Fantasy/SF Debate Continues....
|Just wanted to keep updating the discussion noted in my last post regarding the differences of Science Fiction and Fantasy going more deeper than my own assertion (who gives a shit?). I had been editing my previous post to add them, but there has been enough extra commentary to warrant 2 consecutive posts by me, that I offer absolutely no original content.|
Nick Mamatas has issues with Chiang's conclusions, then John Scalzi chimes in, followed by a completion of the circle back to Sarah Monette who is responding to a Evil Monkey.
Meanwhile at the Chrononautic Log David Moles offers an opinion, then again here. Alan Deniro offers a piece by the legendary author/critic Samuel Delany, which has spurned me to start collecting articles I like and linking them on my sidebar -- ala VanderMeer collecting Manifestos -- while offering a more interesting question (and equally unanswerable):
"A lot of the discussion has talked about science fiction and fantasy as methods of writing (inscribed authorial intent). But what about methods of reading?"
Scott Lynch comes in, and left his butterfly net at home. Did I mention I love his forthcoming book?I also want to give my thanks to Nathan for pointing me to the Lynch reply.
Nick Mamatas invokes Lovecraft, and Matthew Stover attempts to end the debate, in admirable fashion:
"The Truth from On High:
Bodhisattva Science Fiction & Fantasy Reviews and Interviews