Jump to content

SFF Novellist of the Decade


TheEvilKing

Recommended Posts

I would think that one might need a little more than a belief that one is writing SF to actually be considered an SF writer. After all, if that was all it took, then the opposite would also have to apply, and Terry Goodkind wouldn't be a fantasy writer. Speculative Fiction is a hard to define category (Science Fiction is somewhat narrower), but there should at least be something speculative about a book for it to be considered Speculative Fiction.

We could always apply the Atwood Measure, which states that a book is SF only if it has 'talking space squid' in it ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think that one might need a little more than a belief that one is writing SF to actually be considered an SF writer. After all, if that was all it took, then the opposite would also have to apply, and Terry Goodkind wouldn't be a fantasy writer. Speculative Fiction is a hard to define category (Science Fiction is somewhat narrower), but there should at least be something speculative about a book for it to be considered Speculative Fiction.

Re-read carefully what I said. Did I say he was/wasn't a "SF writer?" No, I said if he considers himself part of the "SF scene," then he is, for the simple reason that such an entity is much more about (self)perceptions than it is about definable attributes of what being a "SF writer" would entail. Bringing in the Goodkind corollary to Godwin's Law is not good, though. I didn't want to think of his chrome dome :ack:

And as for the "speculative" elements, there are some of those in Drown, if I recall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could always apply the Atwood Measure, which states that a book is SF only if it has 'talking space squid' in it ;)

Talking space squids do add a hell of a lot to a story. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single bad story that featured a talking space squid. But this goes to my point; Atwood writes Spec. Fiction, whatever she believes. And so does Rowling, and so does Goodkind, and so do the so-called "non genre" speculative writers (i.e. the magical realists). One's belief in whether or not they are writing SF has nothing to do with whether or not they are actually writing SF.

I remember last year when it seemed like everyone on this board was reading Zafon's The Shadow of the Wind, and most people seemed to think it, or class it, as Speculative Fiction. I can't recall anything about the book that was speculative. When I pointed this out, the best response I got was "Well, it feels like Spec. Fic.". Sure, it had a definite vibe to it that reminded me strongly of some of the magical realists, but that doesn't make it magical realism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re-read carefully what I said. Did I say he was/wasn't a "SF writer?" No, I said if he considers himself part of the "SF scene," then he is, for the simple reason that such an entity is much more about (self)perceptions than it is about definable attributes of what being a "SF writer" would entail.

Well, since you brought up his name in a thread entitled "SFF Novelist of the Decade", and then defended his standing when someone pointed out that he was not yet an SFF novelist, I assumed that you were putting him forward as an SFF novelist. Sorry if I misinterpreted your point.

Bringing in the Goodkind corollary to Godwin's Law is not good, though. I didn't want to think of his chrome dome :ack:

Godwin's Law only applies when the comparison to Hitler, or in this case Goodkind, is not valid. Since we were talking about the belief in whether or not one writes SFF makes one an SFF writer, and since Goodkind is notorious for claiming he does not write fantasy, the comparison was entirely valid, and so not a breach of Godwin's Law. Also, his chrome dome is fairly gross.

And as for the "speculative" elements, there are some of those in Drown, if I recall.

I haven't read Diaz, and so can't comment. His books could be the defining works of the talking space squid sub genre for all I know. I was making more a general point, than anything specific against any one author.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's more a matter of interpretation/defining than anything substantive. I consider him to be associated with the SF scene because of what he has written in the past; others will not. I will agree that he has not been marketed as one, although certainly he has been praised by several in SF fandom over the past few years.

The Goodkind bit was in reference to anything that brings his name into a discussion, nothing more than that :P

If I wanted to make a more general point (and thus derail this thread), I'd argue about the merits of even having presumed "genres," but I don't have the time/energy for that right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember last year when it seemed like everyone on this board was reading Zafon's The Shadow of the Wind, and most people seemed to think it, or class it, as Speculative Fiction. I can't recall anything about the book that was speculative. When I pointed this out, the best response I got was "Well, it feels like Spec. Fic.". Sure, it had a definite vibe to it that reminded me strongly of some of the magical realists, but that doesn't make it magical realism.

Agreed. I'd say that applies to Bolano's 2666 as well. I consider this work one of the overall novels of the decade, but I didn't include Bolano in my earlier list in this thread, as I don't really see the novel as exhibiting much in the way of speculative elements. I did get a Marquez-style magical realism vibe at times, especially with "The Part about Archimboldi", but unless I completely misread something here I'm a bit baffled as to why this one is sometimes thrown into the SFF category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to go with Terry Goodkind, The Sword of Truth is the best fantasy series I've ever read. The characters are so deep and believable I cried when it was over. They even turned it into a wonderful television show that rivals the best shows ever.

Hehe, seriously though I would go with R. Scott Bakker. I've enjoyed a lot of different novels this decade but none of them have made me think as much as this one. I couldn't put the series down after I started. It ranks up there with the best I've ever read. Considering I have only been reading scifi fantasy for basically this decade (since I graduated high school), it might not seem like much but I think its right up there with my two favorite series, ASOIAF and Dune. Its funny but I never read scifi until I saw the Dune miniseries on SciFi. Decided to pick up the Dune series and I haven't stopped since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally have to go with Steven Erikson. Nine huge novels, 3 novellas and 3 short stories is pretty mammoth production for a decade (1999-2009). For me books 1-5 were all 9/10 at least, and books 8 and 9 seem to be on that level too. He said he would do a ten novel series and he has done it with a minimum of fuss - he's made it look easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My pick as well. I'm not nearly as well-read in the genre as a lot of the regulars here, but from what I have completed, he beats any and all challengers hands down in terms of prose, characterization, depth of thought and thematic exploration. It's difficult to even frame a comparison of The Judging Eye or TDtCb with, say, the work of Rothfuss or Lynch, which appear as cute and amusing semi-YA in contrast.
Gosh, you really are a proper Bakker fan boy, aren't you? Why isn't is possible for you to say why you like an author without being condescending about some of the other authors who were proposed by the OP? Semi-YA? Really? And if you think that Bakker's prose is anything to write home about then, no, you're not very well read - in the genre or otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re-read carefully what I said. Did I say he was/wasn't a "SF writer?" No, I said if he considers himself part of the "SF scene," then he is, for the simple reason that such an entity is much more about (self)perceptions than it is about definable attributes of what being a "SF writer" would entail. Bringing in the Goodkind corollary to Godwin's Law is not good, though. I didn't want to think of his chrome dome :ack:

And as for the "speculative" elements, there are some of those in Drown, if I recall.

Call me crazy, but I would say that the most obvious definition of an "SFF Novellist" is someone who has written a novel, which is either science fiction or fantasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read 15 or so books published in the past decade by only one author. In fact, only one author I can think of that breaks ten. This person has never had the best novel of the year, IMO, but has always been in the top ten.

Novelist of the decade?

Charlie Stross.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I created this thread (out of nothing) I may as well reply.

I'm torn between Bakker and Abercrombie. Totally different kinds of writers. While I prefer Abercrombie's latest book to The Judging Eye, Bakker had the better trilogy, and therefore gets my vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I turned half of you on to Bakker and Abercrombie, directly or indirectly.

But neither deserves this title at all. Please pull your head out of you small corner of SFF, please. If you meant to say Epic Fantasy, then feel free to actually say epic fantasy. But neither of these folks have had much of an impact on anything. Including sales charts and awards lists.

Mieville is rational -- he helped start a movement. There are som other rational choices. Gaiman, for instance, had two Hugo winning novels, multiple movies, a handful of bestsellers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm…

I’m also not well-enough read to say anything definitive.

Based on board recommendations, in SF I’ve subjected myself to Mieville, Stephenson, and Morgan. Mieville rocked my boat, and Morgan was very good. Stephenson I couldn’t finish. I was speaking at an SF con two weeks ago where Stross was Guest of Honour, so I talked about the singularity and strong AI and other things, so I tried to read a bit of Stross, but also couldn’t finish.

In Fantasy, I’ve read Lynch, Rothfuss, Abercrombie, Ruckley, Bakker, Gaiman, Rowling, Clarke, and even Jordan. Some of these (Rowling, Jordan, Rothfuss) are not for me. Some others I found entertaining and will continue reading (Lynch, Abercrombie, Ruckley). Gaiman and Clarke rocked my boat. Also, Chabon is veryveryvery good, but I’m not interested in debating genre boundaries.

My vote goes to Bakker, by a landslide.

… unless we admit GRRM, of course.

With Storm and Feast he continues writing the greatest story ever told. So he ties with Bakker. But Bakker most closely fits the “of the decade†billing, being new and fresh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mieville is rational -- he helped start a movement. There are som other rational choices. Gaiman, for instance, had two Hugo winning novels, multiple movies, a handful of bestsellers.

Well, Mieville is credited as starting a movement. He was actually just in the right place at the right time just as a bunch of authors doing similar stuff came out. He didn't even coin the buzzword (that was VanderMeer, IIRC). The New Weird's importance to the genre is often overstated, simply due to the sheer number of books which fit neatly into its definitions before it supposedly even existed.

If I did give my vote to Mieville, it would purely be on the grounds of the very high quality of his work, regardless of what it did or didn't do elsewhere.

Gaiman's 2000s work has been disappointing compared to his 1980s and 1990s heyday, although still very strong when compared to other writers. But American Gods really just is an inferior rewrite of Sandman in novel form with a very boring protagonist.

Stross? Maybe. I only read one book by his (Accelerando) and it was so bad I couldn't finish it, but I need to check out some of his other stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter F Hamilton, for my money. He entered the decade having to top The Night's Dawn trilogy - that was never going to be easy but he's done it. He hasn't invented a new genre and sure, there are better writers out there, but he's a natural storyteller with a wild imagination, a tonne of fun to read and he writes to a consistently high standard. He's the best at what he does IMO.

But yeah, I don't read a lot of new SFF these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gosh, you really are a proper Bakker fan boy, aren't you? Why isn't is possible for you to say why you like an author without being condescending about some of the other authors who were proposed by the OP? Semi-YA? Really? And if you think that Bakker's prose is anything to write home about then, no, you're not very well read - in the genre or otherwise.

Yeah, really. Get over yourself. I placed a cavaet early in the post stating that I don't read SF/F to anywhere near the extent of other posters; in the last few years I've read Lynch, Rothfuss, Bakker and Erikson, as those are the big names people continually talk about and make threads about. Hence, I made a subjective opinion based on that contrasting experience. And IMO, Bakker was on another level than the other three, by a large margin. I enjoyed Lynch and Rothfuss, but they were nothing all that impressive (at least not beyond standard genre boundaries; both were entertaining to a greater or lesser extent), and the latter certainly straddles the YA threshold, the odd muted rape scene notwithstanding.

Of course, I usually devote my reading time to historical primary texts or literature, so I'm sure that has something to do with my opinion. Then again, I guess there was no need to state what I normally read, as you've already constructed an entire judgement on my being "well read", right? As if that term means anything. The only "well read" individuals on this message board, from a hierarchy standpoint, would narrow down to Dylanfanatic and Stego, maybe a couple others I'm forgetting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah! Found another one.

I nominate Phillip Pullman, whose Dark Materials were actually only finished this decade. Thematically, this work stands head and shoulders above almost anything else I’ve read in the genre, excepting Bakker, Mievielle, Duncan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pullman's not a bad choice, but the first two books of His Dark Materias were published last decade, and the third barely squeaks by, having been published in 2000.

What's the big deal about Gaiman again? He seems to have a lot of fans, but American Gods was mildly entertaining at best. The only other thing I've read by him was a short story in Legends 2, which wasn't that great. Am I missing one of his major works?

If people are going to keep including in incredibly non-prolific George R.R. Martin, then I feel compelled to nominate J.R.R. Tolkien, whose 2007 book The Children of Hurin is still better than most of the stuff I read this decade. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people are going to keep including in incredibly non-prolific George R.R. Martin, [...]

Storm was released in 2000, so half of his magnum epos, including what many believe the best single volume in epic fantasy, was released in this decade.

(Or are we among numerate people, who think this decade is 2001–2010? Then Pullman and Chabon are out, and Martin has only released a single book.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...