"Classics" of SFF, hijacked thread

[Michele]

I was going to post this over there, but I went off topic enough, and so did many others, to think this discussion needs a separate thread.

I think we should read MORE classics, though maybe on our own rather than making the next 6 months of club picks classics. I believe people benefit from a more thorough understanding and familiarity with what came before. I think of it as viewing the present and the future through the lens of history. It can add many more dimensions and also allow a person to see just what is good, or progressive, or meaningful in a work that others would quickly dismiss.

Also, I think we could talk more about the pulp style and how some current authors could benefit from streamlining and serious editing. Because there is world-building, and then there is GRRM, who is incredibly self-indulgent at times.

I think there is something to be said for a plot that goes somewhere, for showing through action rather than piling up tons of details, for the discipline of one story arc per book (within a larger arc for a series is fine), for allowing a reader the space to fill in some details or come up with some personal explanations for the things left unseen, etc.

I don't appreciate much having my hand held and being guided like a blind person through a story.

What if GRRM had to write his ASoIaF as pulp fiction?

[Rob, Roberator]

I like the mix we've been reading. I'm not likely to read a lot of classics on my own, so I'm enjoying being coaxed into it here.

I don't really want to read more though. If we read 3-6 a year, that would be good by me.

I do find it disheartening that we seem to have the same few discussions about every older book.

The group is a mix of readers, writers and apparently scholarly types.

I'm the former. I like talking about the plot points and the characters and concepts.

I don't want to delve into the deeper meanings or the social implications so much. Others do. A lot. That's their prerogative, but I'm going to simply avoid those threads. Not a big deal.

No matter what the club picks the people who are the loudest will always be those who passionately love or hate something. It's just the nature of things.

[Tadhg]

I don't think we should avoid classics, but neither do I think we should pick so many. It feels like there has been a lot since January (which is when I started reading the S&L pick). A reasonably even selection across time and sub-genres would be good (but that would probably require a regimented selection process); a post in the 'other thread' made me realise that there hasn't been much from the eighties, was this bad/lean time for SFF?

To put this into context, I struggle with classics, particularly pre-twentieth century and science fiction (though I am enjoying The Demolished Man). I don't think I struggle with them because of changed social values, but more the style and pace of the novels. I still like to give them a go though.

'Serious' literary analysis of the book picks is fine, particularly as there is demand for it, but does it belong in the general thread for each book pick? I would have thought the general thread was more for discussing what you like/dislike about a book and the major plot points. I suppose if you like in-depth literary analysis, then you automatically analyse books in this way...

[Paul]

With classics you fall into that old saying "Just because something is a classic doesn't mean it's good."
That includes in Genre classics.

The problems is they don't always hold up well over time, particularly with Sci-fi because things change so quickly in actual scientific advancements that sometimes old sci-fi feels very dated more quickly.

Then you take the common argument of how woman are portrayed in classics. Its less obviously a problem in a lot of fantasy due to the time period its being set, when ladies stayed in the castle and men went and fought the dragons(in theory)as being a norm, but sci-fi is supposed to be more progressive and old sci-fi doesn't always work that way.
Now obviously this is not always the case but often enough that the discussion has become common here in Sword And Laser.
I don't disagree, it is true and it's too late to change whats been written and really would you even want to, but despite the obvious flaws I wouldnt want to ignore them entirely either because we'd be losing out then. Losing out on great stories and seeing the history of how the genres were built, the shoulders the modern greats stand on.

With all the amazing work that is put out weekly now I wouldn't want to miss that either. Its a tough balance when you have only 12 books, 6 of each genre, a year and I don't think it's been horribly tilted in either direction. So it kind of comes down to the choice of the individual if they want to read it or not. I know its kind of a cop out but some times the simplest solutions are the best.

There is always someone willing to do a renegade read if you want to read along with a group or the ability to start one yourself, it seems a welcomed addition to S&L.
What sucks is you can't read everything. Someone once said if you spent your entire life reading just one genre you would still never read 5% of it...the most depressing thing I ever heard :(

[Serendi]

Maybe, for every book over 50, we should have an obligatory "Dated Attitudes" thread.

;-)

[Rick]

Rob wrote: "
I don't really want to read more though. If we read 3-6 a year, t..."

That's the issue though. We only get 6 slots for Laser per year... so if we read 3-6 it's 50-100% of the Laser slots yet for most of us reading 3-6 books a year isn't much.

What might work well is if S&L created a few different bookshelves for people who want to read more deeply either in a sub-genre or time period. I agree with Michele that there's value in understanding where the genre came from and in reading some of the major works that have guided it but we simply can't read all of them as selections. Having something like a "20 Classic SF Books" and "20 Classic Fantasy Books" listopia would at least allow people new to the genres to have a known good place to start. We could do the same for the major subgenres, e.g. Urban Fantasy, Steampunk, Cyberpunk, etc.

I've said this a lot before but I'd like S&L to explore lesser known voices like Linda Nagata, Jeff Noon, Jeff Vandermeer, M. John Harrison and the like.

[Rob, Roberator]

Serendi wrote: "Maybe, for every book over 50, we should have an obligatory "Dated Attitudes" thread.

;-)"

You mean instead of in ALL the threads?

[Rob, Roberator]

Rick wrote: "That's the issue though. We only get 6 slots for Laser per year... so if we read 3-6 it's 50-100% of the Laser slots yet for most of us reading 3-6 books a year isn't much."

I was including fantasy. So that's between 25 and 50% of the picks each year.

[Rick]

Rob wrote: "Rick wrote: "That's the issue though. We only get 6 slots for Laser per year... so if we read 3-6 it's 50-100% of the Laser slots yet for most of us reading 3-6 books a year isn't much."

I was inc..."

Oh - gotcha. Still, that's a ton. It's hard, too, because we're so diverse. For example, I grew up reading a lot of SF so the classics are something I've mostly read before. But that's not the case in Fantasy where I read LotR and really not much else in epic fantasy so someone like Robin Hobb was new to me.

I think something in the 25% range works broadly though. Combine that with Listopias as I mentioned above (so that people who like a classic can pursue that) and it might be a really nice thing for the group.

[Rob, Roberator]

That's a ton for you maybe. Not for me.

People can just as easily read extra new works and indie authors on the side as someone else could read extra classics on the side.

I think this is the best reason why S&L should stay with dictatorial picks. The club has grown too large and it's going to always be impossible to please everyone.

I haven't liked all the picks this year, but I'm still glad I've read them all.

[Rick]

By 'A ton" i don't mean it's a lot to read, I mean it's takes up a ton of the available slots - this isn't the Classic SFF book club, it's by definition a mix of things, new and old.

My point about the lists is that it gives people who DO want to explore a particular thing a way to do that with some guidance.

While I agree that people can read new picks on their own too, you ignore the potentially very real sales and promotional effect a pick has in S&L. Isaac Asimov cannot benefit from more exposure - he's dead. A living author can benefit though and S&L has almost 20k members so that's not insignificant. I'm not saying that consideration should be foremost in T&V's choices, but nonetheless, it's a real effect.

It's easier to read classics than new authors for the same reason - we can easily list off 20 or 50 classics works in SFF. Newer, lesser known authors by definition don't have the same notoriety and you cannot read what you don't know about.

[Rob, Roberator]

I know what you meant. My point is while you think it's too much. I don't. Someone else may come along and say it's not enough.

All of what you say are valid, but they are still based on your preferences, which happen to be different than mine.

That's why I'm content to just leave it up Tom and Veronica.

[Rick]

Im fine with T& V making the choices too. I don't always like them (I ignore most of the Laser months) but that's fine - I just read other stuff.

However, you're not correct that 50% classics being too much is just my opinion. The group is about SFF *in general* so a focus on classic SFF would violate the spirit of that mission as would a focus on new authors or urban fantasy or any other single subgenre or time period. It's impossible to cover everything with only 12 slots a year. Again, one reason lists would be useful.

[Rob, Roberator]

Nope. Still your just opinion. There is no criteria of what the club picks should be apart from fantasy and sci fi. They don't always alternate each month either.

I think making quotas is a bad idea. I'm not suggesting we have one for classics.

One year we might read 3 classics the next 6, the year after maybe only 1.

You're also reading too much into the 6 books. I meant that as an upper bound.

[Michele]

I think Tom and Veronica are getting a good mix in our picks and hope they continue with choosing from the many different types of stuff out there. But for myself I'm going to try and mix in some more older works when I have the time, since I feel like my genre knowledge has a big gap in it - I seem to have skipped over most of early 20th century literature in general.

[Rick]

Rob wrote: "Nope. Still your just opinion. There is no criteria of what the club picks should be apart from fantasy and sci fi. They don't always alternate each month either.
Since I've been here they've alternated... for the last couple of years. And I think it's implied pretty strongly that it's ALL of SF&F, so, no, not just my opinion that a focus on classics (or any one thing) would be somewhat contrary to that - doing half of the selections as any one theme by definition means you're not dealing with the whole of the genre.

and... 6 books as an upper bound... eh. I still don't want to have that much of a focus on any one subgenre or time period. But then I don't care that much and am mostly avoiding the fact that my lawn needs mowing by posting here :)

Bottom line - over-focusing on anything in the official selections is a bad decision and if people find themselves drawn to something specific they can easily pursue that on their own... but using the collective knowledge of the club to help that would be very cool.

[Sean Lookielook]

Never trust a book over thirty. Kidding.

As to SF classics, the genre will always have the problem of reality diverging from, and sometimes surpassing, the imaginations of its authors. Cultures will continue to evolve and transform themselves into new and exciting forms. Sometimes these facts will detract from the storytelling, while other times they won't matter. The simple truth is that there will always be more "classic" titles than contemporary ones because the the former group continuously grows in size due to the inevitable passage of time.

In general, a book club is meant to challenge you, pull you out of your comfort zone, and introduce you to authors you normally wouldn't have read on your own. That means that by definition you are not going to like every book that is picked. Even Tom and Veronica have been less than thrilled by some of the picks. The point is to try new things and keep the ones you like. A book club is merely a group of people trying to share the experience of something they enjoyed with you. You don't have to like a particular book or genre, you don't even have to read them, but you should at least give them a chance. If you find you're not enjoying a pick, read something else that month.

I grew up on Cold War pulp sci-fi because they were cheap and plentiful in the used bookstores. That makes me a little biased towards them on purely nostalgic grounds, but I think the current mix is a good one. I would however like to see a real classic like H.G. Wells or Jules Verne every once in a while too.

[Rick]

I think our current mix is working pretty well. I'm already backlogged reading sequels to previous picks (Bobby Dollar #2 is out tomorrow, and the new Gentleman Bastard books should be coming in October).

That said, I do enjoy the classics and encourage people to read them in the correct historical context. Reading SF that is considered progressive in the 1950s and 1960s can teach you more about our societal development than most sociology courses.

As Michele mentions, it's also nice to read a novel that is uncluttered and has a single story arc.

[Alan]

Serendi wrote: "Maybe, for every book over 50, we should have an obligatory "Dated Attitudes" thread.

;-)"

Even if you're kidding, I think that's a great idea. The discussion around those issues can really swamp other topics of discussion. Creating a particular thread that focuses on them could help broaden the conversation.