|
|
Uber User
Posts: 237
Location: Grootfontein, Namibia | An article by Paulo Bacigalupi.
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/06/pl_cyberpunk/
A different choice of headline would have made the article a lot more meaningful. It's almost as if he has no historical understanding of SF, and to box Clarke, Asimov and Heinlein the way he did, is narrow minded. And to talk about 'course correction' implies SF were just wrong, or heading who knows where. I would have much preferred a term such as 'alternative ventures' or even something as bromidic as "next level progression" or "new trend."
But I guess he's setting his discourse up to introduce the next 'course direction,' which are narratives like his "The Windup Girl." He does seem oblivious about Aldiss "Hothouse" and Hellonica series, or even JG Ballard's "Drowned World" or other similar apocalyptic incantations.
All in all I do not think the article does him any justice.
(He is still an awesome writer. And visionary. Perhaps he should remain focused on the future and leave SF history alone.)
Oh, thanks to @htaccess for the link. | |
| | |
Uber User
Posts: 263
Location: Gunnison, Colorado | Thanks for pointing to this. While the argument is overly simplistic (clearly he wanted to keep it short), I do think P.B. has a point about the '80s, which is when I was losing interest in SF. The "big three" were making the bestseller list and, whatever the merit of those books, they weren't breaking new ground. Yeah, he ignores Helliconia and other interesting work from that time, but "new wavers" like Ballard and Aldiss weren't nearly as prominent as within the field and Orson Scott Card seemed like the next big thing (and this is also when epic fantasy was really booming). I don't know how qualified P.B. is to make sweeping generalizations about SF history, but I do know that he grew up as a fan, and it doesn't surprise me that the field looked this way to him at the time, even if it's not an entirely accurate assessment. I actually have a little more trouble with the idea that current writers aren't engaging with the present, than with his characterization of the '80s... | |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 1031
Location: UK | In all the arts,the young come along and despise their predecessors,only in time to be pushed aside.it is a natural process.When the New Wave came along many jumped on the bandwagon,and thought flashy style and trendy topics was enough.Time winnows them away and we are left with those who had substance as well as style.Cyberpunk was another bandwagon,this time flashy technology,and once again time has winnowed awy the chaff,and those authors are now an older generation.Bandwagons are fun,and useful for shaking people out of their rut,but it is wrong to assume that the bandwagon was the only one on the road.Many authors were quietly walking their own path,some older stars were still producing fine work (Pohl's Gateway for one) and lots of fine writers were quietly building up their SF credentials in their own way- Cherryh,Haldeman,GRR Martin,Vonda Macintyre,Frank Herbert to name a few..These movements which garner great fanfare are very essential as they foment new ideas,which then percolate to others.But lets not believe that they are the be all and and all,nor disparage older styles.In fact those older type books are still being read today just as avidly as the modern books.Look at us enjoying the Grand Masters! :0) | |
| |
|
Did Cyberpunk really save Science Fiction?