I guess the writer of this article has a problem with Leigh Brackett.
Well, anyone who uses the term "sci-fi fantasy novels" isn't too terribly full of clue.
Nor is she too clear on the definition of "novel"...given these deficits, it's not Too terrible a list.
Perhaps the website has someone who thinks they're a copy-editor, who removed the solidi from the first two citations of "[sf]/fantasy novel"...
I would have liked each book on the list to include a sentence or two explaining (in Jo Walton's words) what makes this book so great. Just providing the title and author gives me no frame of reference.
Well, I guess you could call a vampire novel (Charlaine Harris) "fantasy" if you want to.
Well, yes. All horror fiction (by which I mean fantasticated suspense fiction, rather than "realistic" horror fiction, which I call suspense fiction...PSYCHO on over is suspense) is fantasy. Why wouldn't it be?
There's a difference between fantasy and myth, I think...I make this point because the first book on the list that really stopped me was Mary Stewart's The Crystal Cave (which I read at least 40 years ago, and not since). Yes, it has magic/supernatural in it, but I the context of that being a myth about the world (I thing, anyway). And, perhaps more importantly, it's not her myth. I think I'd say much the same thing about The Mists of Avalon. (I might be over-thinking this.)
It's a good point, Don. When I was a kid, I thought of the Greek myths as being the same as fairy tales and fantasy stories, but now I don't. Not quite, anyway.
Anyone who says "sci-fi" automatically lacks credibility.
This generation accepts the term "sci-"fi. I blame the "syfy" channel for that. They also don't get the idea that reality television is not reality and is barely television with the exception being COPS.I don't say the list is accurate. I do say the list is interesting.Thank you, Bill, for the hat tip.
And where's C. L. Moore?
Sci-fi was the first shortening of science fiction I lean red, in the latter half of the 1950s, and was common usage then. It became ill-favored in the 1960s, as I recall and a real bone of contention by 1975, viewed with disparagement. So I still think it's okay to say sci-fi, though I don't write it (except in a statement like this) and what the TV station did with it is just stupid.
Well...the reason some of us don't like "sci-fi" is that Forrest Ackerman, when he coined it, was willing to embrace the worst sort of thing that can be considered sf, and, frankly, it simply corrupts the words themselves, and condescends to them and the field. That people who don't know much about anything are the most enthusiastic users of the term never helps, and I do enjoy the notion that "syfy" (aside from being trademarkable) is a slang abbreviation of syphilis. So, aside from that, nothing wrong with it.
Fiction dealing with myth does tend to be fantasy, unless great effort is made to make it something else. The myths themselves, including the currently popular ones, are arguably something else again.
The current generation grew up hearing "sci-fi" and thinks nothing is wrong with it. These days when I read a comment complaining about it somewhere I know the person is around my age or older due to the complaint.
Post a Comment