- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,136
Yes, I don’t know much about either. I have a strong-but-vague feeling that a writer is entitled to write about whatever they want, but it’s hard to be more clear than that. I also wonder that, if Scalzi is going to write a book specifically about the experience of being an old man in the future (whether or not he succeeds in doing so), he should be obliged to go into much detail about being a woman or anything else in the future that isn’t his primary aim. A lot of good SF works by exaggerating or discussing one issue in the present, without creating a realistically updated world in general. But I suspect that I’m more willing to give writers the benefit of the doubt in this area than others: if a novel includes only one Frenchman, and he is cowardly, I don’t tend to conclude that the author thinks that all Frenchmen are cowardly unless the character is a blatant stereotype or obviously there for comic effect.
But then I’ve not read the book and I can’t really say. I’m afraid that I was rather put off Scalzi by the style of his blog posts: I got the feeling that he’d be writing for a different generation to me. Anyway, at the risk of sounding rude, is Old Man’s War supposed to be deep? Might you be reading too much into this?
But then I’ve not read the book and I can’t really say. I’m afraid that I was rather put off Scalzi by the style of his blog posts: I got the feeling that he’d be writing for a different generation to me. Anyway, at the risk of sounding rude, is Old Man’s War supposed to be deep? Might you be reading too much into this?