|
The thread title was the lead off of an article on the SciFi Channel's newsite.
It also provided some details on reprint collections of Edmond Hamilton stories. Thought it might be interesting to share.
I have to agree with the sentiments espoused that not all literature ages well and that SF has a tough road to hoe with respect to time, but there will always be classics that transcend time(and since we are dealing with SF, space)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I have to agree with the sentiments espoused that not all literature ages well and that SF has a tough road to hoe with respect to time, but there will always be classics that transcend time(and since we are dealing with SF, space)
Well I think good sci-fi can gloss over the anachronisms. I chuckled when I read one of the early Stainless Steel Rat books and Jim was feeding 'tapes' into the computer. Or look at the size and functionality of a Star Trek communicator, then look at a blackberry.
This thread may make Erik Mona cry. :(
I have to agree with the sentiments espoused that not all literature ages well and that SF has a tough road to hoe with respect to time, but there will always be classics that transcend time(and since we are dealing with SF, space)Well I think good sci-fi can gloss over the anachronisms. I chuckled when I read one of the early Stainless Steel Rat books and Jim was feeding 'tapes' into the computer. Or look at the size and functionality of a Star Trek communicator, then look at a blackberry.
Well, it could be argured that the Blackberry and Cell-Phone exist because of Star Trek. :)
See also "Zeerust."
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well, it could be argured that the Blackberry and Cell-Phone exist because of Star Trek. :)
See also "Zeerust."
Oh I don't deny that. But a good story, to me, would have the imersion factor to gloss over how the times have rendered it obsolete. One thing I like about the Battletech universe for example, is they've not gone back and rewritten the chunks of history before the SLDF. So you still have Soviet Russia, the wars, etc.
War of the Worlds, for example is 'timeless' because the point is the efforts of man do nothing lasting to them, we're outclassed. Whether it be torpedo rams taking down a tripod or two, or them shrugging off nukes in the movie (there was only one movie). Even if we come up with force screens, microfusion reactors and plasma cannons, the aliens are still unstoppable. To change the nature of that, ruins the story. (Look at the deveolution of the Borg. They go from an unstoppable monstrosity of collectivism to being able to be thwarted by two scrappy girls and their pet Vulcan). WotW resonates with us so strongly that even Tom Cruise can't stop it.
Literary review spoiler:
I see this thread as a perfect excuse to voice my opinion about Asimov's classic Foundation trilogy.
The. Best. Science. Fiction. Saga. Ever.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I'm just doing a drive-by right now and I haven't read the article yet, but I think it's fairly obvious that science fiction can easily seem dated when current technology leaves it in the dust. I've read "classic" sf and fantasy exclusively for the last four years, and I can't tell you how many times I've read stories set in the future with people reading ticker tapes, feeding cards into computers, or remarking with pleasant surprise how breathable the atmosphere is on Mars.
Basically, if you can't get past this level of anachronism and focus on the story, I think you're an idiot.
That said, there are some stories that are pretty much ruined by the march of history.
Fantasy, on the other hand, is nearly immune from this, which is perhaps one reason why Planet Stories has subconsciously erred more on the side of fantasy than science fiction so far.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Incidentally (having now perused the Sci-Fi Channel site), Edmond Hamilton's 1920s output is, in my mind, far superior to his later more "modern" stories, and his imagination virtually leaps off the page.
"The Metal Monsters" and "The Comet Doom," both by Hamilton from this period, are among the most enjoyable early science fiction tales I have ever read.
Haffner puts out beautiful editions, and anyone interested in the beginnings of science fiction would do well to check out these books before they are sold out and become incredibly expensive collectors items.
Incidentally (having now perused the Sci-Fi Channel site), Edmond Hamilton's 1920s output is, in my mind, far superior to his later more "modern" stories, and his imagination virtually leaps off the page.
Really? How much later is "later?"
I ask because my only associations with Edmond Hamilton (well, aside from Leigh Brackett) are some of his work for DC Comics, and one of his SF stories from the 1960s. I was... less than impressed with some of that. Am I to understand that I shouldn't judge Hamilton's earlier works by those?
I'm just doing a drive-by right now and I haven't read the article yet, but I think it's fairly obvious that science fiction can easily seem dated when current technology leaves it in the dust. I've read "classic" sf and fantasy exclusively for the last four years, and I can't tell you how many times I've read stories set in the future with people reading ticker tapes, feeding cards into computers, or remarking with pleasant surprise how breathable the atmosphere is on Mars.
Basically, if you can't get past this level of anachronism and focus on the story, I think you're an idiot.
That said, there are some stories that are pretty much ruined by the march of history.
Fantasy, on the other hand, is nearly immune from this, which is perhaps one reason why Planet Stories has subconsciously erred more on the side of fantasy than science fiction so far.
I think the anachronisms are what makes this stuff interesting! However I also agree with what you say about getting past them and focusing on the story.
Re. Edmond Hamilton...just another very prolific hack (like Kuttner) These guys WERE pretty good at doing everyone else's style and ideas I suppose,to be fair. Hamilton had a few reasonable things in the 20's,and 'The Star Kings' and 'Alien Earth' in 1949...for me everything else is just very ordinary at best (avoid the 'Starwolf' trilogy from the 60's at ALL costs!)For me a lot of Kuttner is just painfully tedious,almost unreadable. Especially,'Tomorrow And Tomorrow' and 'The Far Reality' (also published as 'The Chessboard Planet','The Fairy Chessmen' etc),but also the painful,corny hillbilly and robot stories. These two authors are exactly the sort of thing that gave science fiction it's reputation in literary circles of being just rubbish written by hacks. Of course there were MANY others who were a lot worse than these two though...have a look at Eando Binder or Stanton Coblenz etc etc. Actually,from what I see on these messageboards,most people will probably totally disagree with everything I say! If you think 'Star Wars' was a good thing,you will like Hamilton's 'Starwolf' maybe.
ps. I think the worst thing that happened to C.L. Moore's writing career was marrying Henry!
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Wow. I really disagree with a lot of what you say about Kuttner.
I think hacks like Binder and Robert Moore Williams and Ray Cummings (after the first few years) have a lot more to do with science fiction's reputation that people like Kuttner.
After all, a lot of the material he produced with his wife under the Padgett name was considered classic material at the time, and much of it is praiseworthy. Henry Kuttner was a hack in the sense that he wrote professionally, which is hardly a sin in my book.
In all I find your response echoes the boring orthodoxy of one of the posts on the Sci-Fi site, which claims that all science fiction prior to John W. Campbell was rubbish.
Sure, it's been the accepted knowledge for years, often parroted by people who have no idea what they are talking about.
I'm NOT saying that's the case with you (you're obviously well read), but I really wish people would try a sampling of what they condemn before they condemn it.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Incidentally (having now perused the Sci-Fi Channel site), Edmond Hamilton's 1920s output is, in my mind, far superior to his later more "modern" stories, and his imagination virtually leaps off the page.Really? How much later is "later?"
I ask because my only associations with Edmond Hamilton (well, aside from Leigh Brackett) are some of his work for DC Comics, and one of his SF stories from the 1960s. I was... less than impressed with some of that. Am I to understand that I shouldn't judge Hamilton's earlier works by those?
Most of the Hamilton I've read is from the 20s, and I liked most of it fine. His language is a lot more considered, and while there's a fair amount of amateur fumbling about going on, he clearly is giving some attention to craft.
By about the late 30s (from my sampling), he'd figured out that the more stories he could crank out the more money he could make, and virtually all of the joy has been squeezed out of his writing.
(Note that his early sequence featuring the Interstellar Patrol is pretty lifeless, so it's not all roses in the 20s for Hamilton.)
Some of the Captain Future material I've read is enjoyable, though hardly classic.
I have not read his oft-reprinted Starwolf series or much of what he put out in the 50s and 60s. I did read a story of his called "Babylon in the Sky" that I found so politically reprehensible that it actually made me angry, and while I've got a huge pile of Edmond Hamilton to go through I prefer to stick with other authors for the time being.
I have read that his very late work on the 'Star Kings" was considered a creative renaissance for Hamilton, but I haven't read it yet so I can't tell you what I thought of it.
My favorite early Hamilton stories are "The Metal Giants" and "The Comet Doom," both of which are included in the first volume from Haffner.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I really liked Kuttner's "The Fairy Chessmen," btw, so obviously tastes differ.
I haven't read any of the Hogben "hillbilly" stories yet, though I will soon and I promise to report here with my impressions of them.
Obviously, I liked the robot stories we reprinted in "Robots Have No Tails," and most of the comments we've gotten on them have been quite positive.
Wow. I really disagree with a lot of what you say about Kuttner.
I think hacks like Binder and Robert Moore Williams and Ray Cummings (after the first few years) have a lot more to do with science fiction's reputation that people like Kuttner.
After all, a lot of the material he produced with his wife under the Padgett name was considered classic material at the time, and much of it is praiseworthy. Henry Kuttner was a hack in the sense that he wrote professionally, which is hardly a sin in my book.
In all I find your response echoes the boring orthodoxy of one of the posts on the Sci-Fi site, which claims that all science fiction prior to John W. Campbell was rubbish.
Sure, it's been the accepted knowledge for years, often parroted by people who have no idea what they are talking about.
I'm NOT saying that's the case with you (you're obviously well read), but I really wish people would try a sampling of what they condemn before they condemn it.
That was quick,I knew it would get a response from you! Don't worry Eric,you'll be pleased to know that 'Elflock' is just me stirring things up again with a new Default Alias! I have nothing better to do,you see? You KNOW what I think of all these people already. Well,I HAVE read a lot of Kuttner and Hamilton,and I REALLY tried to like it (because I keep reading that it was good). Actually,I think exactly the OPPOSITE to the idea that all sci-fi before Campbell was rubbish. In fact,I blame John Campbell Jnr and his obsession with 'scientific rationalism' etc. for ruining the romantic adventure side of it. I still like many things that Campbell published in Astounding...Van Vogt,Simak etc,but most of it was just boring and/or too clever for it's own good for me (particularly the so-called 'Fantasy' in Unknown) Hey,as you say,it's ALL about taste with all this stuff and I know the stuff I like is often not regarded as 'good writing' or whatever,that just doesn't interest me at all (Cummings,Moore Williams etc etc) I just like a good story,preferably a romantic adventure or weird fantasy with a hot Princess or something...
LOL, Johnny. I think we agree on more than we disagree on!
Didn't you like THE DARK WORLD?
Yes,we totally do agree on more than we don't.
I have to admit to not ordering it yet...sorry! I think I'll like that one. I was at the little shop where I buy Paizo stuff the other day,she normally has a few Paizo titles,but there was only a second-hand Gygax one there. Don't get me started on Gary!! That's the first Planet Stories book I've seen second-hand I think.|
|
I'm just doing a drive-by right now and I haven't read the article yet, but I think it's fairly obvious that science fiction can easily seem dated when current technology leaves it in the dust. I've read "classic" sf and fantasy exclusively for the last four years, and I can't tell you how many times I've read stories set in the future with people reading ticker tapes, feeding cards into computers, or remarking with pleasant surprise how breathable the atmosphere is on Mars.
Basically, if you can't get past this level of anachronism and focus on the story, I think you're an idiot.
That said, there are some stories that are pretty much ruined by the march of history.
Fantasy, on the other hand, is nearly immune from this, which is perhaps one reason why Planet Stories has subconsciously erred more on the side of fantasy than science fiction so far.
Good points all around, Mr. Mona.
I for one, have just really started to get into some of the older scifi stuff (thanks mostly to Planet Stories). I'd read the Dune series and many of Herbert's other works over the years. Other than that, however, the oldest stuff I'd read was stuff like War of the Worlds, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, and the ERB Mars books.
Thanks to this place, I'm seeing a lot more names thrown about, and I realize there's a lot I have never read. Now I just have to make a list.
|
|
By the way, I thought I'd throw up this newest Sci-Fi article, in which they discuss Sci-Fi writers and the Nobel Prize for Literature. Once again, interesting reading.
|
|
I for one, have just really started to get into some of the older scifi stuff (thanks mostly to Planet Stories). I'd read the Dune series and many of Herbert's other works over the years. Other than that, however, the oldest stuff I'd read was stuff like War of the Worlds, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, and the ERB Mars books.Thanks to this place, I'm seeing a lot more names thrown about, and I realize there's a lot I have never read. Now I just have to make a list.
I'm in the same boat as Aberzombie. Prior to GenCon 2009, the oldest scifi I'd read was Dune (BTW the "preliminary" Dune Story, Spice Planet, is drastically different from the final product and more closely resembles the shorter works of the day). Luckily, I had a nice $20 gift certificate from Paizo for running some Pathfinder Society games and I was looking for a new book. I ran into Erik at the booth and after inquiring about my usual reading material, he recommended Almuric. Thanks a heap, Erik. Now I have read DArk World as well, and I have 6 deep pile of other PLanet Stories and my to read stash is larger than at ANY other time in my life... and the wallet is thinner. ;)
The thread title was the lead off of an article on the SciFi Channel's newsite.
It also provided some details on reprint collections of Edmond Hamilton stories. Thought it might be interesting to share.
Yes,it's interesting to read what the more 'mainstream' sci-fi fans think about this old stuff. Also the comments on there regarding what is a 'classic' are interesting...the decade in which you discover sci-fi seems to play a big part in deciding this for most people (the famous Asimov quote..'The Golden Age of science fiction was when you were 12' sums it all up I think. And on the other thread there,I still put Moorcock at the top of my list for a Nobel prize! (and how dare they say that he would lose points for his work with Hawkwind!! That's one of the reasons he should get the bloody thing!!)
Most of the Hamilton I've read is from the 20s, and I liked most of it fine. His language is a lot more considered, and while there's a fair amount of amateur fumbling about going on, he clearly is giving some attention to craft.
By about the late 30s (from my sampling), he'd figured out that the more stories he could crank out the more money he could make, and virtually all of the joy has been squeezed out of his writing.
(Note that his early sequence featuring the Interstellar Patrol is pretty lifeless, so it's not all roses in the 20s for Hamilton.)
Some of the Captain Future material I've read is enjoyable, though hardly classic.
I have not read his oft-reprinted Starwolf series or much of what he put out in the 50s and 60s. I did read a story of his called "Babylon in the Sky" that I found so politically reprehensible that it actually made me angry, and while I've got a huge pile of Edmond Hamilton to go through I prefer to stick with other authors for the time being.
I have read that his very late work on the 'Star Kings" was considered a creative renaissance for Hamilton, but I haven't read it yet so I can't tell you what I thought of it.
My favorite early Hamilton stories are "The Metal Giants" and "The Comet Doom," both of which are included in the first volume from Haffner.
No writer can make EVERY work a good one, if (s)he wants to be even remotely prolific. Okay, maybe I could give Hamilton another chance, and throw those stories you mentioned into my wish list. I'm afraid they're very LOW on my wish list, though. Far below several Planet Stories issues. Far below a lot of Golarion books, too...
I digress. I just wanted to say "Thanks for the reply."
|
I like to think of classic Sci-Fi in terms of classic cookbooks. I have a Betty Crocker cookbook circa 1975. Sure there are some oddities in language
Holiday Cheese Ball... For Christmas, top ball with a green pepper star or gay ribbon bow.
or some of the recipes like Continental Cheese with Ham Ring, which involves using unflavored Jello to hold together whipping cream, cottage cheese, blue cheese, pimiento-stuffed olives, walnuts and garnishing with ham slices. However, there are also great, simple dishes (Chicken Pot Pie, Lasagna, Cornbread, etc) which aren't always easy to find in modern cookbooks unless they are using some trendy new ingredient.
So, in good, older science fiction, you have great themes and ideas and writing styles that are still quite relevant, without some of the annoying trends or styles some more recent works might have. You just have to keep an open mind when they spend more than one page describing the how-to's of a holiday fruitcake.
By about the late 30s (from my sampling), he'd figured out that the more stories he could crank out the more money he could make, and virtually all of the joy has been squeezed out of his writing.
Some of the Captain Future material I've read is enjoyable, though hardly classic.
I have not read his oft-reprinted Starwolf series or much of what he put out in the 50s and 60s. I did read a story of his called "Babylon in the Sky" that I found so politically reprehensible that it actually made me angry, and while I've got a huge pile of Edmond Hamilton to go through I prefer to stick with other authors for the time being.
I have read that his very late work on the 'Star Kings" was considered a creative renaissance for Hamilton, but I haven't read it yet so I can't tell you what I thought of it.
My favorite early Hamilton stories are "The Metal Giants" and "The Comet Doom," both of which are included in the first volume from Haffner.
Lots of Hamilton is crappy, certainly. The Star Kings is ok, Starwolf is decent. Hamilton himself is just not that talented, writingwise, though.
The City At World's End novel I rather liked though. That one is a little more sophisticated. Suspect some possible advice from the spousal unit on that one maybe?
Captain Future is fun in a crazy old fashioned super cheesy way, although that varies a fair bit too.
I really liked Kuttner's "The Fairy Chessmen," btw, so obviously tastes differ.
I haven't read any of the Hogben "hillbilly" stories yet, though I will soon and I promise to report here with my impressions of them.
Obviously, I liked the robot stories we reprinted in "Robots Have No Tails," and most of the comments we've gotten on them have been quite positive.
I'll go with inbetween you and johnny on The Fairy Chessmen - I thought that was average. The Hogben stories are okish. The yank rural thing has to be pretty superior to appeal to me I think - REH, Manly Wade Wellman, etc.
Fury, The Prisoner In the Skull, The Time Axis, The Valley Of the Flame - those are all decent.
I really liked Kuttner's "The Fairy Chessmen," btw, so obviously tastes differ.
I haven't read any of the Hogben "hillbilly" stories yet, though I will soon and I promise to report here with my impressions of them.
Obviously, I liked the robot stories we reprinted in "Robots Have No Tails," and most of the comments we've gotten on them have been quite positive.
I'll go with inbetween you and johnny on The Fairy Chessmen - I thought that was average. The Hogben stories are okish. The yank rural thing has to be pretty superior to appeal to me I think - REH, Manly Wade Wellman, etc.
Fury, The Prisoner In the Skull, The Time Axis, The Valley Of the Flame - those are all decent.
To be fair,I should say here that I really liked 'Earth's Last Citadel','Fury',a few others that I can't remember. The Elak stuff was pretty cool,Prince Raynor less so,but ok. However these are not at all in the same league as REH or Moore or CAS for me. Two Kuttner books that I think I would like (from their descriptions)if I could find them are,'I am Eden' and 'The Time Axis' (and 'The Dark World'...ok!!)
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Lots of Hamilton is crappy, certainly. The Star Kings is ok, Starwolf is decent. Hamilton himself is just not that talented, writingwise, though.
On the plane last night I read half of an Ace Double called "THE SUN SMASHER" that was actually pretty darn good. It was short (110 pages), but there were a lot of cool descriptions of a fallen imperial throne world and the emperor's spidery servitor creatures. Reminded me a bit of Coppel's "The Rebel of Rhada" and parts of C. L. Moore's "Judgement Night".
I thought it held up well with the flip side of the book, which was Robert Silverberg's "Starhaven." It's interesting to read between two covers one story by an author nearing the end of his long career and another from a modern giant of the genre when he was just starting out (in this case, 1958).
You should try to hunt that one down if you haven't already read it.
Basically, if you can't get past this level of anachronism and focus on the story, I think you're an idiot.
This should go on something. Button? T-shirt? Store display?
Edit: Strike "I think"
What, no love for "Doc" Smith and the Lensman series? Space opera at its best!
What, no love for "Doc" Smith and the Lensman series? Space opera at its best!
A bit too much power creep over the course of the novels as I recall, but it was close on 20 years ago I read them now. Certainly the story keeps moving along.
Talking about Smiths, there's George O. Smith who wrote the Venus Equilateral series. Communications engineers running a signal relay station in one of Venus' Trojan points, dealing with all the problems which come up, from a business manager placed in charge who almost killed them all due to ignorance, through a genius who figured out how to make space piracy work, and on to inventions they made which almost ended civilization, and left it looking really weird when the dust settled...
Basically, if you can't get past this level of anachronism and focus on the story, I think you're an idiot.
One of Niven's first works was invalidated between him writing it and it seeing print. Reputedly, he offered to return the check, but the publisher said 'Keep it' and published the story anyway.
Lots of Hamilton is crappy, certainly. The Star Kings is ok, Starwolf is decent. Hamilton himself is just not that talented, writingwise, though.
On the plane last night I read half of an Ace Double called "THE SUN SMASHER" that was actually pretty darn good. It was short (110 pages), but there were a lot of cool descriptions of a fallen imperial throne world and the emperor's spidery servitor creatures. Reminded me a bit of Coppel's "The Rebel of Rhada" and parts of C. L. Moore's "Judgement Night".
I thought it held up well with the flip side of the book, which was Robert Silverberg's "Starhaven." It's interesting to read between two covers one story by an author nearing the end of his long career and another from a modern giant of the genre when he was just starting out (in this case, 1958).
You should try to hunt that one down if you haven't already read it.
I haven't read The Rebel of Rhada, but if it is like The Rebel of Valkyr, which I like a lot, I would like to.
I have read The Sun Smasher and thought it was ok.
I'd really like to see a reprint of phillip whiles "Gladiator". I was really glad to see S.O.S. the rope on the list...some of the Wildcards stuff was good reading. Why not hit on some of Weinbaughm's work? It was definately interesting. "Voyage of the Space Beagle" is an under appreciated classic.
I have to agree with the sentiments espoused that not all literature ages well and that SF has a tough road to hoe with respect to time,
Personally, while I agree that some SF suffers due to "aging" much of the stuff that is looked at as bad today, was not very good to begin with. There was lots of poorly written stuff published during the "golden age" of science fiction, but the same can be said for today. It certainly does not mean that none of it is still worth a read.
Except for closed minded people who refuse to read a story because it failed to predict thumb drives or cell phones or the internet, its really not that hard to overlook the ocassional anachronism if the story, characters and writing are good. That's why "outdated" stories from 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea to Stranger in a Strange Land are still read and enjoyed by thousands of readers even today.
Personally, while I agree that some SF suffers due to "aging" much of the stuff that is looked at as bad today, was not very good to begin with. There was lots of poorly written stuff published during the "golden age" of science fiction, but the same can be said for today. It certainly does not mean that none of it is still worth a read.
In my opinion - and my opinion applies not only to SciFi but to ALL of writing - age is a major PLUS, not a minus.
When people rave about "the latest thing," I'm not impressed. What's popular today might be completely forgotten tomorrow. Most of it will be. And why should I waste time reading something that I'll forget?
But if a book remains in print for more than half a century, THAT'S impressive. Even if it's not in print any longer, when people still have fond memories of something they read many years ago, THAT impresses me. When I can re-tell a story to my children, THAT story was worth my time.
The Rebel of Rhada is a novel-length expanded and partly rewritten version of that story published by Coppel under the name Robert Cham Gilman. I think it's better than the story, and it spawned three sequels (which I haven't read).
Haven't got this one yet, but I fortuitously stumbled across 'The Starkahn of Rhada' today at a market. The fourth of the series or sequence or whatever it is going by the list at the front. So will see if that one is any good shortly.
Wow. I really disagree with a lot of what you say about Kuttner.
I think a lot of what one thinks of Kuttner may have to do with how high your absurdity index is. I lend my father my copy of 'Robots Have no Tails,' and he read a story and a half, then turned it back to me as being too goofy. He likes his fiction mostly serious business.
I, on the other hand, was rather fond of it. But I've been accused of being a silly, silly person.
Err... grant you, Robots Have No Tails is the only stuff I've read by him, so take that with a grain of salt.
Wow. I really disagree with a lot of what you say about Kuttner.
I think a lot of what one thinks of Kuttner may have to do with how high your absurdity index is. I lend my father my copy of 'Robots Have no Tails,' and he read a story and a half, then turned it back to me as being too goofy. He likes his fiction mostly serious business.
I, on the other hand, was rather fond of it. But I've been accused of being a silly, silly person.
Err... grant you, Robots Have No Tails is the only stuff I've read by him, so take that with a grain of salt.
A grain? Rather silly to form an opinion of someone with double figure books and triple figure stories based on one short series. Especially given even Paizo has two other examples that are completely nothing like that. :)
As mentioned I think, he ranges from goofy SF humour to Planetary Romance to the Cthulhu mythos and dark fantasy to crime stories, even.
|
Too bad Piazo doesnt do an RPG Drivethru and sell original PDF works...
Buggered if i know what I would write...I'm stalled on three different Scifi works simultaneously. They only seem to grind forward at a snail's pace these days.
Considering November is Write a work of Fiction Month 50,000 words seems well beyond me unless broken into a hundred different works.
A grain? Rather silly to form an opinion of someone with double figure books and triple figure stories based on one short series. Especially given even Paizo has two other examples that are completely nothing like that. :)As mentioned I think, he ranges from goofy SF humour to Planetary Romance to the Cthulhu mythos and dark fantasy to crime stories, even.
Hey, I warned you I was a silly, silly person! n.n;
I probably should have researched his other stories and books before contributing to the conversation, but I wanted to give my first impression (and that of my father.)
For the record, I did like what I read.
Now I'm intrigued, though... If I wanted to get a true understanding of Kuttner, what sampling of his books and stories would you recommend?
There's a list for you :-
So the other Planet Stories books are definitely recommended. Can be impossible tell who wrote what with Kuttner and Moore some of the time.
SF-N-4.0 Kuttner, Henry and C. L. Moore : Destination Infinity - FREE
SF-S-4.0 Kuttner, Henry and C. L. Moore : Vintage Season
SF-S-4.0 Kuttner, Henry and C. L. Moore : We Kill People
SF-S-4.0 Kuttner, Henry : Beauty and the Beast - FREE
SF-C-4.0 Kuttner, Henry : The Best Of Henry Kuttner
SF-S-3.5 Kuttner, Henry : Clash By Night - FREE
SO-N-4.0 Kuttner, Henry : The Dark World - FREE
SO-S-4.0 Kuttner, Henry : Dragon Moon
SO-C-4.0 Kuttner, Henry : Elak Of Atlantis
SF-N-4.0 Kuttner, Henry : Fury - FREE
SU-S-4.0 Kuttner, Henry : A Gnome There Was - FREE
SH-S-4.5 Kuttner, Henry : The Graveyard Rats - FREE
SU-S-4.0 Kuttner, Henry : Housing Problem - FREE
SH-S-4.0 Kuttner, Henry : I The Vampire
SF-S-4.5 Kuttner, Henry : Mimsy Were the Borogoves - FREE
SF-C-4.5 Kuttner, Henry : Mutant - FREE
SF-S-4.0 Kuttner, Henry : Three Blind Mice - FREE
SF-S-4.0 Kuttner, Henry : Two-Handed Engine - FREE
SF-S-4.0 Kuttner, Henry : We Guard the Black Planet! - FREE
SF-S-4.0 Kuttner, Henry : What Hath Me? - FREE
SF-S-4.0 Kuttner, Henry : The World Is Mine
Lots of whom you will find :-
http://henrykuttner.bravehost.com/index.html
And some of the others online too.
Kuttner died in 1958, so public domain in a lot of the world like Canada etc.
There'll be more you can find here if you feel like it :-
I probably should have researched his other stories and books before contributing to the conversation, but I wanted to give my first impression (and that of my father.)For the record, I did like what I read.
You should definitely say what you think, that is good! Some people of course would have no idea who he was and might just buy the book, etc.
Robots Have No Tails is most definitely goofy and not serious, barring a few dead bodies there and there. :)