• (tor reject) All Shaking Thunder

    From James Nicoll@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 2 14:30:11 2024
    All Shaking Thunder

    Rejected by Tor Dot Com, no doubt prudently, five reasons why I
    omitted your favour book from my latest list.

    https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/post/all-shaking-thunder-or-why-i-didnt-mention-your-favourite-book
    --
    My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
    My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
    My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
    My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Titus G@21:1/5 to James Nicoll on Mon Mar 4 15:40:36 2024
    On 3/03/24 03:30, James Nicoll wrote:
    All Shaking Thunder

    Rejected by Tor Dot Com, no doubt prudently, five reasons why I
    omitted your favour book from my latest list.

    https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/post/all-shaking-thunder-or-why-i-didnt-mention-your-favourite-book

    That was fun. I wildly guess that I would have read less than 4,000
    books over the last half century plus. 15,000 is amazing, though your arithmetic is suspect, maybe it was 14,000. :p

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Savard@21:1/5 to Nicoll on Mon Mar 4 03:10:14 2024
    On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 14:30:11 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
    Nicoll) wrote:

    All Shaking Thunder

    Rejected by Tor Dot Com, no doubt prudently, five reasons why I
    omitted your favour book from my latest list.

    https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/post/all-shaking-thunder-or-why-i-didnt-mention-your-favourite-book

    Generally speaking, it seems to me that the second reason given is the
    most common. It is indeed very frequent that your lists will omit the
    most "obvious" example of the type of work in question - often, but
    hardly always, somethinjg by Heinlein.

    It is amusing that only _four_ reasons were given, but I can suggest
    a fifth, which would be best placed between the third reason and the
    final one... that you might bear malice towards specific *authors*.
    And Heinlein, for the conservative views he sometimes expresses, would
    make an obvious target.

    However, I'm charitable enough to think it's the second reason rather
    than this 3 1/2-th reason that is more likely to apply in that case.

    But that this fifth reason comes to mind is because you do at least
    definitely exhibit its converse: in some of your essays, you go out of
    your way to highlight the work of progressive new authors, authors of
    color, authors who are women, authors who are from countries not well
    known as being the sources of science fiction works, and so on.

    All of which is quite commendable, even if it risks boring or even
    alienating an audience which seems to be more and more exclusively
    composed, as the years go on, of old farts for whom science fiction is
    what existed before that pesky New Wave came along.

    Which, come to think of it, is hard to believe. As these old farts
    suffer attrition due to old age, and as njew readers of science
    fiction grow to maturity (or at least learn to read and use a
    computer), one would expeckt this exclusivity to gradually diminish as
    the years go on. Unless science fiction is a dying genre.

    Actkually, though, the words "seems to be" suggest a resolution.
    Perhaps the proportion of old farts _is_ diminishing with time, even
    as one might expect, but it is doing so so slowly that this is offset
    by how much more noticeable and jarring their preponderance becomes
    with each passing year making it ever more incongrous!

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)