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.

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

Maybe more "most sci-fi is just as far outside of what you might like as you always assumed."

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.

That's not what I meant by "superficial" -- it was just a joke, and clearly it didn't come off, so it's not worth explaining.

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".

The job isn't to be a promoter. The job is to tell you what he thinks, and why. Surely there are enough people in fandom saying that SF is superior to everything else, that people who read it are the bestest, smartest people ever, not like those awful mundanes.

And... what Jessica said. He doesn't say all SF sucks, or that most SF sucks, or that most current SF sucks; he doesn't say that SF readers have inferior taste to mainstream readers; he doesn't say that he can't recommend his favorite SF books to friends. Maybe this bothers me more than it should, because I used to get attacked for things I never said or did. So it could be I'm overly touchy about accuracy, but when I look at the paragraph in question, it says "most current SF has this flaw, which limits its mainstream appeal." That's what is being interpreted as "most SF sucks."

I can understand disputing that what he describes is a flaw, or that it is notably common in SF, or that it it limits the genre's appeal. I cannot understand how "flawed" equals "sucks."

I can understand disputing that what he describes is a flaw, or that it is notably common in SF, or that it it limits the genre's appeal.

I'm not even sure he's describing a flaw. He's describing an aspect of hard SF that limits its appeal -- it's only a flaw in the very specific sense that not everyone likes the same things. No matter how many times I read that paragraph, I can't make it read as derogatory.

For me, it's the use of the word "shamed." He says he feels shamed that he can't recommend these books to others because of this one particular thing about them. If you're ashamed by something, you think it's a bad thing; he says he's ashamed of most SF being published today, so I don't think it's terribly surprising that some people will read that as "most SF being published today sucks."

I'm not too worried about the slippage between "flawed" and "sucks" -- movie reviews do it all the time. They're demonstrably different things, but, they're both negative statements about quality or appeal.

It's not unreasonable, in everyday speech, to translate journalist-ese into your own lingo, turning "flawed" into "misguided" or "badly done" or something similar. What is unreasonable is a journalist mistaking a part for a whole so thoroughly, and in such stereotypical fashion.

I think focussing the discussion on specific terms is a red-herring type of problem. The real problem is, the guy offered an analysis of a chicken, and said (without further evidence) it also applied to cats, rabbits, pigs, sheep and horses.