*Ancient Greeks wouldn’t have thought that Percy Jackson was remotely blasphemous because there was no standard ‘canon’ of mythology – there were often many contradicting versions of particular myths, stories of origin or hero stories, and poets & playwrights thought nothing of messing with previously known versions, for the sake of literary amusement. My favourite Helen of Troy story is Euripides’ play Helen, in which she never made it to Troy, but ran away from Paris at the first opportunity – the story is about how Menelaos finds her again on his return from the war, and it’s basically a slapstick romantic comedy about husband and wife getting back together.

*I read the Datlow & Windling Fantasy and Horror anthologies long before I knew anything else about the industry and I certainly took note of who edited which story! I was mostly in it for the fantasy, but often found myself sucked in by the horror… and I loved all the ancillary material too!

*The book you were trying to remember discussing with Alisa for its lack of magical content in an imaginary history/city was SWORDSPOINT BY ELLEN KUSHNER and I was basically yelling it at the podcast while you merrily talked about so many other books that do similar things.

In the vein of mockumentaries about the history of flight, not to mention film/photography, I highly recommend Forgotten Silver by Costa Botes & Peter Jackson (yes, that Peter Jackson). Just delightful. It was originally showed on NZ television in a documentary slot which caused no small amount of confusion.

Liz Hand, who sounds like a lovely person, sounds like a writer I might not have the tools or knowledge to really “grok”. This inspired a meme I posted on twitter to the effect.

I might not be enough of a creative to understand all of the allusions she uses, from the sounds of it. (Even if I am a 6th rate amateur photographer)…

Just chiming in to say that as far as comics are concerned, there’s little better in the way of social SF than Y: The Last Man, not to mention that the art is absolutely fantastic, in a bit of an understated way. Overall, I’d say that Y is one of the more subtle SF comics around, and very much worth the journey.

At least for me, I still find comics in general (and SF comics in particular) to still be a bit of a thin broth conceptually compared to top-notch prose, unless the art can really shine, but when the art does take the lead, it can be explosive. In my mind, this is very much the polar opposite in terms of reading experience, when compared to prose (with film and TV somewhere in the middle of the spectrum). I’d love to hear how you’ve been finding your rediscovery of comics as an SF medium on an upcoming Coode Street.

I haven’t checked out Joe the Barbarian yet, but I’m a complete Grant Morrison convert, so its just a matter of time. Morrison’s several years on Batman titles, which has pretty much run its course now, has been very interesting. I’d recommend it if you can stomach corporate characters, but otherwise, stick with the creator-owned stuff you seem to be focusing on – its much better unless you have a nostalgia or particular fondness for the superheroes.

And please, please check out Fables – its smack-dab in the middle of the faery tale and urban fantasy trends these days, with traditional characters like Snow White, the Wolf, the Three Little Pigs, Little Red Riding Hood, etc. living in a great multiverse that includes ‘our’ world and portals that allow travel to the ‘faery tale’ worlds. It also happens to have some of the best writing and art in the industry – I can’t recommend it enough, but do give it at least a couple of volumes to grow on you because the very first might actually be the weakest of the whole series.

Cheers,

Cam

One thing I noticed was that Wolfe would often introduce a new scene or idea with a great deal of subtlety, and that I as the reader wouldn’t know exactly what Severian was going on about until maybe a few paragraphs or even a few pages later, when suddenly the whole thing would come into focus. Wolfe managed to do this to me over and over throughout the book and I was never able to pinpoint how or predict when this would happen, although I did learn to trust that he would hit me with these moments of clarity just when I’d start feeling like I was losing the thread – a wonderful, challenging read! I’ve already started collecting the volumes of the Long Sun and Short Sun, although I think I might need something a bit more like some zippy Stross or Doctorow to cleans the pallet a bit and give my brain some time to digest.

Also very sad to hear the Eclipse series won’t be continuing – I’ve enjoyed each volume as they’ve come out, and at least to my taste, they’ve been getting better and better!
I hope your Year’s Best series is still going strong, Jonathan?

Can I please add Cat Valente to this list of authors whose early work was exceptionally poetic and who has got better and better over the years?

As to 1981, it is complicated. There is certainly an historical trend going on, but one of the things you need to remember about 1981 is the location. Denver Worldcons are notorious for low attendance rates because of the physical location. In 1981 that will have been an even bigger issue than it was in 2008 because flying was so much more expensive. Here are some attendance figures:

1980 (Boston) – 5,850
1981 (Denver) – 3,792
1982 (Chicago) – 4,275
1983 (Baltimore) – 6,400

Out of those, incidentally, I’d say that Chicago was the anomaly. I would have expected it to be much bigger.

But my point is that the lower the attendance at the convention the more likely it is that the results of the Hugos will be determined by a core group of regular attendees who have been going to Worldcon for years, rather than reflecting current tastes in fandom at large.

Just when I think you spend too much time on awards you go and talk about Rusty Hevelin or Fred Pohl’s work with the Ballantines. (I had seen lots of references to Rusty but didn’t know how far back he went as a fan or pulp authority.)

My experience of last year was a bit like Cam’s. You finally provoked me into reading Book of the New Sun. (It had been on the shelf for years.) And, while I’ve got a fair number of reference books on sf around, it’s nice when you come up with something I totally missed any mention of: Crowley’s “Snow”.

I like the ramblings. I can’t think of any guests I didn’t like last year — even authors I’m not fans of. I especially enjoyed Stan Robinson talking about Asimov and Paul Cornell.

Keep up the work. Sometimes annoying, never boring.

I happen to be quite the comics fan, so its great to hear that you’re dipping your toes back into it. If you’re looking for great SF comics, I have a couple recommendations:

1. DMZ, written by Brian Wood, Published by Vertigo Comics. This is a great series that portrays a near-future civil war in the united states, with Manhattan Island as the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). Its a great commentary on the Iraq War and related international relations issues… really top-notch speculative fiction

2. Elephantmen, written by Richard Starkings, and published by Image Comics. This is a story about genetically-engineered half-animal soldiers (Elephantmen!) adapting to a post-war life. It brings in a bunch of great noir elements and has absolutely fantastic art!

3. Fear Agent, written by Rick Remender, and published by Image Comics. This is a fantastic take on the classic pulp space-hero. Time travel, planetary genocide and alcoholism blend into a great romp of a story!

4. Wasteland, written by Anthony Johnston, and published by ONI press. A great post-apocalyptic story that seems to blend fantasy and SF, almost leaning towards epic fantasy tropes. Also one of those neo-medieval settings, Gary?

5. Orc Stain, written and drawn by James Stokoe. An absolutely twisted take on the Orc Horde that is completely worth the ‘questionable content’. Viva La Gronch! Do not miss out on this gem! (but don’t take it too seriously!)

As a 20-something with few friends interested in the field, I’ve learned so much from the both of you, which has only deepened my love for SF&F(&H)… I’ve developed such a ridiculously long to-read list thanks to your conversations that I’m sure to be kept busy for years to come – all very welcome, I hasten to add!

A random request: My Christmas reading consisted of the 4 volumes of Gene Wolfe’s The Book of the New Sun, which I absolutely adored. I’m starting on the ’87 sequel, Urth of the New Sun, as soon as I’m through with the dishes and your most recent podcast, and I can’t wait to dig in. Being born in ’83, as the original series was being published, I obviously wasn’t aware of the the reception this series received when it was first coming out. I’d love to hear from both of you, if you can spare a few minutes on an upcoming coode street, on how these books were received by the field, what your personal feelings are on the series, and on any observations you have related to their influence, legacy, etc. I’m just looking for an idea of how these works are regarded by the field at large, since I have little reference. Also, would this qualify as one of those neo-medieval settings Gary mentioned coming out of Canticle for Leibowitz?

Keep up the great work! You have at least one Canadian fan who wishes there was as strong an SF community in the great white north as there seems to be in the great down under.

Cheers,

Cam (from Canada)

p.s. Gary asked about how the audience felt about guests, and I absolutely love them. As much as I love the rambling episodes between the both of you, guests are always welcome as far as I’m concerned, and the more the better. I especially thought that the Ellen Datlow & Peter Straub episode was excellent (just thought I’d throw my hat into the ring for someone other than Ursula Le Guin, as much as the suburbanites and others, myself included, loved that one).
Secondly, Jeffrey Ford should be your official co-host. He’s a fantastic conversationalist that I can’t get enough of!

Downton was off the planet in season 2 but it has pulled back a lot with the Christmas special, which resolves several ongoing plots and allows you to breathe a bit before they head into season 3. I recommend it!

And as I tweeted to you, your stuff about Rusty and the necessity of remembering the history of early fandom would work as a representative 10 minutes

There should be some protection from plagiarism, but it shouldn’t be so restrictive that other writers are unable to riff on existing ideas & tropes. A local example is Tarzan Presley, which features a protagonist who is Tarzan & Elvis as the same person, and who grew up in the New Zealand bush. It attracted the ire of the estate of ERB the upshot of which it was never reprinted until the title was changed, hence Jungle Rock Blues. A shame really, because it deserved a much larger audience.

Another enjoyable podcast as usual.

P.S. Merry Christmas!

Sort of in medias res to the conversation–one way I find books these days is from other people. Authors and reviewers talking about their work. I’ve discovered plenty of authors and books this year I might never have even considered, otherwise…

But that is not ideal, either.

Jonathan, I too tried to listen to Stephen King read THE GUNSLINGER years and years ago and I had the same reaction you did. When I tried again recently with a different narrator the experience was so much better. Once again, I was only able to “read” The Dark Tower series because I was listening to the audiobooks.

And the narrator is definitely key to the experience. It can be very jarring when listening to a series and the narrators switch between books for one reason or another. Characters no longer speak the same way any more. So I guess that argues to your point that the experience is much different than the one you would have created on your own when it’s just you and the book. But since it is the only way I can experience many of the books these days it is a penalty I’m willing to take.

Paul is quite correct on the rules. The “Graphic Story” category (which was given that name for a good reason, not out of ignorance as Paul suggests) has its sunset clause up for voting in Chicago. I expect the category to be dropped because, as Paul said, the majority of Hugo voters very clearly have no interest in or knowledge of comics, and the results are embarrassing.

There are no sunset clauses for the Dramatic Presentation categories, and no serious suggestions of removing them.

There is no game category. LA tried to use their special category to trial it a few years back, but they had to drop it due to insufficient interest at the nominations stage.

Ah, you dont need a title for that, you can just put it in the YA section…

Just kidding (I think).

BTW, the original Finnish title of Sinisalo’s book was “Not Before Sundown”. It was changed to “Troll” for the US market, probably because the publishers felt that the US public wouldn’t know troll mythology well enough to get the reference.

Looking forward to the actual book.
.

Like Susan, I liked the Chaos Walking trilogy quite a bit. I haven’t read A Monster Calls yet, but I do intend to as soon as possible.

In regard to the Encyclopedia, the growth of tablet reading might break down the barrier between book-reading and internet-reading. I just got the new Kindle tablet, and the experience of reading an Encyclopedia entry seems little different from reading a book in that environment. They might be well-served by creating dedicated tablet apps for the SFE.

As always, an interesting discussion!

1. discussing what books are likely candidates for the major awards
2. discussing what books JS and GKW felt were the best books of the year

These might be different things, and the difference is one of the things which most intrigues me.

And yes, when I watched Battle Los Angeles and the water bit was mentioned, I facepalmed. “Didn’t this get debunked as an idea when V did it three decades ago?

*DOWNLOAD*

My guess is that science fiction is still doing what it’s always done and inspiring the scientists and engineers with whom we hardly converse. Science fiction still exists, but the types of people who enjoy this podcast don’t read much of it anymore. We left it behind and wish our new spouse would do the same things that our ex used to do.

Obviously, as it gets closer to year’s end, the ‘best of’ discussions get more attention. But it is also October which is when I re-read Roger Zelazny’s “A night in the lonesome October”. Halloween stories anyone?

I see that some malls have begun putting up & selling Christmas decorations which brings to mind e.g. the Christmas-themed stories Connie Willis has done for Asimov’s December issues.

A few more to vote as good but not best of the year: Card’s THE LOST GATE, Gail Z. Martin’s THE SWORN, and Erin Hoffman’s SWORD OF FIRE AND SEA.

And again, so many books coming in October/November/December that I’m looking forward to.

1. I’m finding it very hard to come up with a “best novels of the year so far” list. I’ve never read more books in a year than this one (30-50 so far? Though probably only 10-20 first published in 2011), but there’s so many I haven’t read (Jo Walton’s Among Others for example, which is on a lot of these lists) that I still feel too uninformed to try it.

2. And I’m only a third or so into Greg Egan’s “The Clockwork Rocket” (which I got tuned into via the podcast) and it’s definitely one of the few most original and interesting science fiction novels of 2011 I read this year. It’s getting muddy for me to judge the fantasy novels, of which I’ve read quite a few more. On the SF front, though: Hannu Rajaniemi’s The Quantum Thief, China Mieville’s Embassytown, Tc McCarthy’s Germline, and Egan’s “Rocket” are the ones in sf that I’ve kept thinking about. (I didn’t get to many of the other “big” sf release though: Robopocalypse, Leviathan Wakes (though the opening chapter has me hoping to get to it soon), Max Barry’s Machine Man, Heaven’s Shadow, Steven Gould’s 7th Sigma, Charles Stross’s Rule 34, Simon Morden’s series, Will McIntosh’s Soft Apocalypse, Robert Charles Wilson’s Vortex, Dan Simmons’s Flashback, etc. And there are some new ones this month (Vinge, Joan S., don’t know how to classify Stephenson’s REAMDE yet though not “clearly” sf, don’t know how to classify Murakami’s 1Q84 or the new Stephen King book… how do you read ‘em all…) One thing is that I do want to say while I’m mind-dumping anyway: while enjoyable, neither Scalzi’s Fuzzy Nation nor Cline’s Ready Player One are among the best sf novels of the year so far. In that category for fantasy would be Morgenstern’s The Night Circus and Jacobs’s Southern Gods, The Wise Man’s Fear, and A Dance with Dragons. I really, really liked Journal of a UFO Investigator but it’s one where “is it sf? probably not” applies.

3. One recommendation for a fantasy novel in that “best of the year” conversation would be: Lev Grossman’s The Magician King. Just so many I haven’t read yet: JM McDermott’s Never Knew Another, Catherynne Valente’s Deathless, Teresa Frohock’s Miserere, Low Town, Genevieve Valentine’s Mechanique, Joe Abercrombie’s The Heroes, …

So, in terms of buzzing books: I’m a bit afraid of being so blunt, and while all three have much to recommend (some more than others): Fuzzy Nation, The Night Circus, and Ready Player One are not among my best books of the year. I had problems with Embassytown and The Quantum Thief as well, but overall they remain in my own private conversation about the year’s best novels.

Ian Mond, of The Writer and The Critic, as I understand it has a podcast on which he discusses one or two authors or books per month. He was very keen to talk about Tom Disch next.

But the topic of Coode St. #68 was presented, informally, to the audience as the set “undeservedly forgotten writers,” which one might expect would include women. Disch was mentioned. Russ was mentioned. Then the conversation was guided back to Disch repeatedly (by Gary Wolfe) because the podcasters still thought they were discussing the set of one, Tom Disch, because that’s what Mond suggested the topic be—but that’s not necessarily what the audience thought.

But Coode Street’s record speaks pretty well for itself. Of their past 9 guests, 7 have been women, 2 have been men. Of the names mentioned, more seem to be women than seem to be men. While I have not used a stopwatch to time how much attention is devoted to each author, at least three or four special topic podcasts have been largely devoted to female writers, and significant portions of other shows as well.

Over the past 20-ish podcasts, here’s what I’ve heard:

Podcast 68: Guest, Ian Mond
Main Topic: Tom Disch
Other topics: Joan Slonczewski, Joanna Russ, Michael Bishop

Podcast 67: Jo Walton (Among Others), Nedi Okorafor, Karen Lord, Lisa Goldstein, R. A. MacAvoy, Daryl Gregory, Kathleen Ann Goonan, China Mieville, Stina Liecht (Blood and Honey), Nnedi Okorafor (Akata Witch), Rae Carson, Joan Aiken, Andy Duncan, Peter Beagle, Carol Emshwiller, Tim Powers, Gwynneth Jones, Caitlyn Kiernan, Margot Lanagan, Geoff Ryman, Tansy Roberts, Lucy Sussex, Bruce Sterling

Podcast 65: Guest: Jo Walton
Topic: Among Others, Jo Walton’s Hugo records

Podcast 64: Topic Caitlin R. Kiernan

Podcast 63: Christopher Priest, modernists, Stan Robinson, John Brunner (has featured in a few podcasts), New Wave, Ellison/Dangerous Visions, Shawna McCarthy/Asimov’s

Podcast 62:

Podcast 61: Conventions
Pat Cadigan, Mary Gentle, Damon Knight, Karen MacLean, Cecelia Holland, Neal Stephenson (emphasized)

Podcast 60: Guest John Clute
Topic: SF Encyclopedia

Podcast 59: Major topic: Marion Zimmer Bradley (spent a lot of time on her)

major female fantasy writers Nora Jemison, ThinkGalacticon & WisCon, ideologies of conventions and fandoms, Heinlein & feminism, Ken McLeod, more Nora Jemison, bias, politics, Tim Powers, Chip Delaney (gay issues), Joanna Russ, , Anne McCaffrey, more Russ, Le Guin,

58: conferences & awards, Cheryl M., gender balance, race,

57: LOCUS Awards

Podcast 54: Guest: Eileen Gunn

Podcast 53: Guest: Karen Lord

Podcast 52: Nebulas

Podcast 51: Embassytown (Mieville), Akata Witch (Okorafor), Clockwork Rocket (Egan), Dancing With Bears (Swanwick)

Podcast 49: Joanna Russ

Podcast 46: Guests: Farah Mendlesohn & Tansy Rayner, Topic Diana Wynne Jones Pt. 2

Podcast 45: Diana Wynne Jones, Pt. 1

Podcast 43: Guests: Liza Trombi & Karen Burnham

I met Josephine Saxton at the Gollancz party last week. She’s still very sharp, but these days she mostly does painting, not writing. I’m planning to get some of her books from the Gateway and review them.

Of course, it’s impossible ever to get out of trouble fully once you get in. When I read that copy of Again, Dangerous Visions, I was sitting in Iowa City, Iowa. (Just joking, guys. You’re not really in trouble. Not for the Iowa comment.)

As to the Ellison (TM) quotation that I threw down, because it was combustible (and which is in the intro to the story “When It Changed”, not in the intro to the anthology), I don’t think “best” means either “most representative” or “that which numerically dominates,” so, while Jonathan’s count of the very few stories by women actually present in the Dangerous Visions volumes provides excellent context, I don’t think it quite makes the very bold generalization dissolve. I salute the statement, because it accorded with my experience, as did very few general statements that I encountered in the course of a standard Liberal Arts education in the early 70s.

The rhetoric that surrounds that statement would, in any contemporary conversation, be seen to undercut it, as would the low numeric representation of women writers. I don’t think it was “aspirational,” however. I think it was as defensibly true as any generalization can be. As most generalizations are, it was designed to be combustible.

Matt’s comment about the novelists winning is an excellent one. As Jonathan remarks, it doesn’t explain the curious case of Kate Wilhelm. (If you want the subject of a bar conversation to morph in three sentences, bring up Kate Wilhelm.) Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang is amazing, but I’d say that Welcome Chaos, Huysman’s Pets, and Juniper Time are as good and as interesting for discussion, yet they seem to have fallen out of the conversation almost at once. The “science” in her “science fiction” was always biology and psychology, as Le Guin’s “science” was primarily anthropology. There was certainly a period when the “winner” science in SF was the love child of physics and engineering: the space exploration side of astronomy. In the current era, when that is less true, a rediscovery of Kate Wilhelm might prove both timely and inspiring. (The story I remember best from Again, Dangerous Visions, after “When It Changed” was Wilhelm’s “The Funeral.”)

John Crowley has written an excellent article about the way the future changes to accord with the present, btw, linked from locusmag or at this url: http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/essays/the-next-future.php

I think Gary rather misinterpreted my use of the term “winners,” I hope not willfully. It comes from the expression “History is written by the winners.” It does not imply that I think of writers as a bunch of warriors in a melee, each trying to emerge victorious by knocking the blocks off all the others. Culturally and conversationally, though, a core position tends to emerge from chaos and hold sway, such that our collective memory of a period, a subject, a movement spins on that axis. (The creation of canon is such a process.) Valuable work is always thrown to the periphery in that process and then needs to be reclaimed. If not reclaimed, it tends to disappear. So there is a competition for a place in the ongoing conversation, a competition for the attention of critics, such as yourselves, who are likely to contribute to articulating the core position that gives shape to the chaos. You may, if you like, be uncomfortable about having that power, but your discomfort won’t make the power go away. Your public invites you to read responsibly.

I thought it was interesting, for example, that in the same Writer&Critic podcast that Jonathan took the topic from, both Ian and Kirstyn voice their support of Cathrynne Valente’s Deathless as a Hugo nominee. Jonathan mentioned the podcast, but didn’t pass along their recommendation; on the other hand, he did pass along suggestions of good books from other folks. And then in this podcast a second factor was illustrated: Ian himself backed away from Deathless a bit, suggesting that while it was a very good book, it was an unlikely Hugo nominee. This, even though Valente had a not-dissimilar novel (Palimpsest) on the shortlist just a year ago in 2010; and a not-dissimilar novel (The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms) made the shortlist this year.

Tangled up with this is that it is unclear whether you gentlemen are asking a) what books we think are this year’s must-reads, the “books you’ve got to read in 2011″ (Jonathan’s original phrase in Episode 67), or b) what books we think are likely to appeal to Hugo voters specifically (which Jonathan notes is not the same thing). Are we, are you, highlighting good books, or handicapping an award? When you mention a book like Fuzzy Nation as the kind of book that Hugo voters like, it sounds like you are handicapping. One issue I have with that is the self-censorship that it engenders. Good novels don’t get mentioned, or are mentioned only to dismiss them as serious candidates, while lesser works are promoted simply because they have an almost self-parodying level of “fit” with perceived notions about what the group in question wants. Or rather, what some subset of the group wants. And that’s the other, larger issue. Jonathan speaks of “what the field wants,” but what does that mean? If you only mention as likely nominees the books that fit your perception of what the nominators want, if you publicly dismiss books that don’t seem to fit, it seems to me that you’re on one hand (as would-be advocates) contributing to the Hugos being insular and change-resistant–you’re legitimizing a literary culture that dismisses books on criteria other than success at their own project and the value of that project, which if genres continue to evaporate is surely a dead end–and on the other hand (as would-be reporters) you’re risking being out of touch with what the full range of nominators are reading, as demonstrated by recent shortlists.

And really, handicapping avoids what I’d suggest is the more interesting topic, the question of what two widely-read, experienced evaluators of speculative fiction did in fact think were some of the best books of the year, and why–nevermind the suitability of those works as candidates for various awards.

For myself, like everyone it seems, I feel horribly under-read this year in novels–and reluctant to mention ones I haven’t read, because a number of novels I did read based on buzz (and have seen other people list) struck me as average-to-good rather than great. As you can probably tell, I did like Valente’s Deathless, if it doesn’t do all that it might it still does more than most books, and more passionately; I liked God’s War, of which a similar statement might be made; I liked Michael Cisco’s The Great Lover, some of the best genre writing I’ve seen this year; I liked Téa Obreht’s The Tiger’s Wife, for its setting, and its integration of the fantastic and the mundane that just feels right to me; Karen Russell’s Swamplandia, for similar reasons if quite different specifics; and I liked Embassytown, as Blindsight-like high-concept SF. There are still a lot of promising 2011 books on my to-read list, though, both mainstream and genre. Several I learned about from these last two podcasts, so I thank you two, and your listeners.

Regarding the New Wave, I came along after it, too–I can’t say how it was seen at the time, but I can suggest how someone younger might see it when they encounter it after the fact. Partly I think the divide between Susan and the podcasters above is the oft-cited Atlantic divide: the question of whether the perceived epicenter of the New Wave was in England, with Moorcock’s editorship of New Worlds and the writers that gathered around the publication, or with Dangerous Visions in the US and the writers included there. Another possible factor, which I suggest equally as a question and an argument, might be the contemporaneous rise of the bound volume as the genre fiction’s unit of currency, over the short story. So many of the male New Wave writers seem now to be remembered for signature novels of the period–Aldiss, Ballard, Brunner, Delany, Disch, Harrison, Moorcock, Siverberg, Spinrad, Zelazny, et al, all have at least one which seem to have defined them as New Wave writers. In contrast, the female authors seem to have published fewer novels, and fewer widely-lauded novels, during the New Wave years. (Of course we can guess that recent discussions on women in SF applied just as much, if not more, then as now.) But indeed, the degree that female writers are remembered today in connection with the New Wave roughly corresponds to their output of novels in that period. Le Guin is foremost; Russ, up there; Wilhelm, remembered but fading in specific connection with the New Wave–she had many novels, but only Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang, toward the end of the New Wave, seems to have garnered sufficient acclaim as to be award-nominated (suggests the ISFDB; info below also sourced there). Tiptree, granted, is something of an exception, gaining acclaim through her short fiction, and not writing novels until near the end of her career. But Carol Emshwiller also didn’t turn to novels until later in her career, well after the New Wave period, and is remembered less well (if on the uptick now), and not especially as a “New Wave writer”; Josephine Saxton had a brief flurry of three novels around 1970, then went back to short fiction; Lee Hoffman wrote a handful of SF novels and a handful of short SF stories, but a significant majority of her works were Western novels–I don’t know if she ever built up much name recognition among SF&F readers; Sonya Dorman had one series of four SF juvenile novels, but otherwise published only short stories and poetry; Miriam DeFord doesn’t seem to have written any SF novels. So by and large, I think the answer to the questions of “who won, and why” might be “the novelists.”

My nominating ballot is looking like this:

The Quantum Thief, Hanno Rajaniemi. I’d like to point out that there is a definite strain of Nine Princes in Amber in this book. I about fell out of my seat when Jean clothes himself in Corwin’s colors at one point.

Of Blood and Honey, Stina Leicht. Yes, another first novel, and a meticulously researched first novel that I was afraid, wrongly would sideline its fantastic elements in favor of the slice of life of the Troubles. Both are integrated wonderfully.

The Cloud Roads, Martha Wells. Another author who didn’t “break through” despite Death of the Necromancer being shortlisted for a Nebula. Cloud Roads is a fresh start, and a good one for her.

God’s War, Kameron Hurley. Audacious. “Blood, Bugs and Brutal Women. All the best things in life” is the way the author inscribed the book to me. Not all of it works, but you don’t need a perfect book. And its something different and new.

Wolfsangel, M.D. Lachlan. He’s a new writer in our genre, although Mark has written other things. A fresh and unique take on werewolves, and a gritty, realistic portrayal of Dark Age Scandinavia in the bargain. Again, like the Leicht, he did his research and it shows in the vivid detail he brings to the book.

I could triple this with honorable mentions, but I will stop here.

I got to meet Joan at Diversicon here in St. Paul a couple of months back. Haven’t tackled The Highest Frontier, but I want to…

Are you still taking recommendations on books to buzz about, Jonathan?

As the recording progressed I was aware that we weren’t talking about women enough, and could see it was necessary and appropriate to raise that with Ian and Gary, both of whom are very much aware of women in science fiction. However, sometimes a conversation has its own currents and eddies, and you need to nudge things.

For the record, I don’t know if Alisa was shaking her head, and even though she blogs regularly about her knitting, I doubt strongly she would have thrown her knitting needles (or whatever item of equipment might be in use) into the air, but I would have understood perfectly well if she had.

I share your feelings on Kathy Goonan’s books. I liked the flower cities books, especially the first, very much, but have been wary of This Shared Dream and In War Times for much the same reasons you outline.

I think we may re-address the issue of the New Wave in upcoming podcasts. I’d not given it a lot of thought before the recording, and my own reading of New Wave texts was many years after events, so I wouldn’t put my hand up as any kind of expert. I do wonder if Harlan’s statement that you quote from the introduction to Again, Dangerous Visions was more aspirational than accurately descriptive, though. A quick look at the two volumes (Dangerous Visions and Again, Dangerous Visions) shows 85 fiction contributions, of which 11 are from women (or about 12%). There’s no doubt that of those ten Carole Emshwiller, Ursula Le Guin, Kate Wilhelm, Joanna Russ, and James Tiptree stand among the all time greats in the history of the field, and that Russ’s and Le Guin’s Again, Dangerous Visions stories are two of the all time great stories.

And yes I agree that it is all personal. I associate the New Wave with the rise of women in science fiction, but not immediately with the level of recognition that came later. I guess I still associate it more in my mind’s eye with Moorcock, Harrison, Ballard, Ellison, Silverberg, and so on, though I am going to re-examine it.

In terms of the quote, I’m not listening back either , but I am happy to amend it to “many of the best SF writers today are women”. I think that’s true.

And thank you for the long and considered comments. They’re greatly appreciated and welcome.

(It’s not that I don’t understand having perferences and biases. I liked Kathleen Ann Goonan’s flower cities series very much. I’m late reading This Shared Dream because I’d skipped In War Times for just such a reason: I like jazz, but I rarely like people writing about jazz, and at least one review had made the book sound as if it was “about” jazz. Both In War Times and This Shared Dream are on my e-pile currently, as is Andrea Hairston’s Redwood and Wildfire. I’m not sure whether I’ll manage to encompass Mechanique, as I also don’t often like books about the circus, any circus, even a circus that I’d want to attend.)

May I also say for the record, that when you talk about the New Wave, I don’t recognize the New Wave that I lived through, and thought I read, and loved. I have a vivid memory of being an undergraduate and coming home with a nice, fresh copy of Again, Dangerous Visions and thumbing through the volume to decide where to start and falling into “When It Changed.” Herein follows a quotation from Harlan Ellison’s (TM, R,however you render the intellectual property element of the name in HTML) introduction to the story:

“. . . as far as I’m concerned, the best writers in sf today are the women. Most of them are represented in this volume–Kate Wilhelm, Ursula Le Guin, Josephine Saxton, Lee Hoffman, Joanna [Russ]–and others were featured in the original Dangerous Visions–Sonya Dorman, Carol Emshwiller, Miriam Allen de Ford.”

I’d have to add James Tiptree, Jr. to the list (present in Again, Dangerous Visions, but then known only by persona).. And those writers were the core of the New Wave I experienced, along with Samuel Delany (grouped correctly or in-), and Vonegut and Pynchon, who escaped the genre shelving. And Damon Knight’s Orbit series. And Stand on Zanzibar. Grant you, historical periods you live through are always experienced fractally and fractionally. They get codified later, and always by the “winners.” But what the heck happened that a movement I associate primarily with women you associate primarily with men? Who won, and why? Can we recount the vote?

So in 1971 a major writer and anthologist says “the best writers in sf today are the women.” Full stop. In 2011 a major anthologist says something like “women are doing okay.” (Jump in and correct my memory of your words, Jonathan. The quotation is not quite right, but I’m not relistening to find the exact quote.) Discuss, please. At length and with specific examples, if I could have my druthers.

In terms of ‘buzz’, podcasts such as this & other conversations generate it. If the work in question is good enough, others pick up on it & it builds. I suspect that’s what happened with Alastair Reynolds’ “Troika”; I was prompted to seek it out after hearing Jonathan speak passionately about it. Would it have made the Hugo final ballot otherwise?

The Heroes by Joe Abercrombie – his best yet imo, and
Down To The Bone by Justina Robson – a very fine conclusion to the whole Quantum Gravity sequence I thought.

While there might be workarounds to some of these, I can see a theoretical role for humanoid multi-purpose mobile robots for the rich disabled folk of the future – if we get to making those before we get to fixing all medical issues ever.

Which Roberts collections are you missing Jonathan? I think I’ve got everything of his except the poetry collection A Heron Caught In Weeds.

Of course, the greatest mutant from 50′s SF is one that many forget IS a mutant:

Godzilla.

Interested to hear that the Hugo posts might be collected. I wonder if the comments will be included. It’s rare to have a comments section almost as entertaining as the blog itself!

A question I would pose to you and Gary is this – if she wasn’t a publishing insider would it have been a shorter (tighter) book?

You mentioned glassSteel (however you want to spell it). Let’s talk about plazsteel, which I believe was a word I first discovered through Frank Herbert’s works. With that word, Herbert conveys to the reader of the 20th and 21st centuries an idea of a material used in a future society. What we get from that word is that it might be a plastic as strong as steel or a steel as flexible as plastic. It’s possible that when plazsteel is created in the real world, we’ll all call it by a brand name or a process. Let’s call it Galundrum. If Herbert has said that a tool was made out of Galundrum, we wouldn’t have any idea of its properties. But we can imagine what plazsteel is without having to be told what it’s like, how it’s made or the derivation of its name.

We also don’t need to understand all of the technological and conceptual steps that had to have occurred between the reader’s time and the time of the story. Imagine using the word “app” in a story written in 1941. A science fiction reader of the time might understand the concept of a computer program, but the words “software application” wouldn’t have any tie to anything he or she had encountered before, much less the abbreviated “app.” As terrible as it sounds, they could probably work out a word like “comprog” if it was used to illustrate the same concept.

Aha, that would be the influence of ex-pat Australasians (there is some controversy over whether the flat white was invented by New Zealand or Australia) in the UK.

My own entry point into science fiction was via television, namely Jon Pertwee-era Doctor Who and the original series of Star Trek in the very early 1970s. I did read some SF juveniles (e.g. Arthur C. Clarke’s Island in the Sky) and moved into the adult variety in the later seventies with an Isaac Asimov collection (The Early Asimov) which I took out of the library and which went with me on a family holiday.

The National Library of Australia is interested in contacting the author of this blog with regard to its possible inclusion within PANDORA: Australia’s Web Archive. We were unable to locate any email contact details onsite and are requesting that if you are interested in your blog being archived that you contact us at: webarchive [at] nla.gov.au.

You can see more details on the Archive at the link below. http://pandora.nla.gov.au/about.html

Regards

PANDORA team

In any case, both the digital project and the Encyclopedia are amazing efforts!

I recently started a science fiction blog, and one of the first reviews I posted was of Engineering Infinity. Great book. Here’s the link:

http://futurespastandpresent.blogspot.com/2011/06/engineering-infinity.html

Thanks,

Keith

Actually, there was (until about 10 years ago) a radio show in NYC called “Rambling with Gambling” which was hosted by, over its 75 years of life, several generations of the Gambling family…

Who is she not remembered by? Well, ask yourself this: when you hear people talk about major women SF/F writers of the last 40 years, how many times do you hear her name mentioned? You hear Russ, Tiptree, Le Guin and so on, but it takes a while before you hear MZB’s name mentioned, rightly or wrongly.

I agree absolutely about the importance of Marion Zimmer Bradley’s Mists of Avalon – it was a hugely important work, in feminist fiction, in historical fiction and in epic fantasy. The sheer popularity of it in mainstream culture – it’s taught in universities! – and the radical reworking of such a popular myth to show that you can tell that kind of story (kings, politics, battles, war, magic) almost entirely through the eyes of women was groundbreaking. I read it early enough in my own discoveries of fantasy fiction that I took that female POV quite for granted, but I can see how it would have been extraordinary for readers at the time it was released, and can see absolutely why so many generations of women embraced it and continue to do so.

I was a little surprised to hear you talk about the iconic status/importance of Bradley as a writer in science fiction and fantasy as if this was somehow a matter of debate. It never occurred to me that she wasn’t – I was never a Darkover fan (as with Pern and Valdemar, I missed these ones in my reading of older SF/fantasy as a teenager, and have never found time or inclination to read them as an adult) but I read a lot of her 80′s fantasy and it formed a cornerstone of my understanding of the genre. Even without being familiar with the entirety of her work, her name has always stood out to me as one of the more famous and popular writers of our field, along with McCaffrey, Mercedes Lackey, Brooks, Eddings, etc.

Mists of Avalon is hugely important, I think, for what it does and what it demonstrates that can be done with fantasy and mythology – though personally I have a far softer spot for The Firebrand, which does exactly the same thing, but with the Trojan cycle, at two thirds the length of MoA.

Something that really struck me in this podcast was the discussion on how MZB’s popularity and prolific output have potentially sabotaged her reputation as an important writer in the field. That floored me. Despite your elaboration on that idea with the examples of Robert Silverberg and Michael Moorcock (who are, let’s face it, both considered absolute giants in the field and in no way in danger of losing those reputations any time soon), it seems to me (and I DO recognise that I’ve been living and breathing the works of Joanna Russ this week so this stuff is at the forefront of my mind) that it’s really only women writers who can be dismissed in importance due to being popular and/or prolific.

She wrote it, but she wrote too many of them.
She wrote it, but she was too popular.

REALLY?

Terry Brooks, for instance – I have never found anyone who liked his Shannara books at all, but he is regularly credited with his influence on the genre regardless of critical acclaim. Why on earth would the popularity of Mists of Avalon or even the Darkover series have a detrimental effect on MZB’s legacy as a writer? I also think that the argument that a huge backlist can be problematic in allowing a new reader to discover old writers makes no sense in this particular instance because regardless of how many Darkover volumes there are, MZB has that single, famous, iconic book for which she is known even outside science fiction and fantasy circles.

If she isn’t regularly remembered as a vital, influential writer in our field, then who is it she is not being remembered by? And why should that be the case? I honestly don’t think that a large backlist or the massive popularity of MoA cut it as reasons. So what other reasons could there be?

Thanks as always for the interesting discussion…

I hadn’t been aware until the podcast of his prose work. You can view some of his most recent webcomics at the site mentioned above.

Nice of you to loan your logo out to Glen Cook for his ‘A Matter of Time’ cover: http://www.amazon.com/Matter-Time-Glen-Cook/dp/1597802794

Rachel Swirsky’s “Eros, Philia, Agape” (novelette, love story, free): This android must find its own identity
Good enough read, but it has been done before. Probably the closest read I can off-hand recollect is the third (I think) story in Adam Link series of Eando Binder: girl falls in love with robot, but robot must break her heart & go out to be alone to figure out his own identity & how he can fit in among the humans.

Background & environment of the story will likely resonate better in some cultures than with others. This is not a story for global audiences.
[...] I’m not clear what the title means.
“Eros” probably has something to do with love.
“Philia” with sex? But there is no overt sex here.
“Agape” – wonderment? Again I don’t see how it relates to the story.

I’d still argue that a work being an award winner doesn’t tell you all that much about its quality or how long its reputation will last. (“Best” according to what criteria? Were all its “competitors” examined?) But nominees … well, I think your exercise showed that lists of nominees — like the Locus Recommended Reading List — are a useful guide. However, I still prefer “best of” lists that are made up by one individual.

And stop apologizing for your ramblings! I like your wanderings.

A small correction. Jack of Shadows is *not* a Zelazny Amber novel. It’s a standalone.

On an entirely unrelated subject, I’ve heard you guys on earlier shows mention a couple of times that it’s not possible for another editor to have an effect on the field like John W. Campbell did. I haven’t listened to every one of your shows, so I don’t know if the point I’m about to make has ever been brought up, but I believe it is possible for another editor to have such an effect on the field. Whether or not that will ever happen is another story. The reason Campbell was such a giant was that he worked hard to bend the field to his will. He didn’t stop at shaping it by the mere act of choosing which stories he’d run. He also asked for rewrites that went beyond cosmetic alterations and instead reworked the science fictional ideas and consequences upon which the original story was based. On top of that, he seeded the field by asking writers to develop ideas that he’d come up with. You guys know all of this, of course. I think it’s entirely possible that an editor today could do the same things he did. Aside from the constraints of time and wherewithal, I know that your first objection will be that the field is much larger and much more diverse than it was seventy years ago and one editor can’t reach a portion of the field substantial enough to make great changes. I think, though, that a modern editor with a good reputation working on diverse, high-profile projects can have an immense impact on the field that could ripple outward in direct and indirect ways. There you go, Jonathan. All you need to do is reach out and seize the reins of Campbellian greatness.

Okay. Here goes nothing. Among Others is not a mimetic school novel with extra added fantasy bits. It is a fantasy novel that includes a mimetic school narrative. Gary keeps saying that Mori is like any young person who feels like an outsider, and that’s the sticking point, right there. Mori doesn’t feel like an outsider. She is an outsider. She is a young woman who has come fully into her magical power, fought a great battle, defeated the enemy, saved the world, been sorely wounded, and lost her precious sister. She is, in short, a cognate of Frodo the Nine-Fingered, returned from the Cracks of Doom. And the hero is in boarding school. This is the trick that Tolkien couldn’t quite pull off: imagining healing, imagining an ordinary life after the great battle. You can say a lot of things about this novel, but you can’t say it doesn’t go in at the deep end.

In case you miss it on the way in, by the end of the story we have Huorns coming out of that book to take action in this one, resolving another battle.

Mori is isolated in school, and she has limited options for bridging the gap, because if she talked about her experiences and her background she would literally become less explicable to her classmates with every word she spoke. Less explicable and more suspect. Shutting up, sitting down and reading the library from wall to wall isn’t just a good idea, it’s the only viable option. The book club offers the opportunity to talk about the shared and safe experience of reading the same books, becomes a place to talk about worldbuilding and in doing so mutually to build a world and share it. That’s important to Mori for more than one reason, because her deepest fear is that her magic, which curves the world a little until it moves into the channel of her wishes, may cause those around her to perform her will. In a world her magic made, she would be truly alone (and strangely like a Dark Lord, too).

Honestly, guys, if there’s some way to make fantasy more central to this book than it already is, I can’t imagine it. It’s about identity and community, yes, but in the context of the use of power and the building of worlds. And it has those nifty, original fairies, too.

You could, I think, write a mimetic novel about these characters in this school and this book club, but the backstory would likely overwhelm the frontstory, both in emotional intensity and in the level of detail needed to describe the damaging events. If you didn’t handle it perfectly, you’d run the risk of making the protagonist pathetic instead of heroic. And it would inevitably be about damage and recovery. Among Others is about power and victory instead, and about the brilliant achievement of an ordinary life in a socially constructed reality. The familiar fantasy motifs streamline the backstory wonderfully.

So, yes, I think it has to be a fantasy novel.

It’s morning in the US right now, so good morning, Gary, and good night, Jonathan.

Good discussion for your 50th episode.

I can’t help but thinking, though…when you were talking about how perhaps some of the value of fantasy books lies in their immersive powers? You weren’t deliberately avoiding the word “escapism” there, were you? :D

As for having “gotten what an author is trying to say” and then moving on, well. That puts the pressure on us to express our recurring themes as perfectly as possible the first time around, doesn’t it?

That or get new themes!

Thoraiya

As one of your three fairy godmothers from Galactic Suburbia, I have enjoyed muchly your year’s worth of podcasty goodness. You generally keep me company as I am zooming around the supermarket on the weekend, having left my family at home to strangle each other in my absence.

I enjoy the perspective you both provide on the industry, and the glimpse at all the insider knowledge you have packed away inside those skulls of yours. While we do not always agree, and I occasionally do find myself arguing fervently with you both (generally in the pasta aisle) my weekend would still not be the same without you!

So Happy Birthday Coode Street Podcast – I will raise a virtual glass of wine to Gary and a virtual cup of coffee to Jonathan. Keep on rambling!

Tansy xxx

A curious thing about listening to the podcast, whenever I read anything by you or Gary now I hear your voices. Funny that.

Long time listener (since the very beginning!), first time commenter. Congrats on the anniversary! I’ve loved listening along and continue to look forward to your little show each week. Being Canadian, I feel a certain kinship to the new crop of Australian podcasts, even if only in a distant sort of way – I only wish we had such an active community in the great white north!

A few questions to spur discussion:
- What is your impression of Dune as a classic of the field, and where do you see most clearly its influence? Jonathan, I heard you name it as one of your top-5 picks on the Writer & the Critic mega podcast, but it doesn’t seem to have come up very often in your conversations with Gary. It was one of my gateway books when I was growing up in the late-80s/early-90s and I’ve always had a fondness for it.

- With the recent talk of epic fantasy, I was wondering if you could speak to your impressions of newer writers in the field. Specifically, you mentioned you’d read Abercrombie’s latest, and I’d be interested in hearing what you think of it and his previous work. Others of a similar type I’ve enjoyed in recent years are Scott Lynch and Patrick Rothfuss (who just blew up with his second novel). Are you familiar with their work at all? Finally, I’ve also been enjoying the work of R. Scott Bakker, a Canadian working on his second trilogy of particularly sophisticated epic fantasy. Has his work made much of an impact in the field?

Thanks again for all the great conversation, and keep it up! Your podcast is a great resource for someone like me, who loves the field but grew up, not on Heinlein juveniles, but on Super Mario!

Cheers,

Cam

ps- Jonathan, please keep up the great work on your anthologies, your Night Shade year’s bests and Eclipse volumes have been a great education and immense fun.

I haven’t seen Game of Thrones yet (or read the books!) but I agree that Rome did a very good job of presenting interesting, balanced gender politics in a historical background. In particular, the use of sex as power was illustrated not only with the male characters, but with the women, and while there was a lot of gratuitous nudity, there was plenty of eye candy for those of all genders and persuasions. I think they did a marvellous job of presenting a version of history to a modern audience in an almost science fictional manner – showing us how different in some ways but similar in others the people of Ancient Rome were to today’s societies. The role of slaves was used cleverly in this regard – the gift of a well endowed male slave from Atia to Servilia had a plot point but also meant we as a modern audience weren’t stuck looking at just one kind of gender politics.

I don’t believe that medieval (or historical) gender politics/attitudes are an essential aspect of epic fantasy, though they often become so by default. This is especially problematic when it is actually a very cod-medieval/historical society without even the natural variance of power/freedoms that some women of those times enjoyed. I think it’s really important for writers, especially those coming in now after so many decades of epic fantasy, not limit themselves to the social construct of history, imagined history or fantasy traditions – at least not without some serious consideration as to what else they could do.

Recent Hugo nominee N.K. Jemisin’s The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms is a really good example of a book which is working within the conversation of epic fantasy, but actively & openly working against most of its conventions. There should be more of this – and it’s certainly the kind of fantasy fiction I’m most interested in seeking out, just as I pounce upon fantasy which borrows from less thoroughly-mined historical periods.

Only four finalists for short story, but seven(!) for long form editor? Must have been a three-way tie for fifth place.

First time in a while that there are more female nominees than male in the novel category.

I’m intrigued by the short form dramatic which has three Dr. Whos vs. an Oscar winner vs. a youtube hit.

PS: Love your new banner! Heard some nice things about the Eclipse 4 cover at Swancon from various people.