Hey sf fans, Here's a "Golden Age" story that stands up pretty well. The premise is still viable: after a world war, the earth has slipped into a Dark Age in which the population is under the thrall of a "religious" Hierarchy. I put "religious" in quotes since the Hierarchy actually uses science to simulate miracles. Well plotted and written, the book holds the interest throughout. As someone once said, nothing ages poorly like old sci-fi, but this one is an exception. Highly recommended. Cheers, CC
chuck c. wrote: > Hey sf fans, > Here's a "Golden Age" story that stands up pretty well. The > premise > is still viable: after a world war, the earth has slipped into a > Dark > Age in which the population is under the thrall of a "religious" > Hierarchy. I put "religious" in quotes since the Hierarchy actually > uses science to simulate miracles. Well plotted and written, the > book > holds the interest throughout. > As someone once said, nothing ages poorly like old sci-fi, but > this > one is an exception. Highly recommended.
I just read this one myself. My MMPB edition is 187 pages; nowadays, a plot with this many twists and turns would probably tip the scales at 450 or so. It's still a page-turner, though not a patch on (the recently re-read) _Conjure Wife_ or _The Big Time_.
On Jan 23, 10:48 am, "chuck c." <cunni...@jmu.edu> wrote:
> Hey sf fans, > Here's a "Golden Age" story that stands up pretty well. The premise > is still viable: after a world war, the earth has slipped into a Dark > Age in which the population is under the thrall of a "religious" > Hierarchy. I put "religious" in quotes since the Hierarchy actually > uses science to simulate miracles. Well plotted and written, the book > holds the interest throughout. > As someone once said, nothing ages poorly like old sci-fi, but this > one is an exception. Highly recommended. > Cheers, > CC
I agree this is well worth rereading. I also agree that good as it is, it is by no means the best of Fritz Leiber. _Conjure wife_ is good, and IMO _The Big Time_ is better. I have rather a fondness for _A Specter is Haunting Texas_ although it is perhaps a bit too pulpish, and I am very fond of _Our Lady of Sorrow_. There are lots of other good and very good works by FL.
Imust add that I tend to disagree with you: I find that science fiction (and fantasy) in general tends to hold up better than "mainstream" books of similart or indeed older vintage. Look at a NYT bestseller list from 25 years ago. Look at hugo nomineees from 25, 30, 35, and 40 years ago. Which have held up better? which are more likely to remain in print? Sure, there is SF that does not hiold up -- lots of it. but IMO there is even more "regular fiction" that fails to hold up -- Sturgeon's law applies as always.
chuck c. wrote: > ... As someone once said, nothing ages poorly like old sci-fi, ...
"someone" was wrong.
Much of the old SF (NOT sci-fi!) is vastly preferable to the weaselly modern word processor prattle, which is so poorly written established authors can pawn their concepts off on word-shop hacks to actually string the words together and no one cares - the sales continue, especially if the magic words "Sequel to the best selling Dragon Tale tetrology!!!" or similar are added to the cover.
lal_truckee <lal_truc...@yahoo.com> writes: >chuck c. wrote: >> ... As someone once said, nothing ages poorly like old sci-fi, ... >"someone" was wrong. >Much of the old SF (NOT sci-fi!) is vastly preferable to the weaselly >modern word processor prattle, which is so poorly written established >authors can pawn their concepts off on word-shop hacks to actually >string the words together and no one cares - the sales continue, >especially if the magic words "Sequel to the best selling Dragon Tale >tetrology!!!" or similar are added to the cover.
The readers of the olden days were so very lucky that they never were presented with padded narratives or series stories run out so far past the point of diminishing returns that they loop around the edge, and that established authors couldn't reuse the same stories until the carbons ran out.
-- Joseph Nebus --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Now if you'll excuse me, Ray Cummings has a neat idea for a shrink ray this month.
> On Jan 23, 10:48 am, "chuck c." <cunni...@jmu.edu> wrote:
> > Hey sf fans, > > Here's a "Golden Age" story that stands up pretty well. The premise > > is still viable: after a world war, the earth has slipped into a Dark > > Age in which the population is under the thrall of a "religious" > > Hierarchy. I put "religious" in quotes since the Hierarchy actually > > uses science to simulate miracles. Well plotted and written, the book > > holds the interest throughout. > > As someone once said, nothing ages poorly like old sci-fi, but this > > one is an exception. Highly recommended. > > Cheers, > > CC
> I agree this is well worth rereading. I also agree that good as it is, > it is by no means the best of Fritz Leiber. _Conjure wife_ is good, > and IMO _The Big Time_ is better. I have rather a fondness for _A > Specter is Haunting Texas_ although it is perhaps a bit too pulpish, > and I am very fond of _Our Lady of Sorrow_.
I believe you are referring to "Our Lady of Darkness" - and it is fine spooky story. & it's available from Tor who have added "Conjure Wife", so ... two great stories in one book, no bad at all. (ISBN for double is: 031286972X)
In article <nebusj.1201191...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>, Joseph Nebus writes: >lal_truckee <lal_truc...@yahoo.com> writes: >>chuck c. wrote: >>> ... As someone once said, nothing ages poorly like old sci-fi, ...
>>"someone" was wrong.
>>Much of the old SF (NOT sci-fi!) is vastly preferable to the weaselly >>modern word processor prattle, which is so poorly written established >>authors can pawn their concepts off on word-shop hacks to actually > The readers of the olden days were so very lucky that they >never were presented with padded narratives or series stories run out >so far past the point of diminishing returns that they loop around the >edge, and that established authors couldn't reuse the same stories >until the carbons ran out.
Ah, yes, the good old days. Of course, we did have to stock the wire racks ourselves, after carrying the ID there, barefoot through the snow.
-- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
>> In article <nebusj.1201191...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>, >> Joseph Nebus <nebu...@-rpi-.edu> wrote: >> >lal_truckee <lal_truc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> >>chuck c. wrote: >> >>> ... As someone once said, nothing ages poorly like old sci-fi, ...
>> >>"someone" was wrong.
>> >>Much of the old SF (NOT sci-fi!) is vastly preferable to the weaselly >> >>modern word processor prattle,
>> Heh. Now I'm remembering another Leiber, _The Silver Eggheads._ >> "Wordwooze" is the word you want.
>Ooohh. that's a good one. I will strive to remember it. It's >applicable in so many places, e.g. bubble-headed pundits on radio new >shows.
Yes, but Leiber was applying it to the word-processed prattle to which you refer above. Only it was worse. In the future of _The Silver Eggheads,_ all popular fiction was written by word processors, with little or no human input. However, most readers didn't want to realize that, so there were still "authors" who had funny names and funny bios and appeared on talk shows. They finally rebelled; they wanted to write the things THEY wanted to write. So they broke down the publishers' doors and threw bombs into all the wordmills. Then they went back to their studios to write ... and discovered they didn't know how to put a sentence together. This starts the plot moving.
Also featured are robot sex and robot porn, and a lot of brains in bottles.
Dorothy J. Heydt Albany, California djhe...@kithrup.com
Michael Stemper wrote: > In article <nebusj.1201191...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>, Joseph Nebus writes: >> lal_truckee <lal_truc...@yahoo.com> writes: >>> Much of the old SF (NOT sci-fi!) is vastly preferable to the weaselly >>> modern word processor prattle, which is so poorly written established >>> authors can pawn their concepts off on word-shop hacks to actually
>> The readers of the olden days were so very lucky that they >> never were presented with padded narratives or series stories run out >> so far past the point of diminishing returns that they loop around the >> edge, and that established authors couldn't reuse the same stories >> until the carbons ran out.
> Ah, yes, the good old days. Of course, we did have to stock the wire > racks ourselves, after carrying the ID there, barefoot through the snow.
Hell with racks - when I ran short I just ordered by mail from the publisher 8 or 10 novels written up in the back of the current novel. At 25 cents apiece my lawn mowing money went a long way.
BTW, I still have many of those "first editions" rotting away on the shelf.
Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > In article <chenrich-043E1A.14281824012...@news.verizon.net>, > Christopher Henrich <chenr...@monmouth.com> wrote: >> In article <Jv5pzF....@kithrup.com>, >> djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>> In article <nebusj.1201191...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>, >>> Joseph Nebus <nebu...@-rpi-.edu> wrote: >>>> lal_truckee <lal_truc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>> chuck c. wrote: >>>>>> ... As someone once said, nothing ages poorly like old sci-fi, ... >>>>> "someone" was wrong. >>>>> Much of the old SF (NOT sci-fi!) is vastly preferable to the weaselly >>>>> modern word processor prattle, >>> Heh. Now I'm remembering another Leiber, _The Silver Eggheads._ >>> "Wordwooze" is the word you want.
>> Ooohh. that's a good one. I will strive to remember it. It's >> applicable in so many places, e.g. bubble-headed pundits on radio new >> shows.
> Yes, but Leiber was applying it to the word-processed prattle to > which you refer above. Only it was worse. In the future of _The > Silver Eggheads,_ all popular fiction was written by word > processors, with little or no human input. However, most readers > didn't want to realize that, so there were still "authors" who > had funny names and funny bios and appeared on talk shows. They > finally rebelled; they wanted to write the things THEY wanted to > write. So they broke down the publishers' doors and threw bombs > into all the wordmills. Then they went back to their studios to > write ... and discovered they didn't know how to put a sentence > together. This starts the plot moving.
> Also featured are robot sex and robot porn, and a lot of brains > in bottles.
I haven't read any Leiber, but this plot description reminded me of a funny short I recently read:
On Jan 23, 7:29 pm, lal_truckee <lal_truc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> chuck c. wrote: > > ... As someone once said, nothing ages poorly like old sci-fi, ...
> "someone" was wrong.
> Much of the old SF (NOT sci-fi!) is vastly preferable to the weaselly > modern word processor prattle, which is so poorly written established > authors can pawn their concepts off on word-shop hacks to actually > string the words together and no one cares - the sales continue, > especially if the magic words "Sequel to the best selling Dragon Tale > tetrology!!!" or similar are added to the cover.
Have you tried reading most of the SF (well, excuse me!) from the 30's? CC
chuck c. wrote: > On Jan 23, 7:29 pm, lal_truckee <lal_truc...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> chuck c. wrote: >>> ... As someone once said, nothing ages poorly like old sci-fi, ... >> "someone" was wrong.
>> Much of the old SF (NOT sci-fi!) is vastly preferable to the weaselly >> modern word processor prattle, which is so poorly written established >> authors can pawn their concepts off on word-shop hacks to actually >> string the words together and no one cares - the sales continue, >> especially if the magic words "Sequel to the best selling Dragon Tale >> tetrology!!!" or similar are added to the cover.
> Have you tried reading most of the SF (well, excuse me!) from the > 30's?
Yes.
Of course I didn't know it was noteworthy at the time - I just thought it was SF; it was so labeled in the Library.
|
