Disappointments from the Fantasy & SF Masterworks series

[JP Garrod]

I think its an age thing but i find Robert Jordans Wheel of Time series really quite boring. I don't really like any of the characters, i don't find anything that happens exciting and it was all pretty predictable. I had to literally force myself to read the first 5 books and then it picked up for a few books and then it went downhill again. With all respect to him, rest in peace, its got even worse since the new author took over expanding what was supposed to be the last one into another 3 and possibly beyond. I find myself glad i borrowed the books off my Godfather (who coincidentally loves the series) rather than buying them.

As much as I love LOTR aswell, after reading more and more fantasy books i now realise the exact same thing has happened to my view of the series. I feel the style of writing is outdated and that they aren't dark enough for my personal tastes and although i wasn't disappointed the 1st time i read LOTR, i was when i went back to reading it after the Malazan series and First Law series. It wasn't quite as good as i remembered it to be.

 

[Fried Egg]

JP Garrod

As much as I happen agree with you about these books you mention, neither of which are in the fantasy masterworks series. Tolkien surely deserves as place no matter what I think of LOTR but as for Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series, I would have been very suprised to ever see that included.

 

[JP Garrod]

JP Garrod

As much as I happen agree with you about these books you mention, neither of which are in the fantasy masterworks series. Tolkien surely deserves as place no matter what I think of LOTR but as for Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series, I would have been very suprised to ever see that included.

Yeah i misread the title haha. Don't get me wrong i have ultimate respect for them both, what they created and how they advanced the fantasy genre but for me Wheel of Time was a massive struggle. I found a constant theme throughout the books of it being an ok start, extremely boring and drawn out middle and then a good ending. And it was only because of his good endings that i kept reading.

 

[Fried Egg]

It seems I'm having quite a bad year for SF Masterworks. This is my third disappointment from that series of the year so far: "Mission of Gravity" by Hal Clement. Here is my review:

This is another one of those SF books that is written by a scientst, for scientists. Like Fred Hoyle's The Black Cloud, it is the scientists and engineers who are the calling the shots and saving the day. Unlike "The Black Cloud" however, there is very little to interest the reader who isn't a scientist, doesn't enjoy following through scientific reasoning and working through technical problems.

As the Mesklinites have to traverse their way halfway across their planet, from the equatorial region that has very similar levels of gravity to Earth, to one of the polar regions at which one will experience gravity at something like 600 times that of Earth, they encounter different sorts of problems in which the human scientists help and advise them.

The characters are flat, the plot is dull, the narrative style dated and stale. Many times throughout I considered throwing it down but stuck with it since it is not too long at 200 pages. It was an interesting premise but could have been handled so much better by someone who could actually write fiction. I certainly don't intend to read anything else by this author.

 

[J-Sun]

This is another one of those SF books that is written by a scientst, for scientists. Like Fred Hoyle's The Black Cloud, it is the scientists and engineers who are the calling the shots and saving the day.

Another one. Because they make up 99% of what is called SF? Or .9?

Unlike "The Black Cloud" however, there is very little to interest the reader who isn't a scientist, doesn't enjoy following through scientific reasoning and working through technical problems.

Yes, that is rather a prime spot of enjoyment for me and, I thought, for most people who read SF. If you missed the sense of wonder and joyous adventure from struggling to accomplish our objective across one of the wildest settings ever, I feel sad.

The characters are flat, the plot is dull, the narrative style dated and stale. Many times throughout I considered throwing it down but stuck with it since it is not too long at 200 pages. It was an interesting premise but could have been handled so much better by someone who could actually write fiction. I certainly don't intend to read anything else by this author.

The characters aren't especially the point but if Barlennan doesn't stick in the mind, again, I feel sad. The plot is exciting and direct. The narrative style is plain and spare (which admittedly is not to all tastes). Yes, this is very much a hard SF book and someone looking for flowery new wavy navel gazing or the like will be sorely disappointed but to say Hal Clement didn't accomplish his objectives perfectly is to miss how well he can write fiction. As Ian says, quite correctly on another thread, the fact that the scientific speculation behind the book is woven seamlessly into a setting realized so completely and an adventure narrative driven so smoothly is an accomplishment.

For other books you might dislike (and I have a hard time coming up with many of this sort) I'd recommend you not read any Robert L. Forward either.

Anyway, everyone is entitled to their opinions and I can imagine many people having just your reaction, but I felt compelled to voice a counterweight as it's not an absolute thing. This book will not at all satisfy everyone but it is every bit a Masterwork for myself and for many.

 

[D_Davis]

One man's masterwork is another man's trash.

 

[j d worthington]

I found the concept and the Mesklinites themselves interesting, but I have to agree with the writing here. However, I do have a certain interest in such "hard" sf (George O. Smith, Hal Clement, and the like); conceptually and imaginatively they proved very stimulating to my young mind when I discovered them growing up... and I'm not likely to forget that. It is their failure as writers in the broader sense which I have trouble with; but not all "hard sf" writers are quite of that nature. As I said (rather ambiguously) in the other thraed, this one may be short, but it makes an impression....

J-Sun: I'm a little confused about this statement here:

Another one. Because they make up 99% of what is called SF? Or .9?

Are you making the claim that this is the case with science fiction (i.e., the majority of it is of this mode)? If so, I'd have to say you're 'way off-beam there. But if not, and you're stating this idea of scientists saving the day, etc., is the majority... certainly, there is a great deal of that, and it was even more so during the "Golden Age" of sf; but even then there were plenty of exceptions (Sturgeon's "Microcosmic God", "The [Widget], the [Wadget], and Boff", and several pieces by Kuttner and Moore or C. M. Kornbluth come immediately to mind)... but it does seem to be a common misconception of the field.

Or were you saying something else completely, and I managed to miss the point by a galaxy or two....?

 

[J-Sun]

I'm sure any misunderstanding is my fault. "Another one" implied to me that there was an excess of many books like this and I was opposing that by asking a rhetorical question on the '99' and stating my real wild guess with '.9'. So, yeah, my point was that very little SF is really truly hard SF and I value that tiny slice a great deal and would hate for any one looking for it to miss out. I will agree that 'scientist saves the day' had a heyday (though that time is no more) but, even then, it was often an abstract scientist in a more fantastic fashion. So those are two slightly different and slightly overlapping issues.

Nice to hear George O. mentioned. Now, I'll grant that he really isn't the best writer and some of his stuff is underwhelming, but the Venus Equilateral stuff is a 'diagrams on the backs of napkins' blast.

 

[j d worthington]

When it comes to George O., I think his failure was that of so many of the early Campbell-era writers (largely a holdover from the pre-Campbell era, with some new twists) of being unbalanced in favor of the science over the actual storytelling... hence he could (even in the Venus Equilateral stories) have these roadblocks where he went into the physics of the situation and/or solution. Sometimes these were handled as puzzle stories, much like a scientific version of a "locked-room" mystery, while others it was simply impossible to get around the large chunks of "infodump" and still retain the "hard science" aspect in such short compass.

Nevertheless, he was one of the great exemplars of this branch of sf, and if one keeps in mind the peculiar demands of this type of story... yes, he can be very enjoyable. Certainly, I would recommend his work to anyone with an interest in the "engineering" sciences (as they have been called) in fiction. He also had a great sense of humor, and some of his stories hinged on some truly absurdist -- yet quite logical -- conceptions.

At any rate, thanks for clearing that up. The impression I took from it initially seemed quite at odds with other things I've seen from you, so I was rather nonplussed... then again, I seem to spend a fair amount of time that way lately....

 

[Fried Egg]

J-Sun

I should just make it clear that I wasn't implying that there's way to much SF written by people with a scientific background, nor was I suggesting that I don't generally like SF written by such people. If I didn't make it clear, I liked Fred Hoyles "The Black Cloud" a lot.

Obviously "Mission of Gravity" is well liked my many, else it wouldn't have been in the SF Masterworks series (and I might never have encountered it). I just didn't like the way in which it was written but I guess that it is just me.

 

[J-Sun]

I should just make it clear that I wasn't implying that there's way to much SF written by people with a scientific background, nor was I suggesting that I don't generally like SF written by such people. If I didn't make it clear, I liked Fred Hoyles "The Black Cloud" a lot.

Okay. Like j.d. said to me, "the impression I took from it initially seemed quite at odds with other things I've seen from you, so I was rather nonplussed". "This is another one of those SF books" could definitely be said even if it was only the second example, but just sounded to me like it would be said after the millionth.

Obviously "Mission of Gravity" is well liked my many, else it wouldn't have been in the SF Masterworks series (and I might never have encountered it). I just didn't like the way in which it was written but I guess that it is just me.

Certainly not just you - I guess that's just the thing, in part. Lots of people have negative takes on lots of things I like and I often don't say anything because that's fine. And, of course, it's fine here, too, but I don't seem to hear a whole lot of discussion of MoG so just wanted to add a positive note near a negative one. I'm afraid actually most people might agree with you and MoG is in danger of becoming a lost classic. I believe we could stand to lose a few "classics" but I think MoG's a great example of a rare thing. IOW, I just heard someone describe The Forever War as disappointing, but The Forever War is still a big deal and can take it. MoG still makes it into things like Masterworks and small-press reprints but that doesn't mean it's a big seller and will make into the next equivalent of Masterworks.

I don't think I'm expressing myself well (as usual). Anyway - long story short: I liked it; you didn't.

 

[Fried Egg]

I think I forgot to post here about another disappointment I had (some while ago now), this time from the fantasy masterworks series:

"The Dragon Waiting" by John M. Ford

It's not often these days I have to put down a book unfinished and I don't like to, usually preferring to push on to the end to see if it can be redeemed. But this time it just seemed pointless, I really couldn't engage with the story and follow the intricacies of the plot.

I'm not quite sure what exactly about his writing style that makes it so hard for me to take it in. And you need to take it in because it's a complex story with constantly unfolding twists and turns to keep the reader on their toes. I think perhaps it was the way major plot developments or important facts were revealed as throw away lines at the end of descriptive paragraphs that I often found myself having to go back and re-read passages to make sure I had grasped all salient points in order to maintain my tenuous grasp of story.

It didn't help that the first hundred pages were like a prolonged, three-part prologue designed to introduce to the reader three of the main protagonists that were subsequently brought together. Themselves they were complex narratives with large casts of incidental characters that also introduced the reader to the complex political reality of Europe at the time (which is an altered version of Europe in the late twelfth century).

I just felt that I wasn't getting anything from the experience and was just wasting my time. It wasn't that the story was bad or boring, it was just that I couldn't follow it and life's too short.

 

[GOLLUM]

I find myself concurring with Fried Egg on Ford's The Dragon Waiting. It's the worst Fantasy Masterwork I've read to date, which is saying something given I'm not exactly a shrinking violet when it comes to promoting the positive virtues of this series.

I too found it to be somewhat confusing in terms of plotting and whilst I did finish the book I found little to inspire me and nothing to really make me wasn't to rush out and purchase anything else by this author. I didn't really like Ford's writing style, can't recall why.

Don't even asl me to describe what happened in the end...I've basically forgotten, so clearly whatever it was, it wasn't particularity memorable for this reader.

 

[williamjm]

I liked "The Dragon Waiting" a lot, but I can understand the criticism of it. I think the novel could have benefited from taking a bit more time to explain things and it felt a bit rushed at times as it jumped from one plot point to another. It's refreshing to have an Epic Fantasy that doesn't take ten volumes to tell a story, but in this case it might have been better if it had been a bit longer (although still a single novel).

 

[nomadman]

I find myself concurring with Fried Egg on Ford's The Dragon Waiting. It's the worst Fantasy Masterwork I've read to date, which is saying something given I'm not exactly a shrinking violet when it comes to promoting the positive virtues of this series.

I too found it to be somewhat confusing in terms of plotting and whilst I did finish the book I found little to inspire me and nothing to really make me wasn't to rush out and purchase anything else by this author. I didn't really like Ford's writing style, can't recall why.

Don't even asl me to describe what happened in the end...I've basically forgotten, so clearly whatever it was, it wasn't particularity memorable for this reader.

I haven't read this one yet, though I've read a couple of his other novels so I can see where you're coming from here. Ford was by all accounts an incredibly complex individual and his works require tremendous concentration and careful (re)reading to fathom out; nonetheless I find the experience to be generally rewarding, not least due to his finely wrought characters and wonderful world building. Since you're a fan of Wolfe I recommend you stick with Ford as the two writers are quite similar in many ways. I'd recommend his Star Trek novel The Final Reflection for starters, as well as the coming of age novel Growing Up Weightless (maybe his finest work). The Last Hot Time is another fine coming of age novel set in an elf-run alternate Earth Chicago during the Jazz age. Then there's the quite brilliant The Princes of the Air, a ferociously complex space opera following the adventures of three childhood friends and their rise through the odd feudalistic society they live in. I'd probably stay away from How Much For Just The Planet (his other ST novel) though it's relatively speaking one of his more accessible works. It's just a bit too silly and throwaway.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Another one. Because they make up 99% of what is called SF? Or .9?

Yes, that is rather a prime spot of enjoyment for me and, I thought, for most people who read SF. If you missed the sense of wonder and joyous adventure from struggling to accomplish our objective across one of the wildest settings ever, I feel sad.

ROFL

Science fiction was invaded by New Wave aliens in the late 60s. It is now their job to tell everyone what "good" science fiction is. This means science is irrelevant to "good science fiction". The irony is that we now have computers everywhere and can create great special effects for science fiction movies.

But then they want to promote STEM education. Where is C. P. Snow when we really need him?

Heinlein and Clarke wrote about this dichotomy decades ago. Read Heinlein's short story It's Great to be Back.

psik

 

[Fried Egg]

Some more recent disappointments with the SF Masterworks series:

"Synners" by Pat Cardigan - Partly because this is cyberpunk but partly because it had such a large cast of unmemorable characters with shifting POV's designed almost deliberately (it seems) to throw the reader so you spend half the time not know what's going on and to whom.

"The Female Man" by Joanna Russ - This is not so much science fiction that explores themes of gender but rather a feminist tract with occasional use of SF tropes. Again with a confusing shifting of POV's and with almost complete lack of any coherent plot.

Both of these are from the new batch of books added to the SF Masterworks series...which brings me to a question. Does anyone think there has been any lessening of quality going into this new series? I think the new batch have included a more less obvious authors which is a good thing but I also feel that the hit rate is declining (for me at least).

 

[Null_Zone]

The Earth Abides by George R Stewart.

I found the main character annoying, complaining about the other survivors doing things wrong but then not really doing much himself. Especially the critique of the black couple who committed the terrible crime of farming and living a peaceful life. But I can live with that, even if his whining and complaining about others whilst he fails at everything carries on until the end of the book.

But then there is the wonderful section of eugenics where the character contemplates how wonderful rats are for avoiding plagues because unlike so many other animals because they kill the weak, the disabled and the unproductive. And a whole bunch of other Nazi-lite beliefs such as physical hygiene is tied into mental health, the ability to spot criminals by the state of their clothes and appearance.

It's actually quite impressive the author could get away with this in 1949.

 

[Fried Egg]

While I haven't quite given up on it yet I'm going to throw in "Viriconium" by M. John Harrison. It's an omnibus that includes three novels and a short story collection. I really enjoyed the first novel "Pastel City" but "A Storm of Wings" was dreadful and most of the short stories just seem pointless to me. I haven't got to "In Viriconium" yet but I'm going to take a break and come back to it.

I notice that "Pastel City" was published in 1971 and he didn't revisit the series until 1980 when the other books followed in relatively quick succession. It certainly feels to me that he had changed as a writer in that time and was far more concerned with abstract themes and being "literary" by the time he came back to it.

I shall attempt the final novel in the omnibus at some point but after this gruelling experience, along with the below par "Centauri Device", I'm not inclined to revisit this author.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I find him a struggle to read. He appears obsessed with technique. Having said that, Viriconium is great - loved it.