[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: favorite science fiction/fantasy authors - what are yours?

[Alex Hogan]

I'm more into the comedy fantasy, i.e., Robert Asprin and Piers Anthony. There is a lovely book about some one named Thraxas that is a hoot, also.
 
Alex Hogan

--- On Sat, 3/21/09, Geoff Bannister <gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

From: Geoff Bannister <gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: favorite science fiction/fantasy authors - what are yours?
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, March 21, 2009, 1:17 PM






--- In HPFGU-OTChatter@ yahoogroups. com, "Miles" <d2dmiles at .. .> wrote:
>
> Carol wrote:
> > Going back to the original question stated in the subject line, 
> > What are your favorite science fiction/fantasy authors, I'd have 
> > none except LOTR (which I reread annually from the time I was 
> > till I was about thirty-five and still return to occasionally) 
> > and, of course, the harry Potter books. I've tried other scifi or > > fantasy authors and just can't get caught up in their worlds or 
> > their writing, possibly because I don't care to think about the 
> > future and am intrigued by the real past (historical and 
> > prehistoric) . For me the great mystery of all time is how and 
> > when we became human (how could something like homo habilis 
> > evolve into *us*?)

> Miles
> But that's what good fantasy and science fiction deals with - IMO.
> But it leads to an interesting question - what is "good" fantasy 
> and science fiction?

<snip>

> What I need in a good book, and this is the third and last issue, 
> is a believable "world". I don't need a world full of myths and 
> languages like in Tolkien, I like Rowling's potterverse good 
> enough, though I sometimes shake my head about all it's flaws. Even 
> those books that use our time and world, without fantasy elements 
> ("normal" fiction) set a fictional picture of our world. This 
> picture can be believable - or not. "Bad" literature does not 
> care for reality or internal logic - and to have a non-authentic 
> version of 21st century London or an illogical 33rd century Vulcan > is both frustrating for a reader who sometimes thinks about what 
> s/he's reading.

> Miles

Geoff:
Now here I would agree and disagree with you. ("Go not 
to the Elves for advcie for they say both 'Yea' and 'Nay' 
- Tolkien)!.

I like a book which is good and easy to read with a world 
which allows me to exercise my "willing suspension of 
disbelief". Like Carol, I am a great fan of Tolkien. I 
'met' the books when I was 15 or 16, a year or so after 
ROTK was published and read them nesrly every year until 
my young family was growing up and there wasn't really 
time.

You may be patronising about his myths and languages but 
he meets your criterion of having internal logic and he 
went to great lengths to ensure that that aim was met. 
With regard to your non-authentic version of 21st century 
London I think but this can be your reality if the time 
scale of what is written is set in a later time frame than 
our own real position.

Curiously, your grumble about internal logic follows your 
comment about liking JKR's universe - flaws and all. 

Perhaps my suspension of belief leads me to be naive. I 
have to admit that I like to take what I read at face 
value and I also enjoy a lot of young people's fiction. 
I probably would miss some of the finer nitpickable points 
of Harry's world if I didn't belong to OTC and Main where 
I can be re-educated in discussing the finer points of 
logic.
:-)

Geoff

PS If you're talking Star Trek, don't you mean 23rd century?

















      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]