A Sci Fi Reading Odyssey - 50 Novels

[Westy]

And that is exactly my prob with LeGuin, 9/10ths of the time. DRY is the magic word. By Gad she is so dry.

Probably why I started this a while ago and didn't get far before moving onto something else. Should try again at some stage though...

Btw, do you like Blood Music, by Bear?

I've actually read this twice and was a lot less enamored with it the second time around. Loved the first third or so, but though it lost it's way toward the end...

 

[pogopossum]

Matt,
I give you credit for a very close read of Left Hand although I give it a lot more credit for psychological depth than you. For me it was not slow at all. I first read it somewhere around the time it came out and then re-read it 10-12 years ago after my wife read it and found it the best SF she had ever seen. Even the (you thought slow) beginning was more of an introduction to the world for me than the slogging start that you experienced.
And on my second more mature read although it was not grabby, it still kept me enthralled.
I read the quote from Genly Ai re women mathematicians etc. as a comment on men's f------ up perceptions than as any comment on women. Almost sarcastic in fact.

A question for you, Hobbit, and any other reviewers here.
I do not read with the idea that I will be commenting on a book. Perhaps reccomending it, but not reproducing my reactions or recording mentally or in writing reactions or thoughts as I go. I would expect that both of you have better memories for detail than I, but the task of reviewing for others would seem to create a different perspective and interfere (for me) with the way I read. eg leaning back and letting it flow.

Does this spark any reaction? Is there any difference in the way you read with or without the idea of reviewing?


Another comment. I liked the short story Blood Music was based on but agree that the novel dragged. Looking at a 1985 list of novels, the one that stood out in terms of reputation was Enders Game, which by the way I did not like. As I was reading it with fair enjoyment, late in the book the whole premise struck me as absurd. I barely finished it.

edit: As I was reading this entire thread for the first time, I saw that you had already reviewed Enders - - -
Apologize for my lack of attention. Still - - -

I would go with Eon from that year.

 

[Matt H.]

A question for you, Hobbit, and any other reviewers here.
I do not read with the idea that I will be commenting on a book. Perhaps reccomending it, but not reproducing my reactions or recording mentally or in writing reactions or thoughts as I go. I would expect that both of you have better memories for detail than I, but the task of reviewing for others would seem to create a different perspective and interfere (for me) with the way I read. eg leaning back and letting it flow.

Does this spark any reaction? Is there any difference in the way you read with or without the idea of reviewing?

Pogo, thanks for the thoughtful response. I could jabber on and on forever about the "metaphysics" of reading. I *am* striving for a "let it flow" type of reading. If you take a look at my critique "rules" in head post, once I finish the book, I don't re-open it or re-read any of it (to extent possible). The critiques are supposed to reflect a natural/realistic first time reading. If you notice, I may be good at BS-ing, so it sounds like I did a super-close reading with notes... but everything is from memory. And NO I have a pretty bad memory, actually! Again, that's why I stick with generalities in my story summary and review. Ocasssionally, I make a simple note of two during reading (hush! don't tell) just to help my jellied brain, lol.

I never thought about the fact that knowledge that I will be doing a review will alter my reading... Interesting point! At least consciously it doesn't seem to--except, for the fact that there can be no skimming and no stopping! (That's a good thing, I think... being forced in a way to finish regardless of enjoyment - even if you decided on page 10 it was total crap! The John Wayne school of reading) I hope it was clear that I found LHD a very substantial and original book, with a lot of "riches"... I stand by my assertion though, that there are flaws and that *most* first time readers are going to find it icy-tough sledding, lol.. pun intended. Thank you again for the thoughtful comments. Mark, others anything to add?

(added) There were some other interesting points and questions in your post...

I think in the review, I did give the book some credit for psychological depth. Hmmm... have a hard-time seeing the passage about woman as a joke... Cogitating that one. I don't read a book as the PC-patrol (hate that!), but if something honestly sticks-up, then it sticks up. It's like not liking broccoli... not a political statement just a thing that happens inside. In this case it honestly caused a moderate "huh?" It was far from a decisive flaw in the book, which is why I called it "minor"

Love to talk to you about Ender's Game sometime. Weird thing is I'm assuming the first pub year is 1977. So I'm asking, why is it in a list for 1985???

I would go with Eon from that year.

Thanks for advice on Bear!

 

[Matt H.]

Probably why I started this a while ago and didn't get far before moving onto something else. Should try again at some stage though...

I think LHD is certainly worth reading\re-reading. It's great as a source of ideas, themes and techniques.
Thanks also for the tips on Greg Bear books!

 

[Matt H.]

Finished Neuromancer. Wow! Writing review now...

After Left Hand and Neuromancer need a change of pace...

 

[Hobbit]

A question for you, Hobbit, and any other reviewers here.
I do not read with the idea that I will be commenting on a book. Perhaps reccomending it, but not reproducing my reactions or recording mentally or in writing reactions or thoughts as I go. I would expect that both of you have better memories for detail than I, but the task of reviewing for others would seem to create a different perspective and interfere (for me) with the way I read. eg leaning back and letting it flow.

Does this spark any reaction? Is there any difference in the way you read with or without the idea of reviewing?

Well, that's odd: I answered this the other day, but the post seems to have disappeared! Apologies for what looks like a delay in replying - not intentional.

OK. It's a good question, pogo, and frankly it's one that stopped me reviewing for a long time. Despite being asked a few times, I was concerned that reviewing would be a different experience to reading, and refused to do it.

Being aware that reviewing rather than reading might create a different experience, I try and take each book as a new experience and read it first, before thinking of a review. When I review, I always try and think of it in terms of "what would a reader like/not like", but do that afterwards. Seems to be what Matt's doing here too.

I think I'm also lucky in that at SFFWorld there's no pressure to actually review something - for example, I haven't put up a review fora few weeks recently, because I've not found anything I've enjoyed enough to review!

It could be very easy to think of a book as something to review rather than something to enjoy - I try not to. I try and remember that, above all, I am a fan who generally enjoys the genre, although I don't like everything.

I try and make sure that I read a few books each year not for review, just for fun: though I might mention here I've read them briefly.

But I take your point - I think reviewers can see things differently, sometimes.

Greg Bear's Blood Music? Good - but I prefer the original short story (Analog, 1980's) rather than the expanded novel version.

 

[Matt H.]

...
OK. It's a good question, pogo, and frankly it's one that stopped me reviewing for a long time. Despite being asked a few times, I was concerned that reviewing would be a different experience to reading, and refused to do it....
...
Being aware that reviewing rather than reading might create a different experience, I try and take each book as a new experience and read it first, before thinking of a review. ...

It could be very easy to think of a book as something to review rather than something to enjoy...

Illuminating response, Mark. I guess I didn't honestly think about it... I think we got a critic's version of "Heisenburgian paradox" lol... Can't see much of a way around it though, especially in my case where I committ to finish each book.

A side note, when *forced* to finish a book, the reader can work up a lot of resentment (consciously or otherwise), the negativity grows and grows as one plows on, perhaps out of all proportion (shades of my Odd John response ) A "real" reader would just put the book down and read something else. Again, can't see much of a way around this.

Another thing is this... as you read more books, you become more *expert* Great, but it could mean you no longer can read "like an average reader" and ones reviews becomes a "sci fi buff's review."

Question: Do you think a reader's basic ability to understand complex plots, characters, etc. changes much as you read more books? Or is it fairly well set based on inherent qualities of the reader? (for example, like reading speed--I feel fairly certain that one's reading speed doesn't necessarily *increase* the more you read.. It's kind of set.) What's your experience on these questions? Others too please chime in.

 

[Matt H.]

Mark, btw, was about to add Startide Rising, but I think it's the second book in a series, right? Wanted a Brin novel... Does Startide read as a self-contained novel? (without significant "to be continued..")

 

[Hobbit]

A side note, when *forced* to finish a book, the reader can work up a lot of resentment (consciously or otherwise), the negativity grows and grows as one plows on, perhaps out of all proportion (shades of my Odd John response ) A "real" reader would just put the book down and read something else. Again, can't see much of a way around this.

To be honest, I used to finish a book regardless - there are cases out there where the wobbly beginning improved by the end. These days I am more ruthless!

Another thing is this... as you read more books, you become more *expert* Great, but it could mean you no longer can read "like an average reader" and ones reviews becomes a "sci fi buff's review."

Conscious of that, but I've always felt that readers know that of me anyway. An average reader, according to a UK study a couple of years ago, was 2-3 books a year. (On holiday & Christmas, I think it was.)

Certain groups are more persistent - crime readers are notoriously loyal and average 30-50 a year. SF/Fantasy readers can be. I average 40-50 a year myself, more if you count all the unfinished ones! I know that there are people out there who read 2-3 a week.

Readers of reviews are interested in opinions. Some are well-informed, others critical, others based on immediate impressions, a fresh pair of eyes. There's room for all out there, and readers can take their choice. For what it's worth, I just try and be honest.

Mark, btw, was about to add Startide Rising, but I think it's the second book in a series, right? Wanted a Brin novel... Does Startide read as a self-contained novel?

Yes.

 

[ArthurFrayn]

To be honest, I used to finish a book regardless - there are cases out there where the wobbly beginning improved by the end. These days I am more ruthless!

Yes. That ended a number of years ago. Without mentioning the book, I finished a reasonably long fantasy book a number of years ago, despite reservations somewhere in the middle, and vowed I would never do it again -and I haven't!

 

[Hobbit]

There's that old cliched phrase... "Too many books, too little time". Whilst I wouldn't comment too much on a book I didn't finish, I am conscious with advancing age that there are books out there I may never get to, much as I'd like to.

And yes, you do need to keep an eye of what's bad in your head so that you can also tell what you think is good.

 

[Hereford Eye]

1. Odd John, Olaf Stapledon [1935] Do not recognize though I remember passing on Stapledon
2. The Humanoids, Jack Williamson [1949] Do not recognize though I have read other Williamson without much to remember. BTW, that was my first year reading sf.
3. City, Clifford Simak [1952]
4. Childhood’s End, Arthur C. Clarke [1953] Only Clarke I still have in my library.
5. The Kraken Wakes, John Wyndham [1953] Never got to know him
6. Double Star, Robert A. Heinlein [1956] Enjoyed everything Heinlein wrote; never missed a page. Now? Tried to re-read Stranger, Glory Road, and Starship Troopers. Didn't make it. Although Jubal Hershaw remains my favorite Heinlein character.
7. The Stars My Destination, Alfred Bester [1956] Outstanding.
8. Solaris, Stanislaw Lem [1961] Could not get interested.
9. Little Fuzzy, H. Beam Piper [1962] (to re-visit) That was a unique creation.
10. Babel-17, Samuel Delany [1966] Started did not finish. I couldn't seem to care.
11. This Immortal, Roger Zelazny [1966] Don't recognize'
12. The Left Hand of Darkness, Ursula K. Le Guin [1969] (latest!!) She taught me about women.
13. Ringworld, Larry Niven [1970] Boring.
14. Tau Zero, Poul Anderson [1970] Not good enough to re-read.
15. Roadside Picnic, Arkady and Boris Strugatsky [1972] Don't recognize
16. The Forever War, Joe Haldeman [1974] Tried to re-read. Didn't make it.
17. The Shockwave Rider, John Brunner [1975] Don't recognize
18. Gateway, Frederik Pohl [1976] Yeah, this was a great read.
19. Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card [1977] Great the first time; not so much since.
20. Neuromancer, William Gibson [1984] (currently reviewing...) Hope you're having better luck than I did.

 

[Westy]

Question: Do you think a reader's basic ability to understand complex plots, characters, etc. changes much as you read more books? Or is it fairly well set based on inherent qualities of the reader? (for example, like reading speed--I feel fairly certain that one's reading speed doesn't necessarily *increase* the more you read.. It's kind of set.) What's your experience on these questions? Others too please chime in.

I think it does - I've definitely noticed this myself over the past ~10 years as I've increased how many books I read in a year (now at least 50). I think also reading other people's reviews helps as well - what aspects they think make a novel flow well or is readable, and things that can slow it down or cause issues. These things combined do help - but there is also inherent qualities that you pick up when you are younger that don't go away either.

Reading speed - hasn't changed much for me over the years, would think that's the same for most?

 

[pogopossum]

Westy.
You're a bear.
I currently have a pile of half a dozen tomes waiting my attention.
One a week plus short stories is doing more than well for me.
The dozens of mentions of oldies that have come up since I made the (felicitous?) choice of engaging here has not helped. Several of the oldies mentioned have occasioned taking a break from newer stuff and indulging. Having a laid back but still moderately active life (Politics is banned from mention here, still my personal Nirvana is changing the resident in the US White House) and a three year old grandson, I keep falling further behind..
Moral? Nothing remarkable. Just wish I could do as well.

 

[Matt H.]

1. Odd John, Olaf Stapledon [1935] Do not recognize though I remember passing on Stapledon
2. The Humanoids, Jack Williamson [1949] Do not recognize though I have read other Williamson without much to remember. BTW, that was my first year reading sf.
3. ...

Thanks for that, Hereford!

 

[Hobbit]

Question: Do you think a reader's basic ability to understand complex plots, characters, etc. changes much as you read more books? Or is it fairly well set based on inherent qualities of the reader? (for example, like reading speed--I feel fairly certain that one's reading speed doesn't necessarily *increase* the more you read.. It's kind of set.) What's your experience on these questions? Others too please chime in.

Missed this one as well, I think.

The first part is a question that's often asked - how much science does there have to be in Science Fiction? for example. Like Crime fiction, there can be a series of tropes to get used to - AI, FTL travel, even quantum universes and time travel. Early work tended to try and bamboozle the reader with science - "You mean, Jimmy, it's the left handed wooflsplanger that causes quantum collapse?!" whereas today we sort've skip over the details unless they are essential to the plot.

It helps if you've got some idea of these things, but much SF is now so mainstream that little extra input is needed. With the softer sciences, its less technical.

In my opinion, the complexity only becomes more complex if the reader chooses it to be. Many readers now read more complex material than what they read in their teens, although some are happy with what they like. This is not just restricted to this genre. Some readers relish on work being deliberately challenging, others prefer to stick to what they like.

My reading speed remains fairly constant, although I read less now than I used to - I have less time to read! Regular reading though may increase speed - I read a page of text faster these days than I used to forty years ago. But there is a lot to be said for deliberately slowing down and taking your time with it. Having said that, I don't get on with audiobooks because they read too slow for me....

 

[Matt H.]

I do not read with the idea that I will be commenting on a book. Perhaps reccomending it, but not reproducing my reactions or recording mentally or in writing reactions or thoughts as I go. I would expect that both of you have better memories for detail than I, but the task of reviewing for others would seem to create a different perspective and interfere (for me) with the way I read. eg leaning back and letting it flow.

There's a lot in there for me to think about. No, I have a pretty bad memory, and as I implied in another thread I am also perhas slightly below average when it comes to understanding really complex plots. Especially hard for me is keeping charachters straight. Who exactly is/was saying/doing said/did what again? Which guy was the super tall/short again? A lot of writers make rather severe demands in this respect. And in terms of honest enjoyment, I usually enjoy them a lot less. Also (hush don't tell anyone) but I do sometimes make some very general notes as a read... My brain is a mush pot, give me a break! Am I responsible for knowing those things I missed? As in -- it's a great book, you're just too mediocre as a reader to appreciate its complexity - which upon scholarly study DOES actually make sense? Or, is my lameness actually kind of a good thing? More like an average Joe, and so, my reviews more in tune with real, actual tastes? Trying to turn a weakness into a strenght here, hahaha As far as the reviewing task affecting the reading... can't see many ways around it, since I'm reading a pre-defined list, and I'm already resolved to write a review of each. That's why I mentioned Heisenburg... The effect of measuring something changes it! Ooooo, deep!

 

[Vince W]

I don't get on with audiobooks because they read too slow for me....

I'm the same. Even if I speed up the reading it's still too slow. I get fidgety and give up.

 

[Vince W]

There's a lot in there for me to think about. No, I have a pretty bad memory, and as I implied in another thread I am also perhas slightly below average when it comes to understanding really complex plots. Especially hard for me is keeping charachters straight. Who exactly is/was saying/doing said/did what again? Which guy was the super tall/short again? A lot of writers make rather severe demands in this respect.

I wouldn't worry too much about this sort of thing. Modern fiction tends to be overly descriptive because it makes the books longer and a lot of readers equate this with being better now. If you can follow the plot and it engages you, then character details are just that.

 

[Hereford Eye]

I've been having thoughts about this topic and you know that makes me sort of dangerous.

On the original reading of the books, I know I reacted differently. I know I would always go the bookstore seeking more work by the author in question. Sometimes, as with Asimov and Heinlein, et al, I was never disappointed. Sometimes, as with Clarke, et al, I was (though I did love his Nine Billion Names for God.

This last two years as I tried re-read some of what to me are classics, I couldn't help but compare them to more recent work. My conclusion is that recent work in comparison to ancient work means more to me. I still believe the old guys were awesome for who I was in the days I first read them. But, I've aged and their writing hasn't.
I can justify in my mind substituting Mike Resnick, Bruce Bretthaur and Gina Marie Wylie for Asimov and Heinlein yet you seldom see those names bantered about on sffworld.

So, I suspect that it is matter of my personal taste versus whatever establishment exists in the world of sf.