The Chronicles Network Hall of Fame - Discussion Thread

[iansales]

If you're reading "growth" as "popularity," then I'm afraid you've read the thrust of my comments incorrectly.

What meaning of "growth" did you intend? Growth as in maturity of themes and/or styles?

 

[star.torturer]

could havve ment, how many books are published

 

[iansales]

Discrete titles or authors? Or number of units published or sold?

Epic fantasies certainly out-sell science fiction novels (mostly)... which would equate to popularity.

If you mean discrete authors/titles published... Fantasy may be a smaller field but the number of best-selling authors I should think would be the same (if not larger) than for SF. They are, after all, a minority in both genres...

 

[Shoegaze99]

What meaning of "growth" did you intend? Growth as in maturity of themes and/or styles?

Yes, I am talking about growth in terms of artistic maturity. I assumed using terms like “artistic growth” and “assess its worth” and “overall quality and long-term merit” would make that clear, but I suppose that wasn’t the case. Consider this post a clarification.

While I understand that Culhwch is looking at it more as a Chronicles Favorites list (and that’s cool by me), when I see “Hall Of Fame” I look at it from that perspective – items worthy of being included in a Hall Of Fame. And from that perspective, science fiction will tend to skew older, not because older science fiction was better, but because science fiction went through the kind of artistic growth cycles that modern fantasy is still in the midst of, hence its key landmark works skew older than key landmark works of fantasy.

That won’t always be the case, of course – there are no absolutes here – but if Tolkien is the father of modern fantasy (and while one could endlessly debate his influences and sources, no objective person could deny that he created the template for what is now the “fantasy” section in bookstores), well, The Lord Of The Rings wasn’t published until the mid-1950s, and wasn’t widely popularized until the 60s. If the 70s and 80s saw lots of post-Tolkien “pulp” fantasy, the 90s and 00s have seen lots of maturation in the genre.

H.G. Wells, meanwhile, laid down the foundation for what we would come to call science fiction in the 1920s and 1930s, a ‘new’ genre that exploded with writers in the coming decades, writers who would explore innumerable corners of the genre in the coming decades. If the 40s and 50s saw lots of pulp following Wells’ success, the 60s and 70s saw a lot of maturation in the genre.

So if we’re talking a two- to three-decade difference between the time of each respective genre’s “birth” – again, both genres predate Wells and Tolkien, but it was with the popularity of each that they were truly “born” into what we now recognize as science fiction and fantasy, respectively – then it stands to reason that a great many fantasy landmarks, works of artistic import, and strides in changing what the genre can be will lag behind by two or three decades.

Much as I like a lot of modern science fiction, seems to me that a lot of the truly key works began to peter out in the 70s (with exceptions, of course; Gibson, for instance – there are always noteworthy exceptions). Meanwhile, two or three decades later, we’re seeing a spate of fantasy works that may well end up being time-tested landmarks when all is said and done (Martin’s series, for instance; or Mieville).

It’s not a matter of better or worse, it’s a matter of science fiction getting the lead on that sharp upswing of artistic growth, then naturally leveling out as any new art form will, while modern fantasy is still on that sharp upswing, probably leveling out in another 10 or 15 years.

And obviously, all of this presupposes that Culhwch is looking to pull together a “Hall Of Fame” in the sense I’m talking about here. Obviously, he’s not … so much of this is irrelevant, anyway.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

If you look at the number of votes that are in so far, you'll see that it represents a very, very small sampling of members' opinions, so I think it would be premature to draw any conclusions at all. (Although I, personally, don't expect the mix of SF and Fantasy to be very different in the long run, going by the thrust of the conversations elsewhere in the forum. Still, at this point, a couple of SF enthusiasts who are in agreement would alter the look of the list rather drastically, at least for a while.)

 

[iansales]

H.G. Wells, meanwhile, laid down the foundation for what we would come to call science fiction in the 1920s and 1930s, a ‘new’ genre that exploded with writers in the coming decades, writers who would explore innumerable corners of the genre in the coming decades. If the 40s and 50s saw lots of pulp following Wells’ success, the 60s and 70s saw a lot of maturation in the genre.

See, now even this is debatable Wells was being published at the tail-end of the nineteenth century, but it was Gernsback who created the genre of science fiction with the publication of Amazing Stories in 1926. Admittedly, he did reprint several of Wells's stories, but it could be argued he was back-fitting the inventor of the "scientific romance" into the newly-formed genre.

Then again, if you look at fantasy, at works such as Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword (1954), or Moorcock's Elric novels (1963 - 1991), or even Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser stories (from 1939)... all classics. Compare that with SF classics--from Asimov's Foundation (1951), through Herbert's Dune (1965), to Gibson's Neuromancer (1984)... And yet, no one nominated any novels by Peter F Hamilton, Alastair Reynolds, Kevin J Anderson--all popular recent SF authors.

I think you have a point, but I think the results of the "Hall of Fame" list aren't evidence of it. But as Teresa also points out, the list is from a tiny sample of the board's members...

 

[Brys]

Out of interest, why not vote for Altered Carbon over Neuromancer?

Um, Never Let Me Go... Even thought it was shortlisted for the Arthur C Clarke Award, it's difficult to think of it as science fiction... given that mainstream writers all too often deny that their novels are SF even when they patently are. Like PD James' The Children of Men, or Maggie Gee's The Ice People

Because Neuromancer IMO does everything that Altered Carbon does, but better. Neuromancer is more inventive and imaginative and better written. Admittedly Altered Carbon was a very good novel, but Neuromancer IMO is the best of the subgenre. Never Let Me Go is definitely a science fiction novel - at its core is the SFnal concept of cloning. It's considered mainstream more because Ishiguro has in the past tended to write mainstream novels, but it's as legitimate to say Never Let Me Go is science fiction as to say Flowers for Algernon is science fiction.

To address the point more generally - perhaps people have been voting for more recent fantasy but for older science fiction is because better fantasy novels have been published recently? This may not be the case, I haven't read enough SF to say - but has science fiction had such novels as important as China Mieville's Perdido Street Station, or are their series to compare to George RR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire? What would you suggest then of the last 10 years in science fiction that should be on those lists? (As for KJA, you might as well ask why haven't people put Terry Goodkind into the top 10).

The more obvious point is that more people read fantasy than science fiction, both on these forums and in the public as a whole, so that it should be dominated by fantasy isn't particularly surprising, nor is it surprising that modern fantasy dominates. Finally, more people have read the classics of science fiction than of fantasy (proportionally). In fantasy, there is a tendency to (eroneously) assume that the only important classic fantasy author is Tolkien, and it is "the" classic in a lot of reader's minds. In science fiction it's much harder to find just one seminal work - so readers may read Dune, Foundation, Neuromancer, Rendezvous with Rama or many others all of which are very distinct. The fact that a similar variety exists within fantasy isn't important, it's that people know they exist which is important. I think most people on these forums have heard of Asimov, Herbert, and Clarke - far fewer will have heard of Poul Anderson, Fritz Leiber and sadly, even Michael Moorcock. They're all very good authors, but they aren't read much. And I think there is work just as good being done today as was done then.

 

[Trey Greyjoy]

Personally I find it awkward to vote for individual books rather than the series as a whole. Id rather re-read a Martin than just about anything else at the moment and a re-read of any Tolkien work would come in second. I did the best I can but putting the 4 released ASOIAF books in the top 4 seems like its somewhat misrepresentative.

 

[Rane Longfox]

You would seriously put A Feast for Crows as the fourth best book you've ever read?

 

[Shoegaze99]

I did the best I can but putting the 4 released ASOIAF books in the top 4 seems like its somewhat misrepresentative.

Yeah, I'd agree that that was an ... unusual choice. Why not just pick one of them and let it represent the series for you? I mean, don't you find it odd that almost 50 percent of your "favorite books of all time" list is made up of books from a single unfinished four-book series?

 

[Culhwch]

Yeah, well. I think it is a valid choice, if a little skewed. If they're his four favourite books, then obviously they would fill out the four top spots of his list. It's only the first vote for AFfC, and the second I think for ACoK, so it's not actually going to have that great an effect on the list.

On series vs individual books: I just felt it was unfair to compare a series of three, four, nine, seventeen (it'll happen....) books to one single three hundred page book. And I know within series I have my favourite books, so I sort of assumed others would, too. And as I have stated, a vote for a single book in a series will count as a vote for the series, as I'll combine all votes into a series list. I felt that doing it this way would actually be more representative of an entire series and how it rates - if a number of books in a series (ASoIaF, Malazan) accumulate votes rather than just one (Riftwar), then that says something about the overall quality of the series. Of course, that remains to be seen. And I'm sure it'll get kicked around here once I get time to tabulate and post it.

For now I'm off to update the list. There's been some movement in the last day or so. I've also extended it to a top twenty-five now that there is more definition near the top.

 

[Trey Greyjoy]

Yeah, I'd agree that that was an ... unusual choice. Why not just pick one of them and let it represent the series for you? I mean, don't you find it odd that almost 50 percent of your "favorite books of all time" list is made up of books from a single unfinished four-book series?

Yes I do

The reason why I didnt pick just one is that there are 2 GRRM books already on the list. Why should I let one of my favorites fall when there are books on the list I feel are inferior to anything in the ASOIAF series?

 

[Trey Greyjoy]

You would seriously put A Feast for Crows as the fourth best book you've ever read?

Yes. Its part of the best fantasy series Ive read. And the series as a whole stands (imo) much higher than most of the others on the list. Certainly I devoured it with more zest and enthusiasm than the Feist or Erickson novels, so Im afraid its the nature of the list.

So I hope this "list" and its discussion doesnt devolve into a "you have no taste so your vote shouldnt count" argument.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

The reason why I didnt pick just one is that there are 2 GRRM books already on the list. Why should I let one of my favorites fall when there are books on the list I feel are inferior to anything in the ASOIAF series?

I think, perhaps, we should all resist the temptation to make up our lists based on what the tally already reveals. That could allow people who come in later to manipulate the lists to the advantage of their favorite authors, and that would hardly be fair.

 

[Trey Greyjoy]

Well, as soon as I saw it up there the contamination had already occured in my mind before I voted.

What I have seen others do in the past is to rank the series in the list, then ask for people to vote separately on each book of the series to better gauge the merits of each.

EG:
http://www.geocities.com/area51/cavern/6113/t100256.txt

Again Ill have to say "sorry" but this series is what brought me back into the genre, and I truly believe it to be stronger than anything out there. (notwithstanding the historical influence of Tolkien etc etc)

 

[Shoegaze99]

I’d agree that thus far, it’s among the very best fantasy of the last ten years, probably even longer.

But in keeping with statements I made earlier in the thread, philosophically I just couldn’t vote for them. Forget about the books being too recent to properly assess in a broader context, but because the series isn’t even done yet. I’m not AT ALL insulting your choice. I love the series, too. It’s a totally, totally legitimate choice on your part, and I do not question that in the least.

For me, though, casting votes for those books would be like announcing that a movie is the greatest film you’ve ever seen at the halfway point in the movie, without even seeing it to the end. How it continues, ends, wraps up, if it maintains its quality, etc., this is important to me when making such judgements. Series like Martin’s I tend to consider one really, really (really) long book … so if it doesn’t finish strong, the whole is lesser because of it. Jordan’s Wheel Of Time is the very best example of this.

So far I think Martin’s work has been remarkable, but for me – for me, not for you – it’s too soon to fully judge, lacking the kind of distance you need for a solid objective evaluation, and is as yet incomplete, making it difficult to really weigh the way I like to weigh “Hall Of Fame” stuff.

Just my take. I entirely appreciate your perspective here.

EDIT: Some spelling fixed

 

[Trey Greyjoy]

Well put Shoegaze!

Admittedly Im an out of control fan! I think I need professional help....

 

[Rane Longfox]

I wasn't saying that it shouldn't be in your list, it's just that I'm suprised you've never read anything you'd find better than aFfC, which I personally thought wasn't up to Martin's normal high standard.

But, you know, to each their own

 

[Culhwch]

But surely, Shoegaze, you can judge the quality of one book on it's own merits, even if the series isn't done, or has other books that aren't so great...? Just because Return of the Jedi was a bit dodgy, it didn't detract from The Empire Strikes Back. Just because AFfC wasn't great, it doesn't detract from AGoT. In my opinion, that is....

 

[Shoegaze99]

You can, naturally. No question. To me though, in cases like this it's akin to picking and choosing the chapters of a book you like, disregarding the chapters around it. Were the stories relatively self-contained (even though part of a larger narrative), as is the case with the movies you cite, I would agree that picking one and ignoring the others is perfectly logical. Martin's books are essentially chapters in a larger book, however, much like The Two Towers is but a segment of a larger book. Judging The Two Towers outside the context of The Lord of the Rings can only be imperfect, in my opinion. You can certainly pick favorites from an ongoing “chapterized” series, there is nothing wrong with it, it just doesn't quite work for me in this kind of context.


I certainly agree with you that if A Feast For Crows is a lesser work, it doesn't mean that A Game Of Thrones is also a lesser work. A great installment is a great installment. But if in the end Games of Thrones just ends up being a fantastic setup to a disappointing story, yes, that does in fact taint it in my eyes – in this case because A Game of Thrones is not a standalone part of a larger narrative (ala The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe), but rather the first chapter in that ongoing narrative.


Again, not at all questioning the legitimacy of the votes cast by others, just explaining the philosophy behind my own approach here. Trey's approach worked for him, and that's cool by me.