On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:20:24 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> In fact, I read "Fahrenheit 451" again about six months ago, and the
>>>>> parallels between that world and this one are spooky...
>>>> I need to read that one one of these days - got a copy out in the
>>>> other room, just never got around to it...
>>> 	Great book.
>>>
>>> 	I think it's incorrect to refer to him as a sci/fi writer, though.
>> 
>> What do you think would be a better classification?
> 
> 	A "good" writer?<G>

Life in the library would certainly be easier if the dewey decimal system 
included numbers for "good" and "bad" writers.  That'd make it easier to 
know which books to avoid, that's for sure.  As mentioned before, L. Ron 
Hubbard certainly would belong in the "really crap writer" section from 
my experience.

> 	Don't know. It's just that I think most of his work is entirely
> unrelated to sci-fi, and even most of his "sci-fi" stories are somewhat
>  incidentally sci-fi. As Darren would put it, you could take (most of)
> those stories, remove the sci-fi elements, and the story is still more
> or less the same. The science aspect was not important in most of his
> stories.

Maybe, but I like books in the sci-fi genre that don't depend on the 
science other than to be a storytelling tool.  I think of the authors 
I've read, though, Michael Creighton comes the closest to a "pure" 
science-fiction definition.

Jim

Post a reply to this message