EDITORIAL :
It has been a while since our last issue but we are still ticking over with three rather splendid pieces of writing. I have also updated the side-bar keeping track of which books we currently have available for review. As ever, if you see anything you like in that side-bar and feel like tking a crack at a review then drop me a line and I'm sure we can work something out. Similarly, if you have a book coming out and would like someone to review it then drop me a line too.
One of the things I have noticed since I started this project is that people tend to respond very differently to works of non-fiction than they do to works of fiction. Ask a critic to write about a book or a film and they will immediately start talking about what works and what does not work. However, ask those same critics to take on a work of non-fiction and their approach immediately changes. Rather than concentrating upon what works and what doesn't people tend to summarise the arguments and write about what they liked and didn't like subjectively. Alternatively, they might use the book as a leaping off point for a wider discussion. As editor, I am happy to publish all three approaches as I think all three have value (particularly when dealing with long works of sustained argument and scholarship) but it is interesting to note how the subject matter can dictate the rules of engagement.
Paul Raven's piece about Gunn, Barr and Candelaria's Reading Science Fiction is a fantastic example of using a book as a starting point rather than an end point. Paul expresses frustration with how one-sided critical monographs can feel and goes on to propose a new approach for publishing works of criticism that someone somewhere really needs to try.
Alvaro Zinos-Amaro looks at Roger Luckhurst's Science Fiction and produces a piece so detailed in its analyses and discussions that I think it comes close to being a cultural history of science fiction in its own right.
Karen Burnham continues Fruitless Recursion's commitment to older works of criticism by looking at the profoundly out of print Starboard Wine by Delany. Although less 'Dorothy Parker' than Karen's last outing for us, the review wonderfully captures the essence of Delany's thinking. However, I can't help but wonder whether his distinction between literature and paraliterature is not somewhat out of date. As the embracing of genre tropes by mainstream authors and the blurring of the lines championed by The annual Arthur C. Clarke Award seems to suggest that the line between mainstream subject-oriented fiction and genre event-oriented fiction might well no longer exist.
Speaking of 'Dorothy Parker', Karen's last review prompted David Ketterer to write a letter in response, so we also have that for you.
Thanks for reading :-)
One of the things I have noticed since I started this project is that people tend to respond very differently to works of non-fiction than they do to works of fiction. Ask a critic to write about a book or a film and they will immediately start talking about what works and what does not work. However, ask those same critics to take on a work of non-fiction and their approach immediately changes. Rather than concentrating upon what works and what doesn't people tend to summarise the arguments and write about what they liked and didn't like subjectively. Alternatively, they might use the book as a leaping off point for a wider discussion. As editor, I am happy to publish all three approaches as I think all three have value (particularly when dealing with long works of sustained argument and scholarship) but it is interesting to note how the subject matter can dictate the rules of engagement.
Paul Raven's piece about Gunn, Barr and Candelaria's Reading Science Fiction is a fantastic example of using a book as a starting point rather than an end point. Paul expresses frustration with how one-sided critical monographs can feel and goes on to propose a new approach for publishing works of criticism that someone somewhere really needs to try.
Alvaro Zinos-Amaro looks at Roger Luckhurst's Science Fiction and produces a piece so detailed in its analyses and discussions that I think it comes close to being a cultural history of science fiction in its own right.
Karen Burnham continues Fruitless Recursion's commitment to older works of criticism by looking at the profoundly out of print Starboard Wine by Delany. Although less 'Dorothy Parker' than Karen's last outing for us, the review wonderfully captures the essence of Delany's thinking. However, I can't help but wonder whether his distinction between literature and paraliterature is not somewhat out of date. As the embracing of genre tropes by mainstream authors and the blurring of the lines championed by The annual Arthur C. Clarke Award seems to suggest that the line between mainstream subject-oriented fiction and genre event-oriented fiction might well no longer exist.
Speaking of 'Dorothy Parker', Karen's last review prompted David Ketterer to write a letter in response, so we also have that for you.
Thanks for reading :-)
- Jonathan McCalmont
(Editor)
(Editor)
THIS ISSUE'S PIECES :
INTERESTING LINKS :
- Karen Burnham's review of Starboard Wine by Samuel Delany.
- Paul Graham Raven's review of Reading Science Fiction edited by James Gunn, Marleen S. Barr and Matthew Candelaria.
- Alvaro Zinos-Amaro's review of Science Fiction (Cultural History of Literature) by Roger Luckhurst.
- A Response Letter by David Ketterer.
INTERESTING LINKS :
Istvan Csicery-Ronay, Jr's The Seven Beauties of Science Fiction has received quite a lot of discussion. Its basic idea can be found in the Science Fiction Studies article that presumably kicked off the writing of the book in the first place. The book has been reviewed By Adam Roberts at Strange Horizons, by Paul Kincaid at SF Site and by Marcie Bianco at the Feminist Review blog. Kincaid also discussed the book on his Livejournal here, here and here.
Farah Mendlesohn's On Joanna Russ has been reviewed by Carole Cooper in The Village Voice and by cheryl Morgan as Cheryl's Mewsings.
Bibliophile Stalker has a rather interesting piece about genre book bloggers changing their focus away from producing only reviews, raising questions about the sustainability of review blooging. Interesting comments too.
On a more depressing note, there was a discussion at Torque Control about people pulling their punches in reviews because of fear for their future as writers. The comments then saw UK-based genre reviewer Saxon Bullock being 'outed' over his recent 5-star review of a book he also copy edited.
Farah Mendlesohn's On Joanna Russ has been reviewed by Carole Cooper in The Village Voice and by cheryl Morgan as Cheryl's Mewsings.
Bibliophile Stalker has a rather interesting piece about genre book bloggers changing their focus away from producing only reviews, raising questions about the sustainability of review blooging. Interesting comments too.
On a more depressing note, there was a discussion at Torque Control about people pulling their punches in reviews because of fear for their future as writers. The comments then saw UK-based genre reviewer Saxon Bullock being 'outed' over his recent 5-star review of a book he also copy edited.
Comments