Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 3459370" data-attributes="member: 3887">I didn't mean to imply you weren't familiar with British SF, I was hazarding a guess as to why you hadn't heard of him seeing as he was only recently published in the US. The British SF/F on my bookshelf are all US editions, well, except for books 2-6 of the Malazan Book of the Fallen, 'cause I got hooked.I like Banks, too. After Light, my favorite recent SF novel is his Use of Weapons. They're both really strong works.No comment <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> .Of course not. Then again, neither do do I believe that the The Book of the New Sun should be the model for all fiction, despite my unabashed adoration of them.Different books have different aims. Harrison's advice applies to certain modes of fiction. It isn't universal. In the same way that creating/evoking a setting a la Tolkien in Middle Earth isn't a universal for good fiction.No, his opinion goes against your opinion of what constitutes an enduring and beloved story. Do you want a laundry list of well-regarded works of fiction that don't prioritize setting, or a journalistic impulse towards place? Can't we just agree that different fiction has different goals and employs different methods? We agree completely here. But to be fair, applying Harrison's comments to RPG's was the OP's doing.The trick is to recognize that Harrison's remarks aren't universal. The fact that the don't apply to all fiction doesn't merit they don't have merit or merit discussion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mallus, post: 3459370, member: 3887"] I didn't mean to imply you weren't familiar with British SF, I was hazarding a guess as to why you hadn't heard of him seeing as he was only recently [i]published[/i] in the US. The British SF/F on my bookshelf are all US editions, well, except for books 2-6 of the Malazan Book of the Fallen, 'cause I got [i]hooked[/i]. I like Banks, too. After [i]Light[/i], my favorite recent SF novel is his [i]Use of Weapons[/i]. They're both really strong works. No comment :) . Of course not. Then again, neither do do I believe that the [i]The Book of the New Sun[/i] should be the model for all fiction, despite my unabashed adoration of them. Different books have different aims. Harrison's advice applies to certain modes of fiction. It isn't universal. In the same way that creating/evoking a setting a la Tolkien in Middle Earth isn't a universal for good fiction. No, his opinion goes against your opinion of what constitutes an enduring and beloved story. Do you want a laundry list of well-regarded works of fiction that don't prioritize setting, or a journalistic impulse towards place? Can't we just agree that different fiction has different goals and employs different methods? We agree completely here. But to be fair, applying Harrison's comments to RPG's was the OP's doing. The trick is to recognize that Harrison's remarks aren't universal. The fact that the don't apply to all fiction doesn't merit they don't have merit or merit discussion. [/QUOTE]

Verification