Masters of Science FIction on ABC

[Fast Learner]

I'm pretty underwhelmed by this first episode. Too slow, maybe.

Doesn't "Masters" imply more famous/masterful authors than John Kessel or Howard Fast (who I've never heard of), or actual sci-fi authors, unlike Walter Mosely? I'll certainly grant "master" status to Heinlein, and even Ellison, and barely Sheckley, but only 3 out of 6?

 

[Felon]

Mastery denotes quality, not fame. There are obscure masters just there are famous hacks. Of course, without exposure, one can't make the transition to becoming famous.

In general, I'm glad not to see robots, bug-eyed monsters, chicks in spandex, and other kid stuff. A well-done science fiction show that's about new ideas is a most welcome change of pace.

Haven't seen the episode yet though, so I hope it delivers.

 

[Brogarn]

First one was less than entertaining. I hold out hope, though, for future episodes as it seems they're taking a more cerebral path than standard sci-fi fare.

 

[Fast Learner]

I'm not referring to fame, per se, though. Masters of science fiction win Hugos and Nebulas. Their styles are admired and built-upon by later writers. It's certainly possible that some people consider Kessel or Fast to be masters, but a lack of acknowledgment by science fiction fandom or by other science fiction writers disqualifies them in my book.

Kessel has been nominated for a couple of Nebulas, but that's still a long ways from "master." Fast and Mosely aren't even science fiction writers by trade!

If you asked any fan of written science fiction to list 10 masters, there's no way that Kessel, Fast, or Mosely would be on that list. Even if you asked them to name 30 masters.

 

[sniffles]

I thought it was interesting that they'd chosen to do stories based on the works of writers who are less well-known. I don't recall that I've ever read anything by Kessel.

As for the dramatization itself, it was well-executed, but the story was fairly predictable. Maybe I'm jaded by too many years of Twilight Zone and Outer Limites, but I saw the "twist" coming pretty early on in the story.

I also thought it could have been shorter. They could have done two half-hour stories instead of an hour-long story. The flashback scenes all seemed like obvious padding. It was still good tv drama, though. Too bad ABC isn't giving it a better chance to find an audience.

 

[Felon]

I'm not referring to fame, per se, though. Masters of science fiction win Hugos and Nebulas. Their styles are admired and built-upon by later writers. It's certainly possible that some people consider Kessel or Fast to be masters, but a lack of acknowledgment by science fiction fandom or by other science fiction writers disqualifies them in my book.

Mainstream acknowledgment and popularity are incidental to mastery, not prerequisite. I think most avid readers stumble across an author or two in who they would champion as masters despite the lack of accolades. When the names Lin Carter, L. Sprague de Camp, and Karl E. Wagner spring to mind, I know how to separate the successful hack from the obscure master.

I think the producers of the anthology believe the story itself should be the evidence of mastery, not the author's resume. I would have to agree.

 

[Fast Learner]

Mosely and Fast have written, what, one sci-fi story each, maybe two? A couple of really good sci-fi stories doesn't make one a master, even by your criteria, does it? That would put a ton of first-time writers in the "master" category.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I was underwhelmed by the first episode. I thought it was predictible, and it seemed a little preachy to me. My preference would be for stories that center on bold, innovative thinking rather than cautionary tales.

I'll stick with the show for now, but if they cannot produce better than this first one, I will request a renaming to "Apprentices of Science Fiction."

 

[Grue]

The first episode actually irritated me. I don't mind preachy scifi, as long as it hangs together on it's own framework (and generally only builds on one or two impossible things). Even just considering the psychological aspect, it was a weak and predictable story... more skiffy than science fiction.

My TiVo will give it one more chance

 

[Sir Brennen]

Yeah, I think there was a little too much at the end which was slanted towards criticism of the current political environment, and in a preachy manner.

I prefer sci-fi which *starts* with a recognizable situation/parallel to our own world, then explores it in the context of the setting, often to the logical extreme. BSG often excels at this, aided by the fact that moral ambiguity is a guiding principle on the series, which prevents it from being preachy. Some characters might be, but the show isn't.

Still, any attempt to add some sophistication to network sci-fi is welcome, so I'll keep watching.