The 10 Worst Science Fiction Series

[j d worthington]

Ringworld -- indeed, the entire Known Universe series -- is a good case in point. While I do enjoy those books (on the whole), and feel that they can hold the interest and are full of some very fascinating ideas... Niven's prose (here and in general) is, to say the least, lacking. I don't think I have ever recommended this series to anyone beginning to look into the field; this is one for those who already evince a strong taste for sf and, moreover, specifically for sf adventure tales.

Asimov, on the other hand, could write in a wide variety of prose styles, as I noted above. And yes,even though it has been many years since I last read The Gods Themselves, I do recall being impressed with the writing in several portions of that one... quite different from his "normal" voice, as it were.

Incidentally, a point or two which Ian raised in his essay on the Foundation Trilogy (see his link above) caught my interest; on one of them I think he is right, in the main: the use of "Galaxy", etc., instead of the current "God!", or other expletives of a similar nature. I appreciate Asimov's intent here (which is more than a little complex itself, and does, in its own odd way, help build the characterization of his society), but the handling is another thing. The precept is admirable; the practice, however, is seriously faulted, and ends up being risible. Again, I would chalk this up to the young writer attempting something above his abilities at the time, especially given the constraints of the popular medium in which he was working.

On the other hand, the grandiose, faux-courtly dialect which Magnifico uses is quite another thing, and I think this is a lovely bit of characterization. It is very much a part of the Mule's Magnifico persona, and is dropped when the Mule becomes "himself". It, like all the terror tales about the Mule, is overblown, exaggerated, and false... a compensating factor for his own alienage and physical failings. It gives a fair amount of insight into his psychology, and works as a carefully balanced bit of the Clown aspect... yet there is a hint of the imperial weight behind it, too. It is by no means faultless, but I think this use of dialogue, at least, works rather well.

 

[iansales]

JD, much as I'd like to claim credit for that essay on Foundation, it was actually written by someone called Charles Elkins.

 

[Fried Egg]

I side with Sales on the question of whether or not universal standards of literary merit apply to SF writers. Of course they do, and arguing that they don't is just the sort of thing that makes SF seem like a ghetto that has nothing to offer writers and readers who care about literary merit.

A good idea is fatally compromised by bad writing; anyone can have ideas, established writers keep telling us, the key is in the execution. Of course, in a world where the Ringworld series (a very high entry in my own list of worst SF series) is an enduring classic of the SF genre, it's clear that my views may not be universally shared.

Having said that, like J.D. I disagree that Asimov was not a good writer; he had the gift of presenting a surface of absolute clarity, which is harder than it seems. His apparent absence of style was a style too, and while he did slip at times, there were also times when he wrote astoundingly well, as in The Gods Themselves.

I think he was servicable as a writer. He developed his characters only so far as was necessary to advance the plot. The same for his world building. While this was sufficient for what he was trying to do (and for SF at the tmie), it is generally regarded as a fault in the literary commuity. It's as if the characters should be so well constructed that the plot almost happens by accident as a natural consequence of their interatctions.

There's plenty of great SF where the characters and places seem to pop into and out of existance as and when the plot demands it. I thought Vance's "Dying Earth" was great example of this. As such, works like this are never going to be highly regarded in literary circles. Doesn't stop them being great SF though.

 

[Connavar]

I side with Sales on the question of whether or not universal standards of literary merit apply to SF writers. Of course they do, and arguing that they don't is just the sort of thing that makes SF seem like a ghetto that has nothing to offer writers and readers who care about literary merit.

A good idea is fatally compromised by bad writing; anyone can have ideas, established writers keep telling us, the key is in the execution. Of course, in a world where the Ringworld series (a very high entry in my own list of worst SF series) is an enduring classic of the SF genre, it's clear that my views may not be universally shared.

I'm the same i dont read sf for ideas only i read for good writing,serious sf. Fantasy i might read for fun,adventure mot for but i expect more literary wise from SF. World building,themes,ideas need good enough writing not be ruined.

My fav sf authors are often the ones that impress me with good or great writing. Thats why i was so keen on reading Harry Harrison's Steel Rat series i was looking for simpler more fun adventure sf since i wasn't used to that.

 

[j d worthington]

JD, much as I'd like to claim credit for that essay on Foundation, it was actually written by someone called Charles Elkins.

Ah, thanks for the correction... apparently I missed the byline in my haste (afternoons around here tend to be quite rushed....)

F.E.: I can't quite agree with that assessment, either. While it is true that quite a few of Asimov's characters do tend to blur, he also was quite capable of creating memorable characters: Susan Calvin, Lije Baley, Daneel, the Mule, Edith Fellowes and "Timmy", the little Neanderthal child from "The Ugly Little Boy"... and so on.

As for The Dying Earth... true, characters come and go, but only in a particular fashion, as each of the stories interlocks ("like a series of Chinese boxes", as it has been called), and much of the development of a tale does evolve from the characterization, as well; this is even more true for several of Vance's other stories in the series, such as "Morreion" or the Cugel tales. As you say, in the greater world of literature, they may always be minor entries, but they do have their place, and are a far cry from the lack of characterization so common in much of earlier sf.

On the subject of Gernsback's Ralph 124C 41+... by any standards, that is an abominably written piece. The prose is turgid, inflated, stiff, stilted, awkward, and just plain bad. It has its place in the history of sf, and is accounted by some historians as the first sf novel (again, a distinction which is contested to this day by many earlier entries). But as a piece of literature on even the humblest level, it frankly stinks. Even with the crudity of much early sf, it is quite possible this one would never have seen print, were it not that the author, Hugo Gernsback, was also the creator and owner of the magazine in which it originally appeared as a 12-part serial, Modern Electronics.

However, like supernaturalism, the fantastic, and the early Gothic chapbooks of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, or the penny dreadfuls (which deserve that last descriptive in every sense of the term), so starved were audiences for fictional exploration of the burgeoning role science and technology were playing in all our lives, that they'd pretty much swallow any guff which promised any futuristic ideas on the matter. Hence the attention paid to it originally... though few today can manage to make their way through the tangled mess of its text, despite the fact it is really quite a brief novel....

As for the importance of good writing in the field... actually, until the establishment of the early pulps, it was quite important; or at least as much so as in any other field. But with the emergence of the pulps and their catering to, quite often, the lowest common denominator (i.e., the semi- and only functionally-literate who needed an inexpensive mode of entertainment to pass the time), genre fiction as a whole became, deservedly, noted for its lack of literary merit. There were, of course, exceptions to this rule, but anyone who has gone through many of the original pulps can tell you that they were just that: exceptions; and they thus stood out from the majority, which frankly couldn't write their way out of a paper bag, as the saying goes....

 

[Fried Egg]

JD

F.E.: I can't quite agree with that assessment, either. While it is true that quite a few of Asimov's characters do tend to blur, he also was quite capable of creating memorable characters: Susan Calvin, Lije Baley, Daneel, the Mule, Edith Fellowes and "Timmy", the little Neanderthal child from "The Ugly Little Boy"... and so on.

I liked a lot of the characters too. There were memorable characters but they weren't really particularly well developed. I don't have a problem with that at all but I can see where others are coming from when they criticise his work for that.

 

[Parson]

In one way Asimov reminds me of Billy Graham. (Stay with me here.) Like Billy Graham Asimov gets a lot of criticism from the elite side of the equation. He doesn't fit their mold of what a "great" should be. But like Billy Graham he will still be remembered and revered long after all of his critics have gone to dust. --- How many of their works (or even the works they love) are still being published 60 years after they were written?

 

[Rodders]

By definition, if they don't meet the standards then they're not "great sf".

An interesting comment. Even though you read them and don't rate them, did you enjoy them at the time?

Personally, I've read KJA's Saga of the Seven Suns and his Dune Series and whilst i agree that they're very puerile and poorly written as well as being poor SF, i did rather strangely enjoy them. (Good for passing the time on the train. ) I would also like to add that i preferred the foundation series to Peter F. Hamilton's Night's Dawn Trilogy.