![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conulyis 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2020-09-10 12:21 am (UTC)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!
no subject
Date: 2020-09-13 01:49 am (UTC)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!