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.

It's not a very well-written article, but I don't take offense at the content. I'm a hard sci-fi fan who (generally speaking) values good worldbuilding over both character and story, and I understand exactly what he means about not being able to recommend his favorite books to other people because of it. I don't think it's a value judgment at all -- I recommend maybe a tenth of the sci-fi I read to DH, and he does the same for me with comics.

I wouldn't hesitate to recommend my favourite SF to people I know who aren't put off by the premise (and even then, there are some I can sneak by on the lit-fic tip). None of my favourites read like manuals or like 3133+ speak.

That's why they're my favourites, and I never imagined that would make me different from other people who enjoy the genre.

And doesn't he know that SF/fantasy crossover into romance is the Next Big Thing?

I thought the Harlequin Romance/Nascar hook-up was the Next Big Thing.

None of my favourites read like manuals or like 3133+ speak.

Not to you, but might they to someone who's emphatically not into sci-fi? Personally, I've found that it's very difficult for me to judge what's going to be an intolerable amount of techobabble for someone else to get past, just because my own tolerance level is so high.

Not to you, but might they to someone who's emphatically not into sci-fi?

I have considered most of my favourites from the theoretical PoV of my sister. And she balks at science.

Maybe I'm just not that geeky a reader.

My issue with his column is it was a "hi, here's a new column". And instead of saying "Here's a column where I'll be reviewing books for those who already like scifi", or "Here's a column where I'll be reviewing books that are shelved under scifi but even people who don't like scifi might enjoy", he says "Wow, most scifi sucks". Which just doesn't seem a good way to intrigue either the people who don't read it, OR to say hi to the people who do.

he says "Wow, most scifi sucks".

I just don't see that anywhere in the column.