New Generation of Masters

[YankeyMCC]

With the death of Arthur Clarke this is a question that I think a lot of literary SF fans are thinking about. It was posted on the Asimov board (http://www.asimovs.com/discus/messages/2/9625.html?1206027057) and there is a very interesting post by someone with the name "John Loonam"

He posses an interesting challenge. When I first thought of the question I think I was thinking more about 'good writers' not someone who is pushing the limits, leading or defining a new era.

I think his points about who should be thought of as a master are valid if not complete but I suspect he's wrong about there being noone who qualifies. Certainly Silverberg is still with us, though he may be said to have earned the label of master in a previous generation. Then there's Gibson.

What about Banks, Reynolds, Benford, Simmons? Egan is mentioned in the Asimov thread but I honestly have not read much of him so I couldn't say.

Baciagalupi might qualify or Robinson in the same area.

I say Loonam's qualifications may not be complete, but I'm not sure I could define what is missing.

[Forkboy]

1. KSR has been my favorite since his early works (Three Californias)

The Mars trilogy cemented that, and his book The Years Of Rice And Salt is one of the single best books I've ever read. I have yet to read anything by him that doesn't strike a chord in me in ways no other author is doing right now.

[YankeyMCC]

2. I'm also a big fan of KSR

at least his Mars stories, I've only read those and 'Antarctica'

His Mars stories certainly qualify as innovative - not to mention well written - in terms of presenting original ideas on how technology and science may/can affect society and humanity in general.

Is that enough to qualify as a "Master"? I think if the ideas and vision become incorporated into other major works or he creates more works with very different ideas adding to the breath of vision then certainly. Perhaps I just haven't read enough KSR :)

[Forkboy]

5. His latest trilogy is excellent.

It's called the Science in the Capital series and deals with the politics of global warming.

Forty Signs Of Rain, Fifty Degrees below, and Sixty Days and Counting.



I think the one thing that's stuck with me since reading Red Mars was the idea of drafting our politicians. For some reason I really like that idea. :)

The Years of Rice and Salt is totally different from his other stuff. Not really even sci-fi at all. I hate to use the word spiritual but that's pretty much what it is in many ways. I've read it twice since it came out and have gotten so much out of it. The mere scope of the book is incredible, and to me it's almost a tour de force of writing, thouhgh like all his books it can be dry to some.

The book is set between about A.D. 1405 (783 solar years since the Hegira, by the Islamic calendar used in the book), and A.D. 2002 (1423 after Hegira). In the eighth Islamic century, almost 99% of the population of Medieval Europe is wiped out by the Black Death (rather than the approximately 30-60% that died in reality). This sets the stage for a world without Christianity as a major influence.

The novel follows a jāti of three to seven main characters and their reincarnation through the centuries in very different cultural and religious settings. The book features Muslim, Chinese (Buddhist, Daoist, Confucianist), American Indian, and Hindu culture, philosophy and everyday life. It mixes sophisticated knowledge about these cultures in the real world with their imagined global development in a world without Western Christendom.

The main characters, marked by identical first letters throughout their reincarnations, but changing in gender, culture-nationality and so on, struggle for progress in each life. Each chapter has a narrative style which reflects its setting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Years_of_Rice_and_Salt

[balantz]

12. Hey that sounds pretty cool, I'll have to check that out.

[Ignis]

15. Seconded on Years of Rice and Salt.

It was one of the most fascinating fiction books I read last year.

[YankeyMCC]

3. Nancy Kress

I think I would add her as another potential master. Very good writer her vision around the developments and effects of bio-tech has been incorporated by others I think.

[NewHampshireDem]

4. I think he makes the mistake of saying it doesn't exist only because

he hasn't read it. :shrug:

But given my understanding of his criteria for being a master, I would agree that Gibson is on that list. (This is despite his admitted lack of understanding of the way computers work!)

I would also add Neal Stephenson, though I haven't enjoyed anything he's written since Cyptonomicon.

Iain Banks? Most definitely.

I take issue with this point: "Science has progressed so far beyond the average person's ability to understand it that few bother to understand even the general principles. The cosmology of present day science fiction ignores even the most simple physics concepts, let alone other sciences like sociology, political geography, and a host of other hard and soft sciences studying our micro and macro cosmos. No, far sexier to invent pseudo scientific fads for story ideas, like the gadget oriented Singularity, and then "borrow" from it than to do any independent thinking, or to engage in what science fiction has always been best for, examining the existential reality of the human condition from outside the human perspective. "

That stinks of good old-fashioned elitism wrapped in the Golden Age myth. Think about the many successful popularizers there are today (though a couple of passed on in recent years): Simon Singh, Brian Greene, Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan ... that's just off the top of my head. In an age when Stephen Hawking can appear on The Simpsons (twice!), I think it's foolish to argue that the cutting edge of science hasn't entered the popular consciousness.

I think this guy needs to read a little more widely: I suspect he's read Charles Stoss (whom I enjoy) but used him to write off a whole bunch of the new batch of authors. Charlie doesn't, IMHO from what little I've read of his work, get as deep as many of the other authors who cover similar ground--I'm thinking specifically of Richard K. Morgan, Chris Moriarty, and Ian MacDonald (though I know there are others, too), in addition to Gibson, Stephenson, and Banks.

I dunno ... maybe this is just intellectual wanking. We won't know who's right for another 50 years. :)

[blueraven95]

16. having not read the OP's link, and ony your quoted part...

I would add that science fiction, in terms of the technical aspects of the genre, is more about what could be, rather than what is. In a hundred years, or a thousand years, our understanding of natural laws will almost certainly be different from what it is now (and possibly diametrically different), and it is up to the authors to imagine what those changes will be. I think that is one of the more exciting aspects of scifi.

[phantom power]

6. My sense is, that the field is a lot bigger now...

than it was when Asimov, Clarke, et.al ruled the SF universe. I'm not sure it would be as easy to define such a list now.

But as long as we're making lists, here's some I'd nominate:

Greg Bear
Greg Benford
KSR
Greg Egan
China Mieville (does he count?)
Iain M. Banks
Linda Nagata
Peter Watts

[Forkboy]

7. That's a lot of good Gregs.

:)

[phantom power]

8. We could make a movie. Like Heathers.

Except it would be Gregs. And they'd be science fiction authors, not high school fashion victims. And hopefully nobody would kill them.

Never mind.

[Forkboy]

9. LOL

:rofl:

[NewHampshireDem]

10. I'd say 'yes'!

China Mieville (does he count?)

I totally overlooked him!

You make a good point about the field being wider today. Sci-fi doesn't carry the same stigma and the tradition of A, B, & C makes an excellent foundation for authors to build their careers upon. There are a lot of sci-fi authors who could do the Iain Banks or Jonathan Lethem thing--cross-over and be wildly successful outside sci-fi. They're good writers, not just good sci-fi authors.

[Forkboy]

11. Philip Kerr is a great writer who has done Sci-fi and other genres.

The Second Angel is pure sci fi, but his Berlin series is all set during WW2 and details the inner workings of the Third Reich to tell his tales. Hitler's Peace posits that Hitler was secretly at the Big 3 meeting in Teheran pressing for peace at the end of 42, knowing the war would be lost (and has a chilling ending based on enough facts to really drive it home). A Philosophical Investigation takes place in a future where we have lists of people who might be serial killers based on DNA...and someone decides to start offing them before they become one..a serial killer of potential serial killers. Esau is a bit sci-fi, about a Yeti like creature. The Shot is a great one about the lead up to an assassination attempt on Kennedy. He's even done children's books.


He's all over the place, and they're all top notch. A great author to look into.

[comrade snarky]

13. I'm with you on Egan

He is a great new talent. Diaspora is the biggest (as in most expansive and mind expanding) book I've read since Stapleton's Star Maker.

It's not an easy read unless you are more comfortable than I am with 5th and 6th dimensional physics nut it's well worth the effort.

[AnnieBW]

14. Gibson, Neal Stephenson

David Brin, Greg Bear. Neil Gaiman if you want to include fantasy.