I'm a week late, but I just found out that Octavia Butler

[conuly]

is finally on the NY Times bestseller list.

In recognition of this, I googled up and found what is, hands down, one of the most infuriating Amazon reviews I've ever read. I cannot even articulate exactly what I find so mindbogglingly clueless about it, but every time this review pops into my head I want to find the man who wrote it and irritate him as much as his review has irritated me.

Well written and somewhat interesting, but it falls into what I consider a "quasi" SF genre. Both stories are essentially social commentaries and the "science" associated with them is minimal. The concept of writing socially sensitive stories within a SF framework is very common - most of Heinlein and Ellison's work is in that vein, just to name two. The problem I have is that the first story is closer to science fantasy than hard SF, and while the second deals with psionic powers, a traditional SF topic, it is so short that it was over before I really got into it. Its all a matter of taste, but I could not recommend the book.

As an aside, while the author is identified as famous within the SF circle, the circle referenced must be very small; as an avid SF reader since the late 50s and owner of over 2000 SF books I have never heard of her.

It's that little last aside that sends me over the top, the way he blithely assumes that she's not that famous rather than that he doesn't read widely enough.

Comments

[sovay]

as an avid SF reader since the late 50s and owner of over 2000 SF books I have never heard of her.

Well, then he wasn't a very good reader.

(It's very How to Suppress Women's Writing all over.)

[conuly]

(It's very How to Suppress Women's Writing all over.)

Yup. You notice that his reference points in his review are Heinlein and Ellison.

[dewline]

Clearly, that reviewer has not kept pace with the expansion of the genre. My reading tastes are limited somewhat, but I know enough to have heard of Butler. Friends of mine recommend her work, and I have read - if memory serves - at least one of her works back in high school. At the Regina Public Library.

She's not as obscure as this person believes or wants believed.

[conuly]

I'd go so far as to say that she's an enormous influence on the current crop of sci-fi and fantasy writers.

[moon_custafer]

…it falls into what I consider a "quasi" SF genre. Both stories are essentially social commentaries and the "science" associated with them is minimal. The concept of writing socially sensitive stories within a SF framework is very common - most of Heinlein and Ellison's work is in that vein, just to name two. The problem I have is that the first story is closer to science fantasy than hard SF, and while the second deals with psionic powers, a traditional SF topic, it is so short that it was over before I really got into it.

The logic seems to be:
1. It’s not hard SF, it’s social commentary
2. OK, so two SF authors I respect wrote SF that was primarily social commentary, but
3. One of the stories is more Fantasy than SF, and the other deals with psionic powers
4. OK, psionic powers are a classic SF trope, but the story was too short

That’s a lot of benchmark-shuffling to say “ok, but not my personal cup of tea.”

[alexseanchai]

it's also very first-edition cover of Joanna Russ's How to Suppress Women's Writing

[wpadmirer]

OMG, what an ignoramus! He may own over 2,000 SF books, but if he hasn't heard of Butler, he's not all that well-read.

[conuly]

That's what I told him.

[gatheringrivers]

Didn't Asimov alone write something close to that number of books?

(I have also read Heinlein and Ellison, but they ARE a product of their times, shall we say...)

[conuly]

(I have also read Heinlein and Ellison, but they ARE a product of their times, shall we say...)

And they don't always age well. Well, that's true for a great many authors who were giants in their field.

[erinptah]

Wikia puts him at 506. Although a good chunk of the list is anthologies he edited and didn't necessarily write anything for, and it looks like another chunk is short (think 32 pages) collections of Science Facts For Children.

...no shade to Asimov, it's still an impressive number of full-length novels. (And much shade to the "I've never heard of this Hugo-and-Nebula-winning author, it must be because she's not popular" guy.)

[blueswan]

Curious how someone familiar with SF can't know Octavia Butler, as she has won Hugos and Nebulas. Seriously, not just one, multiple wins. The reviewer has hopefully been called on this. I have books by her on my shelves along with Heinlein and Ellison.

[conuly]

Yo, I can't even. If you'd like to say it to them, I can link to the review.

[wendelah1]

She's really well-known. She's won several awards, including a MacArthur genius grant. She has a wing devoted to her papers at the Huntington Library. That guy is a total ignoramus.

[conuly]

Oh, I know.

[silveradept]

I am unsurprised at this review and the ignorance it displays, given that this reads strongly like someone saying "since a woman wrote it, it can't possibly be SF. I might be willing to call it fantasy if I'm feeling generous."

I'm betting you found someone who would complain long and loud about the AO3 Hugo, as well, and how the place was just better before we let all the Other in.

[conuly]

My brimful of fury doesn't mean I was terribly surprised to find him.

[jessie_c]

I can't qwhite figure out what his problem is.

He has 2000 books? I just recently moved into a small Condo, and I'm ready to give that many books to the used bookstore just as soon as this plague lifts and I can get over there.

I can't stand amateurs who think they know it all.

[hudebnik]

To be fair, he said he has 2000 SF books. Which I'm pretty sure is more than shalmestere and I have, even if you include the whole SF-Fantasy spectrum.

As it happens, we're in the process of boxing up the books in our spare bedroom, in preparation for a renovation, so we've been more aware of the numbers. The spare bedroom houses most of the hardback fiction (only about half of which is F/SF), as well as some periodicals. We boxed maybe 200 books before running out of boxes last night, and it looks like there are 3x that many still on the shelves (not counting the periodicals), then probably 400 fiction paperbacks (mostly F/SF) in the attic. So it's at most 1000 F/SF books.

(Non-fiction is in the dining room, living room, and upstairs hallway. Probably another thousand there. Oh, and there are a few hundred books in boxes in the basement, mostly cookbooks that lost their home in the kitchen renovation.)

[gwydion]

Fucksake. I knew and liked her short stories at 14. I remember one I read in probably Asimovs when I was baby sitting in probably '84 that haunts me still and I've never seen it again. She's been publishing for most of my life.

[conuly]

Well, she's stopped, given how soon we lost her.

[swingandswirl]

The stupid, it burns us, precious.

Seriously, this jagoff's complete lack of self-awareness would be funny if it weren't so damn pathetic. (And I'm pretty sure that if you've been reading SFF since the late 50s and haven't heard of Butler, the issue is you, not her.)

[conuly]

I'm pretty sure that if you've been reading SFF since the late 50s and haven't heard of Butler, the issue is you, not her.

Her esteem has only been rising in the years since her death. You'd have to have been nearly under a rock.

[hudebnik]

Frankly, I had never knowingly heard of Octavia Butler until ten years ago, although I tend to treat people's names as a blur until they're of specific importance to me so I may have encountered it fleetingly.

I grew up in the 1970's (about the time Butler was emerging) reading a lot of Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury, and that generation. Which included Norton, McCaffrey, LeGuin, and Zenna Henderson (all born well before WWII), so there were a bunch of female voices in the mix, but not Butler. In the 1980's and 1990's I guess I didn't read a lot of F/SF, so missed the peak of Butler's career.

[conuly]

Ten years ago is around when she died - she started becoming more well-known, ironically, at that point... or at least, I started hearing people talk about her more then. I remember when I first discovered her it was like a little secret, the best writer people hadn't heard of.

[thewayne]

Yeah, the old "if she's famous, why haven't I ever heard of her?" He's setting himself up as a gatekeeper of all that is good and pure. If he's still devoted to Heinlein and Ellison, there's not much hope for him. Not that there's nothing wrong with going back to them now and again, it's that there's so much more out there. Makes me wonder how many Asian authors, or African authors, or Mexican authors, that he's read.

This is why I buy supporting WorldCon memberships: those Hugo nominees are so amazing! I know there's a huge number of authors new to me that I'll otherwise never get exposed to, and this is one way for me to meet the works of some of the best of the best.

[bitterlawngnome]

What a shame "penisolent" has fallen out of usage.

[bibliofile]

And yet here you are, using it. And now more of us know about it! You may have started a trend. (We can only hope.)

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

You hold him and I'll punch him! Never heard of Octavia Butler, eh? Yeah, as an avid female SF reader since the early 60's, who's known a whole slew of the male SF fans of My Generation, I'll hazard a guess that his library of over 2000 SF books contains less than 5% by female authors and less than 2% by non-white authors. Therefore it's not that surprising that he "never heard of" probably THE most famous Black woman SF writer.

Hah, and since he cites Heinlein and Ellison as writing "socially sensitive stories within a SF framework", I will hazard a further guess: that 90% or more of his library of over 2000 SF books are old-school hard-science SF, the sort that's basically science-y story-problems acted out by cardboard characters: the Hero, the Old Guy, the Nerd, and the Chick (who need have no personal attributes at all, besides her essential chickness.) Heinlein and Ellison at least wrote some female characters distinctive enough to be remembered by name - which was something, back in the day when everybody else was writing interchangeable Chicks - but the sexism, it burns, it burrrnnnsss. So does Ellison's earnest attempt to be Cool About Race, sincere and well-meant as it doubtless was.

Anyway, I can see this reviewer before me, as I read his words, having met so many of his type over the past half-century. They're a bunch of dinosaurs, lumbering around still longing for the Good Old Days when characters didn't HAVE to be 'socially sensitive', and could just get on with playing with their fancy spacecraft, weapons, and other high-tech toys. Character development optional, or even extraneous, especially female characters. LOL, as the evil Mantrid put it, "A love-slave with a personality? How peculiar." Used to be, anyway!

[conuly]

Therefore it's not that surprising that he "never heard of" probably THE most famous Black woman SF writer.

SERIOUSLY.

She's won multiple awards! She has stuff named after her! She is, arguably, the *biggest* influence on modern sf writers. (Or at least, the ones worth reading.)

Anyway, I can see this reviewer before me, as I read his words, having met so many of his type over the past half-century. They're a bunch of dinosaurs, lumbering around still longing for the Good Old Days when characters didn't HAVE to be 'socially sensitive', and could just get on with playing with their fancy spacecraft, weapons, and other high-tech toys. Character development optional, or even extraneous, especially female characters. LOL, as the evil Mantrid put it, "A love-slave with a personality? How peculiar." Used to be, anyway!

Preach it.

After I posted this, btw, I went and checked his other reviews, and let me just say it's shocking - and I mean that honestly! - the sort of things he's giving four and five stars to. I've read some of those authors. They're... just... I don't want to admit reading them even for the cause of panning their writing!