (imagine a Pro-Suffrage SF writer). LeGuin, Atwood, Yarboro...These are all skilled writers but their Great Works are essentially museum pieces to certain themes that were current in the 1970s. An exception IMO is Joanna Russ, whose novels are still worthwhile for study by budding writers -- but I'm not sure I'd call them pleasurable. 3) The woman authors whose work still carries today, do their best work in short story format: Tiptree, Willis, and Nancy Kress (yeah! I said it!).

A whole lot of 70s SF feels dated, from the artistic efforts of Samuel Delany on down, in the same way modernism seems a bit musty lately, or those socially conscious novels of the late 19th and early 20th century that are many things, but are probably not artistic in the final analysis. I don't know, I always felt like the previously mentioned Atwood was not doing exciting things in the way that more mainstream female writers like Flannery O'Connor or Acker or even Byatt were, I felt like I'd read 1984 and other similar dystopian stuff over and over and over before when I read some of her stuff, or LeGuin's for that matter, so tired of that weak lowest common denominator left slanting. ?Their SF in general IS too closely tied to a didactic, pragmatic, realistic purpose, instead of the quite possibly teenage boy aimed wow rocket ships explosions impossible science human villains cool plot twist kind of stuff men seem to write in SF ... . I think there is a better case for quality fantasy female authors than actual SF for some reason (Hobb, Tanith lee, Susanah Clark, some of the gothic (southern or otherwise) stuff, etc). but some of the works that were selected seem like they are just recent and in people's memories now, something that is not true of New Sun, which I would like to think deserved to win. _______________________________________________

From: Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com>

A whole lot of 70s SF feels dated, from the artistic efforts of Samuel Delany on down, in the same way modernism seems a bit musty lately, or those socially conscious novels of the late 19th and early 20th century that are many things, but are probably not artistic in the final analysis. I don't know, I always felt like the previously mentioned Atwood was not doing exciting things in the way that more mainstream female writers like Flannery O'Connor or Acker or even Byatt were, I felt like I'd read 1984 and other similar dystopian stuff over and over and over before when I read some of her stuff, or LeGuin's for that matter, so tired of that weak lowest common denominator left slanting. Their SF in general IS too closely tied to a didactic, pragmatic, realistic purpose, instead of the quite possibly teenage boy aimed wow rocket ships explosions impossible science human villains cool plot twist kind of stuff men seem to write in SF ... .

I think there is a better case for quality fantasy female authors than actual SF for some reason (Hobb, Tanith lee, Susanah Clark, some of the gothic (southern or otherwise) stuff, etc).

but some of the works that were selected seem like they are just recent and in people's memories now, something that is not true of New Sun, which I would like to think deserved to win.

On Aug 2, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com> wrote: From: Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com>

[women SF writers of the 70s feeling dated]

A whole lot of 70s SF feels dated, from the artistic efforts of Samuel Delany on down, in the same way modernism seems a bit musty lately, or those socially conscious novels of the late 19th and early 20th century that are many things, but are probably not artistic in the final analysis. I don't know, I always felt like the previously mentioned Atwood was not doing exciting things in the way that more mainstream female writers like Flannery O'Connor or Acker or even Byatt were, I felt like I'd read 1984 and other similar dystopian stuff over and over and over before when I read some of her stuff, or LeGuin's for that matter, so tired of that weak lowest common denominator left slanting. Their SF in general IS too closely tied to a didactic, pragmatic, realistic purpose, instead of the quite possibly teenage boy aimed wow rocket ships explosions impossible science human villains cool plot twist kind of stuff men seem to write in SF ... .

I'd say a lot of the most admired male authors before the 70s--Heinlein, Asimov, Van Vogt (who I don't like), Anderson, Bradbury, Pohl, Kornbluth--were extremely didactic, with pragmatic, realistic purposes. Clarke might be an exception. And I don't think women writers had or have any kind of monopoly on weak lowest-common-denominator left, right, or libertarian slanting (though this does bring up Ayn Rand...), certainly not considering the shoot-em-ups that you rightly note are aimed at teenage boys.

I think there is a better case for quality fantasy female authors than actual SF for some reason (Hobb, Tanith lee, Susanah Clark, some of the gothic (southern or otherwise) stuff, etc).

And, of course, Le Guin, author of the best YA fantasy ever (and I say this without having read Harry Potter). Lee's Flat Earth books are one of my guilty pleasures.

but some of the works that were selected seem like they are just recent and in people's memories now, something that is not true of New Sun, which I would like to think deserved to win.

I'll go along with that, unsurprisingly. Jerry Friedman _______________________________________________

--- On Tue, 8/2/11, Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com> wrote: From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>

I'd say a lot of the most admired male authors before the 70s--Heinlein, Asimov, Van Vogt (who I don't like), Anderson, Bradbury, Pohl, Kornbluth--were extremely didactic, with pragmatic, realistic purposes. Clarke might be an exception.

--- On Tue, 8/2/11, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote: From: Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: (urth) Book of the New Sun won the contest! To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net> Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2011, 6:50 PM It's funny, you named all my least favorite authors there except Bradbury, his summoning of innocence and the gathering its subtle but mature sinister loss always interested me. never liked most of those guys? . . . tedious to me for some reason.

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote: --- On Tue, 8/2/11, Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>

I'd say a lot of the most admired male authors before the 70s--Heinlein, Asimov, Van Vogt (who I don't like), Anderson, Bradbury, Pohl, Kornbluth--were extremely didactic, with pragmatic, realistic purposes. Clarke might be an exception.

It's funny, you named all my least favorite authors there except Bradbury, his summoning of innocence and the gathering its subtle but mature sinister loss always interested me. never liked most of those guys . . . tedious to me for some reason. I liked some of Clarke. I don't think those guys were really artists (call me a snob). Asimov I liked as a childrens author, and he had one or two works that surpassed his usual output. My favorites were probably more likely to be labeled as science fantasists, Zelazny, Philip K Dick, R A Lafferty, Abraham Davidson, Cordwainer Smith, etc. I liked Theodore Sturgeon though. Just personal opinion to some degree, I suppose, like preferring Dostoyevsky to Tolstoy or Sterne to Richardson. _______________________________________________

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: Marc Aramini marcaramini at yahoo.com to Urth:My favorites were probably more likely to be labeled as science fantasists, Zelazny, Philip K Dick, R A Lafferty, Abraham Davidson, Cordwainer Smith, etc. I liked Theodore Sturgeon though. Nice list (including Bradbury) - throw in some Harlan Ellison, Brian Aldiss, Michael Bishop, Le Guin, and, of course, Wolfe, and that's usually my kind of brew. I still can't get past that 60s/70s 'New Wave' sort of anthropological s.f. period. From the 80s I've enjoyed Dan Simmons, but I really haven't read much s.f. beyond that. (Except Tim Powers, who spans 70s to now, and whom I'm increasingly becoming a genuine fan of). I only went backwards in time from there - Lovecraft, William Hope Hodgson, Arthur Machen, Lord Dunsany, Robert E. Howard, etc. I'm really interested in delving into more contemporary stuff from the likes of Michael Swanwick, Wiliam Gibson, China Mieville, Charles Stross, Charles De Lint, John C. Wright, etc. Still trying to fit it in whilst trying to read and write about the entire oeuvres of Lafferty and Wolfe! -DOJP On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com>wrote:

--- On Tue, 8/2/11, Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>

I'd say a lot of the most admired male authors before the 70s--Heinlein, Asimov, Van Vogt (who I don't like), Anderson, Bradbury, Pohl, Kornbluth--were extremely didactic, with pragmatic, realistic purposes. Clarke might be an exception.

It's funny, you named all my least favorite authors there except Bradbury, his summoning of innocence and the gathering its subtle but mature sinister loss always interested me. never liked most of those guys . . . tedious to me for some reason. I liked some of Clarke. I don't think those guys were really artists (call me a snob). Asimov I liked as a childrens author, and he had one or two works that surpassed his usual output. My favorites were probably more likely to be labeled as science fantasists, Zelazny, Philip K Dick, R A Lafferty, Abraham Davidson, Cordwainer Smith, etc. I liked Theodore Sturgeon though. Just personal opinion to some degree, I suppose, like preferring Dostoyevsky to Tolstoy or Sterne to Richardson. _______________________________________________

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Antonin Scriabin <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com>wrote: R. A. Lafferty is very good, but unfortunately I have only been able to find and read one of his novels (his first, Past Master). I definitely will keep my eye out for more. I had no idea "science fantasists" was a sub-genre, and one I enjoyed so much! -K On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

Marc Aramini marcaramini at yahoo.com to Urth:My favorites were probably more likely to be labeled as science fantasists, Zelazny, Philip K Dick, R A Lafferty, Abraham Davidson, Cordwainer Smith, etc. I liked Theodore Sturgeon though. Nice list (including Bradbury) - throw in some Harlan Ellison, Brian Aldiss, Michael Bishop, Le Guin, and, of course, Wolfe, and that's usually my kind of brew. I still can't get past that 60s/70s 'New Wave' sort of anthropological s.f. period. From the 80s I've enjoyed Dan Simmons, but I really haven't read much s.f. beyond that. (Except Tim Powers, who spans 70s to now, and whom I'm increasingly becoming a genuine fan of). I only went backwards in time from there - Lovecraft, William Hope Hodgson, Arthur Machen, Lord Dunsany, Robert E. Howard, etc. I'm really interested in delving into more contemporary stuff from the likes of Michael Swanwick, Wiliam Gibson, China Mieville, Charles Stross, Charles De Lint, John C. Wright, etc. Still trying to fit it in whilst trying to read and write about the entire oeuvres of Lafferty and Wolfe! -DOJP On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com>wrote:

--- On Tue, 8/2/11, Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>

I'd say a lot of the most admired male authors before the 70s--Heinlein, Asimov, Van Vogt (who I don't like), Anderson, Bradbury, Pohl, Kornbluth--were extremely didactic, with pragmatic, realistic purposes. Clarke might be an exception.

It's funny, you named all my least favorite authors there except Bradbury, his summoning of innocence and the gathering its subtle but mature sinister loss always interested me. never liked most of those guys . . . tedious to me for some reason. I liked some of Clarke. I don't think those guys were really artists (call me a snob). Asimov I liked as a childrens author, and he had one or two works that surpassed his usual output. My favorites were probably more likely to be labeled as science fantasists, Zelazny, Philip K Dick, R A Lafferty, Abraham Davidson, Cordwainer Smith, etc. I liked Theodore Sturgeon though. Just personal opinion to some degree, I suppose, like preferring Dostoyevsky to Tolstoy or Sterne to Richardson. _______________________________________________

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: Since the topic has turned slightly to Lafferty, I'd be remiss in not mentioning I write the only blog on the net dedicated to him: http://antsofgodarequeerfish.blogspot.com/ (It's been mentioned here before, but just in case present company didn't know that...) -DOJP On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Antonin Scriabin <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com wrote:

R. A. Lafferty is very good, but unfortunately I have only been able to find and read one of his novels (his first, Past Master). I definitely will keep my eye out for more. I had no idea "science fantasists" was a sub-genre, and one I enjoyed so much! -K On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

Marc Aramini marcaramini at yahoo.com to Urth:My favorites were probably more likely to be labeled as science fantasists, Zelazny, Philip K Dick, R A Lafferty, Abraham Davidson, Cordwainer Smith, etc. I liked Theodore Sturgeon though. Nice list (including Bradbury) - throw in some Harlan Ellison, Brian Aldiss, Michael Bishop, Le Guin, and, of course, Wolfe, and that's usually my kind of brew. I still can't get past that 60s/70s 'New Wave' sort of anthropological s.f. period. From the 80s I've enjoyed Dan Simmons, but I really haven't read much s.f. beyond that. (Except Tim Powers, who spans 70s to now, and whom I'm increasingly becoming a genuine fan of). I only went backwards in time from there - Lovecraft, William Hope Hodgson, Arthur Machen, Lord Dunsany, Robert E. Howard, etc. I'm really interested in delving into more contemporary stuff from the likes of Michael Swanwick, Wiliam Gibson, China Mieville, Charles Stross, Charles De Lint, John C. Wright, etc. Still trying to fit it in whilst trying to read and write about the entire oeuvres of Lafferty and Wolfe! -DOJP On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com>wrote:

--- On Tue, 8/2/11, Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>

I'd say a lot of the most admired male authors before the 70s--Heinlein, Asimov, Van Vogt (who I don't like), Anderson, Bradbury, Pohl, Kornbluth--were extremely didactic, with pragmatic, realistic purposes. Clarke might be an exception.

It's funny, you named all my least favorite authors there except Bradbury, his summoning of innocence and the gathering its subtle but mature sinister loss always interested me. never liked most of those guys . . . tedious to me for some reason. I liked some of Clarke. I don't think those guys were really artists (call me a snob). Asimov I liked as a childrens author, and he had one or two works that surpassed his usual output. My favorites were probably more likely to be labeled as science fantasists, Zelazny, Philip K Dick, R A Lafferty, Abraham Davidson, Cordwainer Smith, etc. I liked Theodore Sturgeon though. Just personal opinion to some degree, I suppose, like preferring Dostoyevsky to Tolstoy or Sterne to Richardson. _______________________________________________

On Aug 3, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Antonin Scriabin wrote: Thanks for the link! I look forward to exploring more about and by Lafferty. On the topic of women writers, has anyone read anything by Janny Wurts? I hear good things about her large and ongoing Wars of Light and Shadow and have picked up the first two books, but have enough on my to-read pile that I can't start them. A brief scan through shows that the prose is very dense, flowery, and "archaic" ... which is something I am more likely to enjoy than not, if done well. My favorite female writers have all tended to be pretty far from the science fiction / fantasy genres (Jeannette Winterson and Joyce Carol Oates). On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: Since the topic has turned slightly to Lafferty, I'd be remiss in not mentioning I write the only blog on the net dedicated to him: http://antsofgodarequeerfish.blogspot.com/ (It's been mentioned here before, but just in case present company didn't know that...) -DOJP On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Antonin Scriabin <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote: R. A. Lafferty is very good, but unfortunately I have only been able to find and read one of his novels (his first, Past Master). I definitely will keep my eye out for more. I had no idea "science fantasists" was a sub-genre, and one I enjoyed so much! -K On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: Marc Aramini marcaramini at yahoo.com to Urth:My favorites were probably more likely to be labeled as science fantasists, Zelazny, Philip K Dick, R A Lafferty, Abraham Davidson, Cordwainer Smith, etc. I liked Theodore Sturgeon though. Nice list (including Bradbury) - throw in some Harlan Ellison, Brian Aldiss, Michael Bishop, Le Guin, and, of course, Wolfe, and that's usually my kind of brew. I still can't get past that 60s/70s 'New Wave' sort of anthropological s.f. period. From the 80s I've enjoyed Dan Simmons, but I really haven't read much s.f. beyond that. (Except Tim Powers, who spans 70s to now, and whom I'm increasingly becoming a genuine fan of). I only went backwards in time from there - Lovecraft, William Hope Hodgson, Arthur Machen, Lord Dunsany, Robert E. Howard, etc. I'm really interested in delving into more contemporary stuff from the likes of Michael Swanwick, Wiliam Gibson, China Mieville, Charles Stross, Charles De Lint, John C. Wright, etc. Still trying to fit it in whilst trying to read and write about the entire oeuvres of Lafferty and Wolfe! -DOJP On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote: --- On Tue, 8/2/11, Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>

I'd say a lot of the most admired male authors before the 70s--Heinlein, Asimov, Van Vogt (who I don't like), Anderson, Bradbury, Pohl, Kornbluth--were extremely didactic, with pragmatic, realistic purposes. Clarke might be an exception.

It's funny, you named all my least favorite authors there except Bradbury, his summoning of innocence and the gathering its subtle but mature sinister loss always interested me. never liked most of those guys . . . tedious to me for some reason. I liked some of Clarke. I don't think those guys were really artists (call me a snob). Asimov I liked as a childrens author, and he had one or two works that surpassed his usual output. My favorites were probably more likely to be labeled as science fantasists, Zelazny, Philip K Dick, R A Lafferty, Abraham Davidson, Cordwainer Smith, etc. I liked Theodore Sturgeon though. Just personal opinion to some degree, I suppose, like preferring Dostoyevsky to Tolstoy or Sterne to Richardson. _______________________________________________

On 8/3/2011 10:39 AM, Ryan Dunn wrote: Nancy Kress is another very gifted female SF writer, I'm not sure if she was mentioned yet or not. ...ryan On Aug 3, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Antonin Scriabin wrote:

Thanks for the link! I look forward to exploring more about and by Lafferty. On the topic of women writers, has anyone read anything by Janny Wurts? I hear good things about her large and ongoing /Wars of Light and Shadow/ and have picked up the first two books, but have enough on my to-read pile that I can't start them. A brief scan through shows that the prose is very dense, flowery, and "archaic" ... which is something I am more likely to enjoy than not, if done well. My favorite female writers have all tended to be pretty far from the science fiction / fantasy genres (Jeannette Winterson and Joyce Carol Oates). On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com <mailto:danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>> wrote: Since the topic has turned slightly to Lafferty, I'd be remiss in not mentioning I write the only blog on the net dedicated to him: http://antsofgodarequeerfish.blogspot.com/ (It's been mentioned here before, but just in case present company didn't know that...) -DOJP On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Antonin Scriabin <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com <mailto:kierkegaurdian at gmail.com>> wrote: R. A. Lafferty is very good, but unfortunately I have only been able to find and read one of his novels (his first, /Past Master/). I definitely will keep my eye out for more. I had no idea "science fantasists" was a sub-genre, and one I enjoyed so much! -K On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com <mailto:danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>> wrote: Marc Aramini marcaramini at yahoo.com <mailto:marcaramini at yahoo.com> to Urth:My favorites were probably more likely to be labeled as science fantasists, Zelazny, Philip K Dick, R A Lafferty, Abraham Davidson, Cordwainer Smith, etc. I liked Theodore Sturgeon though. Nice list (including Bradbury) - throw in some Harlan Ellison, Brian Aldiss, Michael Bishop, Le Guin, and, of course, Wolfe, and that's usually my kind of brew. I still can't get past that 60s/70s 'New Wave' sort of anthropological s.f. period. From the 80s I've enjoyed Dan Simmons, but I really haven't read much s.f. beyond that. (Except Tim Powers, who spans 70s to now, and whom I'm increasingly becoming a genuine fan of). I only went backwards in time from there - Lovecraft, William Hope Hodgson, Arthur Machen, Lord Dunsany, Robert E. Howard, etc. I'm really interested in delving into more contemporary stuff from the likes of Michael Swanwick, Wiliam Gibson, China Mieville, Charles Stross, Charles De Lint, John C. Wright, etc. Still trying to fit it in whilst trying to read and write about the entire oeuvres of Lafferty and Wolfe! -DOJP On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com <mailto:marcaramini at yahoo.com>> wrote: --- On Tue, 8/2/11, Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com <mailto:jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>> wrote: > From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com <mailto:jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>> >> > I'd say a lot of the most admired male authors before the > 70s--Heinlein, Asimov, > Van Vogt (who I don't like), Anderson, Bradbury, Pohl, > Kornbluth--were extremely > didactic, with pragmatic, realistic purposes. Clarke > might be an exception. It's funny, you named all my least favorite authors there except Bradbury, his summoning of innocence and the gathering its subtle but mature sinister loss always interested me. never liked most of those guys . . . tedious to me for some reason. I liked some of Clarke. I don't think those guys were really artists (call me a snob). Asimov I liked as a childrens author, and he had one or two works that surpassed his usual output. My favorites were probably more likely to be labeled as science fantasists, Zelazny, Philip K Dick, R A Lafferty, Abraham Davidson, Cordwainer Smith, etc. I liked Theodore Sturgeon though. Just personal opinion to some degree, I suppose, like preferring Dostoyevsky to Tolstoy or Sterne to Richardson. _______________________________________________

On the topic of women writers, has anyone read anything by Janny Wurts? I hear good things about her large and ongoing Wars of Light and Shadow and have picked up the first two books, but have enough on my to-read pile that I can't start them. A brief scan through shows that the prose is very dense, flowery, and "archaic" ... which is something I am more likely to enjoy than not, if done well. My favorite female writers have all tended to be pretty far from the science fiction / fantasy genres (Jeannette Winterson and Joyce Carol Oates). On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: Since the topic has turned slightly to Lafferty, I'd be remiss in not mentioning I write the only blog on the net dedicated to him:

http://antsofgodarequeerfish.blogspot.com/ (It's been mentioned here before, but just in case present company didn't know that...) -DOJP On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Antonin Scriabin <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote: R. A. Lafferty is very good, but unfortunately I have only been able to find and read one of his novels (his first, Past Master). I definitely will keep my eye out for more. I had no idea "science fantasists" was a sub-genre, and one I enjoyed so much!

-K On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: Marc Aramini marcaramini at yahoo.com?to?Urth:My favorites were probably more likely to be labeled as science fantasists, Zelazny, Philip K Dick, R A Lafferty, Abraham Davidson, Cordwainer Smith, etc. I liked Theodore Sturgeon though.

Nice list (including Bradbury) - throw in some Harlan Ellison, Brian Aldiss, Michael Bishop, Le Guin, and, of course, Wolfe, and that's usually my kind of brew. ?I still can't get past that 60s/70s 'New Wave' sort of anthropological s.f. period. ?From the 80s I've enjoyed Dan Simmons, but I really haven't read much s.f. beyond that. ?(Except Tim Powers, who spans 70s to now, and whom I'm increasingly becoming a genuine fan of). ?I only went backwards in time from there - Lovecraft, William Hope Hodgson, Arthur Machen, Lord Dunsany, Robert E. Howard, etc. ?I'm really interested in delving into more contemporary stuff from the likes of Michael Swanwick, Wiliam Gibson, China Mieville, Charles Stross, Charles De Lint, John C. Wright, etc. ?Still trying to fit it in whilst trying to read and write about the entire?oeuvres of Lafferty and Wolfe!? -DOJP On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote:

--- On Tue, 8/2/11, Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>

I'd say a lot of the most admired male authors before the 70s--Heinlein, Asimov, Van Vogt (who I don't like), Anderson, Bradbury, Pohl, Kornbluth--were extremely didactic, with pragmatic, realistic purposes. Clarke might be an exception.

It's funny, you named all my least favorite authors there except Bradbury, his summoning of innocence and the gathering its subtle but mature sinister loss always interested me. ?never liked most of those guys ?. . . tedious to me for some reason. ?I liked some of Clarke. ?I don't think those guys were really artists (call me a snob). ?Asimov I liked as a childrens author, and he had one or two works that surpassed his usual output. My favorites were probably more likely to be labeled as science fantasists, Zelazny, Philip K Dick, R A Lafferty, Abraham Davidson, Cordwainer Smith, etc. I liked Theodore Sturgeon though. Just personal opinion to some degree, ?I suppose, like preferring Dostoyevsky to Tolstoy or Sterne to Richardson. _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

_______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

_______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

_______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

_______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

Sorry. I don't think this started as a "please recommend your favorite female writers" thread, but I just turned it into that. My bad. :)

Craig Brewer wrote (03-08-2011 16:59): Sorry. I don't think this started as a "please recommend your favorite female writers" thread, but I just turned it into that. My bad. :)

Geraldine Harris! Angela Carter. ______________________________**_________________

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Matthew Knight <jacobeiserman at gmail.com>wrote: Hope Mirrlees (though I've only read the one novel by her) 2011/8/3 Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com>

Craig Brewer wrote (03-08-2011 16:59): Sorry. I don't think this started as a "please recommend your favorite female writers" thread, but I just turned it into that. My bad. :)

Geraldine Harris! Angela Carter. ______________________________**_________________

On 28/07/11 16:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: Sigh. Not a single book by a woman made the list.

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Antonin Scriabin <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote:

Great! Glad TBONS is getting a new edition ... another one for the collection :-) On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:

Just got this in my inbox today... expect a snazzy new edition from Gollancz! http://www.gollancz50.com/ -DOJP _______________________________________________

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Jane Delawney <jane_delawney at sky.com> wrote: On 28/07/11 16:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

Sigh. Not a single book by a woman made the list.

Dan'l, sorry to change the header and divert the thread but as I've often noted before I will not receive my list mails back unless I do this. That's Sky Mail aka gmail for you :( On your comment: well as a woman I care far less about the lack of female presence in the top 10 than I do about the absence of Ringworld and also The Disposessed. Praise the Lord, or the higher power of your choice, that neither of these made it! Niven is one of the most sexist male SF writers ever IMO (so even if Ringworld itself isn't sexist (I don't know, because I'll never read a Niven ever again after looking briefly at the Man-Kzin Wars / Known Space series); Le Guin is ... well I don't know what to say. I did not manage to read more than 1 chapter of The Disposessed; she was so intent on banging her drum and drilling into our heads the contrast between her idyllic but backward egalitarians and the technologically advanced sexist b*****ds. Hated the sheer manipulative lameness. Hated every sentence of it. Only Le Guin adult fic I ever managed to finish was The Lathe of Heaven. On the other hand I loved the original Earthsea series, though not the follow-up recantations (should have said 'quod scripsi scripsi, deal with it, IMO). OTOH I will almost certainly buy the new Gollancz BOTNS eds when they appear, how great to see Gene voted most wanted reprint. Fabulous!! JD On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Antonin Scriabin <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote:

Great! Glad TBONS is getting a new edition ... another one for the collection :-) On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.**com <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>> wrote:

Just got this in my inbox today... expect a snazzy new edition from Gollancz! http://www.gollancz50.com/ -DOJP ______________________________**_________________

On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Greg Bates wrote: Have you not read The Left Hand of Darkness? I completely agree with you on The Dispossessed but I definitely think LHoD is worth your time. On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Jane Delawney <jane_delawney at sky.com> wrote:

Le Guin is ... well I don't know what to say. I did not manage to read more than 1 chapter of The Disposessed; she was so intent on banging her drum and drilling into our heads the contrast between her idyllic but backward egalitarians and the technologically advanced sexist b*****ds. Hated the sheer manipulative lameness. Hated every sentence of it.

--- On Sat, 8/6/11, Lane Haygood <lhaygood at gmail.com> wrote: From: Lane Haygood <lhaygood at gmail.com>

I have found a few Wolfe works "preachy," but it doesn't bother me any more than Mieville's preachiness, even though I agree more with Mieville than Wolfe. I suppose because Wolfe and Mieville are intelligent I can recognize in them a like mind that can discuss differences rationally. I don't actually have a problem with righties, I have a problem with uncritical acceptance of any position and people that have an aversion to anything that challenges their own viewpoints.

From: "Marc Aramini" <marcaramini at yahoo.com> I am still willing to accept the societal need for morally gray institutions like abortion, but I will of course then take the necessary extreme slippery slope view that all life is intrinsically NOT sacred and that all undesirable elements should be similarly removed from a position where they can cause inconvenience, (because that's the way my mind works.)

On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Marc Aramini wrote: When I worked for my wife's family circus I saw the evils of socialism: from each according to his abilities (mostly mine), to each according to his needs (mostly not mine) and when times are tough, nothing.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Lane Haygood wrote: I have found a few Wolfe works "preachy," but it doesn't bother me any more than Mieville's preachiness, even though I agree more with Mieville than Wolfe. I suppose because Wolfe and Mieville are intelligent I can recognize in them a like mind that can discuss differences rationally.

So, for instance, I have no problem reading Wolfe or even C.S. Lewis, but I find reading someone like Ayn Rand tiring,

Is there anybody who thinks like this, or am I the only one?

On 8/6/2011 7:42 PM, Jane Delawney wrote: On 28/07/11 16:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

Sigh. Not a single book by a woman made the list.

Dan'l, sorry to change the header and divert the thread but as I've often noted before I will not receive my list mails back unless I do this. That's Sky Mail aka gmail for you :( On your comment: well as a woman I care far less about the lack of female presence in the top 10 than I do about the absence of Ringworld and also The Disposessed.

On 8/6/2011 7:42 PM, Jane Delawney wrote: On 28/07/11 16:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

Sigh. Not a single book by a woman made the list.

Dan'l, sorry to change the header and divert the thread but as I've often noted before I will not receive my list mails back unless I do this. That's Sky Mail aka gmail for you :( On your comment: well as a woman I care far less about the lack of female presence in the top 10 than I do about the absence of Ringworld and also The Disposessed. Praise the Lord, or the higher power of your choice, that neither of these made it! Niven is one of the most sexist male SF writers ever IMO (so even if Ringworld itself isn't sexist (I don't know, because I'll never read a Niven ever again after looking briefly at the Man-Kzin Wars / Known Space series)

From: Jane Delawney <jane_delawney at sky.com>

On 28/07/11 16:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

Sigh. Not a single book by a woman made the list.

On your comment: well as a woman I care far less about the lack of female presence in the top 10 than I do about the absence of Ringworld and also The Disposessed. Praise the Lord, or the higher power of your choice, that neither of these made it! Niven is one of the most sexist male SF writers ever IMO (so even if Ringworld itself isn't sexist (I don't know, because I'll never read a Niven ever again after looking briefly at the Man-Kzin Wars / Known Space series);

Le Guin is ... well I don't know what to say. I did not manage to read more than 1 chapter of The Disposessed; she was so intent on banging her drum and drilling into our heads the contrast between her idyllic but backward egalitarians and the technologically advanced sexist b*****ds.

Hated the sheer manipulative lameness. Hated every sentence of it.

Only Le Guin adult fic I ever managed to finish was The Lathe of Heaven. On the other hand I loved the original Earthsea series, though not the follow-up recantations (should have said 'quod scripsi scripsi, deal with it, IMO).

--- On Sun, 8/7/11, David Duffy <davidD at qimr.edu.au> wrote: On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Marc Aramini wrote:

When I worked for my wife's family circus I saw the evils of socialism: from each according to his abilities (mostly mine), to each according to his needs (mostly not mine)? and when times are tough, nothing.

You knew someone would not resist :) And all that believed were together, and had all things common. And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Cheers, David Duffy.

When I worked for my wife's family circus I saw the evils of socialism: from each according to his abilities (mostly mine), to each according to his needs (mostly not mine) and when times are tough, nothing.

You knew someone would not resist :) And all that believed were together, and had all things common. And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at yahoo.com> wrote: --- On Sun, 8/7/11, David Duffy <davidD at qimr.edu.au> wrote:

On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Marc Aramini wrote:

When I worked for my wife's family circus I saw the evils of socialism: from each according to his abilities (mostly mine), to each according to his needs (mostly not mine) and when times are tough, nothing.

You knew someone would not resist :) And all that believed were together, and had all things common. And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Cheers, David Duffy.

Thanks all for the interesting responses. I wanted to elaborate on this really quickly, because something like this happened. I will reply off list in the future since this is extremely un-Wolfe related but I thought this was interesting. This is the only post I will make about it, skip it if you find it too far from the lists concerns. There is Wolfe's response to the situation at the end of it, though. After a near lethal car accident going back and forth to visit my circus girlfriend, in order that we could be together she convinced me to ask her father for job since she did not want to leave that lifestyle, and he said, okay, but you have to get married. They are mostly Spanish speaking Mexican Catholics and have been in that travelling performing lifestyle for 5 generations, and travelling there was only so much room, so while they were in Vegas I pretty much sold EVERYTHING I had collected over the years that didn't fit in my new RV at a garage sale tey held, and they kept the proceeds for the one house that served like 25 people. (that was fine with me then, I needed to get rid of stuff!) The problem was that it turned out I was the best equipped to deal with permits (planning, building and safety, fire, health, animal control, business license, etc) with instituting and running an ATM and credit card machine, with stocking and running the concession, with making deals with the property owners and scheduling the route, and since I was fit they also expected me to perform (learned a handstand act), and for the first two years I also did the heavy manual labor of tearing down and setting up the tent and bleachers that all men were expected to do. They would throw visa problems to me, throw tax problems to me, and when it was pay day every week my wife and I would get our 500 dollars before taxes total (250/person) or less if business was bad, (usually individual artists made that or closer to 400) but no one else had those extra responsibilities that I was uniquely qualified for. The second year I managed to gain a percentage of the concession sales, but he cut it again the third year, while my responsibilities continued to grow, facing the hostile and unfriendly inspectors and city governments and councils on my own and the increasing laziness of everyone else in the business, hiding behind a mask of incompetence. When someone els did anything it just wasn't done right and I would have to go fix it anyway (I think this was on purpose) They would always ask me to share my good credit score so they could buy new RVs, etc, but I always refused. (very few of them were even on the vehicle loans in name, its just how they operated) I would often complain to my wife, but she never went against her father, for though the system was socialist it also seemed definitely non-benignly tyrannical at the top distribution level. She was not prepared to leave her family, so eventually I left by myself, for those reasons and others. My friend Gene Wolfe told me in correspondence during this time, to paraphrase, "I'm not going to tell you that you love her more than she loves you, but then you knew that already." Anyway, I found a purely secular sharing of goods and resources and responsibilities like that sucks in practice and parasitizes the most able. _______________________________________________

On 8/7/2011 1:56 PM, Jack Smith wrote: You might draw a very different conclusion from the same circumstances: That monarchy (the rule of one man who has inherited his position as the head of the family) exploits the lower classes, such as yourself.

On Sun, 7 Aug 2011, David Duffy wrote: Actually, this makes we wonder if there are any Wolfean allusions to Williams? I have never read A computer iterates the greater trumps -- is there anything there?

On 8/7/2011 3:51 AM, David Duffy wrote: I found His Hideous Strength unreadable for that reason, but not the first two of the Space Trilogy. But everything by Charles Williams is delicious. Actually, this makes we wonder if there are any Wolfean allusions to Williams? I have never read A computer iterates the greater trumps -- is there anything there?

On 8/7/2011 1:56 PM, Jack Smith wrote: I'm not convinced that this is socialism or that it tells us anything about a socialist system of government. You entered into a family business and you worked at it. Perhaps you worked harder than others; perhaps others thought they worked harder than you. You grew disenchanted and you left, but there must have been rewards for you to stay as long as you did.

You might draw a very different conclusion from the same circumstances: That monarchy (the rule of one man who has inherited his position as the head of the family) exploits the lower classes, such as yourself.

On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, James Wynn wrote: Interesting. I found Perelandra much more preachy than That Hideous Strength -- one metaphor after another. And for that reason found it tedious to work through (even though a couple of the lessons are pretty good ones).