Not wanting to wait for the Spring ‘08 Prometheus, I sought out part two of the interview. But first, these observations on part one:
So doesn’t like to be labeled a “fantasy” writer? PUH-LEEZE! Ask the late . Ask . has made a lucrative career for himself as a “fantasy” writer, as have and . And isn’t ALL fiction “fantasy?”
was “completely unaware” of his award nominations? Are not authors notified by award committees on whether or not they are nominated? Doesn’t have an agent who tells him these things? This, plus his saying he doesn’t care about awards is pretentious rubbish, IMHO. I suppose I should believe Roger Clemens when he says that he “doesn’t give a rat’s ass” about being in the Hall Of Fame. Right…
As for part two, I’m sorry to see that embraces the static fundamentalist cult of Leonard Peikoff-style Objectivism rather than the dynamic, reality-based, common-sense David Kelley style. Perhaps he is unaware of the Objectivist Center.
All this said, I have never read any of ’s novels. I will give Wizard’s First Rule a try. Hopefully, it will not be Atlas Shrugged in a “Dungeons-And-Dragons” setting…
— Michael Serafin
Michael,
I wholeheartedly agree with your criticisms of . By the way, I’ve read the first few books of the series and skimmed Naked Empire. While is a decent writer, he’s not on the level of and especially not on the level of . The series has both its good points and its bad points. As for the Objectivism, the series doesn’t start out overtly Objectivist but becomes increasingly so over the course of the series. Richard becomes increasingly preachy as the series progresses. In Naked Empire, even has Richard regurgitate (badly) ’s clever indictment of Kant (we’re blind because we have eyes, etc.).
— Geoffrey Allan Plauché
Editor Responds:
The two comments above regarding appeared on the LFS email list, and I’m glad that the reprinting of the interview spurred some debate about the content. I’ve only started one of his novels and perhaps it caught me at a bad time; getting into a long series near the end rarely works. Still, it’s not often one finds a best-selling fantasy writer speaking as frankly about and her influence on his books as . may have disliked libertarianism (and I am no Randian), but her influence in terms of fiction and philosophy is undeniable.
—
Nice review of ['s] The Sunrise Lands. I loved the review since I'm following this series avidly. For William Stoddard: the lyrics of the marching song of the Boise soldiers may be from Macaulay, but both as a filker and as someone raised as a minister's daughter, I'll tell you right now the tune is “Lead On, Oh King Eternal.” I should ask the list if that was on purpose.
At any rate, I directed the list to this excellent review.
And as a companion piece to 's article on , I direct everyone's attention to the tapes and CDs of science fiction folk singer and lifelong libertarian , whose rousing tunes bring old vividly alive.
— Patricia (Pat) Mathews
I just joined the mailing list (after joining LFS as my main Christmas present from my wife) and I'm a bit surprised there's so little interest in the British SF writer , who I think is one of the greatest SF writers in the world. He's also often political in his writings. True, he's hardly a libertarian (of course, neither are the other giants of Scottish SF, and ) but he takes political ideas seriously and explores topics I would think libertarians would be interested in. Excession for example is a very good space opera and takes up the topic of noninterventionism. The Algebraist deals with political repression (in more than one way.) He has a new one just out, Matter, and naturally I am hoping it will be very good.
A new novel is coming out in September, Anathem, and it's being described as a science fiction novel set in the future on another planet
This is big news for me, as Cryptonomicon is maybe my favorite novel of the past 15-20 years. I wish it had won a Prometheus Award.
— Thomas E. Jackson
|
All trademarks and copyrights property of their owners. |