But as a SF reader, I would rather read a book that had good characters and emotion. Him suggesting that SF readers might enjoy things that are not good enough for other readers is a little insulting, I think.

---

ita, did you read the whole article? Because out of context, I can see it, but in the article what he's implying seems pretty clear to me. It's specifically about ignoring the human element in favor of "Looky at this world I made up, and the funny words I invented to describe it." Other genres have their own problems, but I think treating the characters as simply an excuse to talk about abstracts is pretty specific to SF.

Him suggesting that SF readers might enjoy things that are not good enough for other readers is a little insulting, I think.

It's a matter of different priorities. SF readers as a whole value the world-building, the ideas, the exploration, and will forgive flaws in the more fundamental aspects of storytelling. And those are the stated priorities, so that's fine, but you can't dismiss characterization and nuanced writing in favor of neat ideas, and then complain when the mainstream thinks a lot of SF consists of cliched characters running around speaking technobabble.

---

I did read the whole thing. But I can't read that quote any other way, and so it colours my interpretation of the rest of the article, rather than the other way around.

---

More to the point, the "stereo instructions" segment of SF is a very small segment in a very big, very diverse field. Personally, I can't stand hard SF, which is where the stereo instructions tend to reside these days.

I was a lot fairer to say of the whole genre that the characetrs were wooden 30, 40 years ago. Yeah, a lot of that stuff isn't actually good writing. But, New Wave, feminist revolution, niche marketry -- ? Does this guy actually read anywhere near the full breadth of his field?

(And doesn't he know that SF/fantasy crossover into romance is the Next Big Thing? If what he is saying were true anywhere near across the board, that cross-fertilization would be impossible.)

---

I can't read that quote any other way

Even when the lead-in is "I really enjoyed this book, I just can't recommend it to people who don't read SF"? I mean, if he's damning SF readers, he's pretty clearly damning himself, too.

I dunno. I suppose my bias is that I agree with him.

---

I don't care if he damns himself along with me. I think he's damning me (and a great many people) wrongly. He may enjoy bio textbooks and stereo manuals.

That doesn't make it a valid generalisation.

---

I don't think it's a valid generalization either, but I don't think it was intended as such. Is that really the sticking point?

He's not saying that SF readers enjoy reading things that are dull, but that they value content over esthetics. You read a stereo manual because you are interested in the information it contains, not because it is written in a way that is artistically pleasing.

The other way to take it is that SF readers aren't as superficial as mainstream readers. That's just as accurate.

---

I think both ways of phrasing that generalization are lame, though! SF readers are just as dumb, and just as aesthetically-oriented, as ordinary readers. (And just as smart and content-oriented.)

Hard SF, as a (very small) subgenre, is both smart and content-oriented, often to the detriment of the converse, but to generalize from that one subgenre to the whole field is as useless and misrepresentative as saying that all war novels are written by Jim Jones.

---

The other way to take it is that SF readers aren't as superficial as mainstream readers. That's just as accurate.

I don't think there's anything un-superficial in reading a biochemistry textbook, so I can't make that flip either.

Also, what Nutty said.

---

SF readers as a whole value the world-building, the ideas, the exploration, and will forgive flaws in the more fundamental aspects of storytelling

I am an SF reader. I love world building. However, the point of of world building - for me- is how people work in this different world. It isn't a good book unless that's there. I might read it anyway - if the idea is interesting enough. But I would say " the idea is really interesting, but as a novel, it fails."

I think I can almost read it the way Strega does, However, If that is what he meant, his writting is way too sloppy. I really can't remember what book he was trying to talk about, because I found the beginning of the review off putting.

The other way to take it is that SF readers aren't as superficial as mainstream readers.

I .m not sure what that means. Esp scince I read in almost every catagory. Probbably because it is what I do , I don't know what mainstream means. Most people read one or two genres, with an occassional foray into a list - ( bestseller, oprah, whatever). But I don't neessicarily means they are superfical readers.

---