I am wading into this firefight in the interest of science fiction, an art form that has always been divisive, in fact often deliberately so. The reason sci-fi is a persistent, fresh genre is that it provokes exploration of society and technology in relevant and dynamic ways. Not only are the author's literary practices of merit, so are their conceptual explorations of the interaction between technology and man. Technology can range from social technology to literal silicon and spaceships, and therefore the genre is quite broad and ever evolving. One unifying trend between sci-fi works is the humanization of the challenges of "progress." From exegetics to open discussion in a work, sci-fi can presciently develop new ideas, espouse caution, or popularize innovation via inspiring individuals outside of the literary intelligentsia. The Science Fiction Hall of Fame has excellent treatment of the myriad manifestations of sci-fi, a genre that challenges simple characterization.
For example, Arthur C. Clarke is often credited as seminally promoting GPS. When an author wades into the intersection of science and literature (Clarke famously did both professionally), s/he may is not simply judged for doing it first. The merit is also in the quality and reach of such creative treatment of innovation. This reach of influence is supremely relevant. Apple did not invent the MP3 player; they just did it transformationally better. The benefit of being first vs. best to market is a subject of debate in the innovation and business communities for a reason.
Snow Crash is an indisputably influential book. Regardless of the opinions of individual readers, the fact is, it embodied and influenced a generation of readers who went on to translate these concepts. These individuals developed landmark technologies and acknowledged the role of the book in either directly inspiring their ideas, or catalyzing their work to make them a reality. A book influencing so many people, of such notable caliber, cannot simply be dismissed.
Snow Crash has always been divisive due to its style, a "love it or hate it" book. The "main characters are embodied ideas or ideologies." Over the top (in some opinions) names and puns are part and parcel of the author's style, and are valid forms of writing. Style can be critically discussed in a productive fashion, impact is a separate issue. Stylistic criticism would be more at home in literary circles.
If a critic will espouse heated personal opinion, the basis for plenty of artistic criticism, it is worthwhile to be informed of the subject matter and logical fallacies that undermine such arguments. Moreover, when discuss other ideologue writers, such as Ayn Rand, it is best to properly spell the author's name, and to be aware of the explicit nature of her philosophy in works such as Atlas Shrugged. Atlas Shrugged is both a longer book, and a more overt ideological vessel in many respected critical opinions.
TLDR: Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it fact. Strive for informed opinions, based on rational research and tolerance of individual viewpoints. Test the merits of your trolling in the appropriate venue (literary criticism publication) and see how they are received.
On Monday, April 23, 2012 7:39:37 AM UTC-4, David wrote:
Personally I thought snow crash was pretty awful but with a few good points mixed in.
Love the diamond age though. the end kind of falls flat and at points the writing is poor but the world he builds is wonderful beyond measure.
I would highly recommend Interface by Neal Stephenson and George Jewsbury. They seemed to compliment each other well.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Giovanni Lostumbo <giovanni.lostumbo@gmail.com> wrote:
One thing that is worth differentiating is that even if an author is subjectively a "bad" or "terrible" writer, he or she can still make an insightful and much needed social commentary on the state of science fiction, which is largely fearsome and pessimistic. If anyone wanted to change that literary atmosphere, it requires someone to come forward to admit that, and in this case Stephenson admits his own works were prone to this tendency too. The merits of one's views, no matter how mediocre one's larger body of works are, are always independent and equally subjective to their other contributions. I guess it depends on how one wants to group intent. A quote by Carl Woese: "All the junk written about Beethoven's irascible personality does not add at all to the appreciation of his music." In this case, Stephenson is a social commentator with appreciative, sound opinions, the way someone else might appreciate Beethoven's sounds (A bit of a play on words there;). Maybe he's trying to compensate by being the workhorse amongst his peers. In any case, meritocracy has flaws, because opinions shouldn't carry weight based on one's status in society, considering it can be completely unrelated to their specialty. It shows why free speech, and anonymized opinions on an online forum allow more diverse views to be heard (pending the screening of dominant trolls), ideally with proportional representation from the demographics of the wider population. Any minority opinion is susceptible to the tyrrany of a majority opinion.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
On Friday, April 20, 2012 12:28:36 PM UTC-4, Cory Geesaman wrote:The guy hasn't really made any good sci-fi and seems to be making an attempt to hype up whatever his upcoming works are by getting his name out. It would be cool if movies started coming out to make the common person less resentful toward people pursuing science - there has been a lot of trash coming out lately that seems to be making an attempt at turning people of different intellectual capabilities against one another, possibly only as an aside to the whole excuse of "some people are just smarter" that keeps many from even making an attempt to further themselves.--
On Friday, April 20, 2012 6:56:02 AM UTC-4, Giovanni Lostumbo wrote:Saw this article coincidentally while reading about sci-fi authors like Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke yesterday. I thought it would be a good counterbalance to some of the anxieties posted here about garage biology, but also to consider biology research from the context of outerspace, and not just terrestrial milieus, yet still able to benefit terrestrial life/matters.
"Neal Stephenson on Science Fiction, Building Towers 20 Kilometers High ... and Insurance" :
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/27775/
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.msg/diybio/-/DbXJEEtvajUJ .
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com .
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en .
On Monday, April 23, 2012 7:39:37 AM UTC-4, David wrote:
Personally I thought snow crash was pretty awful but with a few good points mixed in.
Love the diamond age though. the end kind of falls flat and at points the writing is poor but the world he builds is wonderful beyond measure.
I would highly recommend Interface by Neal Stephenson and George Jewsbury. They seemed to compliment each other well.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Giovanni Lostumbo <giovanni.lostumbo@gmail.com> wrote:
One thing that is worth differentiating is that even if an author is subjectively a "bad" or "terrible" writer, he or she can still make an insightful and much needed social commentary on the state of science fiction, which is largely fearsome and pessimistic. If anyone wanted to change that literary atmosphere, it requires someone to come forward to admit that, and in this case Stephenson admits his own works were prone to this tendency too. The merits of one's views, no matter how mediocre one's larger body of works are, are always independent and equally subjective to their other contributions. I guess it depends on how one wants to group intent. A quote by Carl Woese: "All the junk written about Beethoven's irascible personality does not add at all to the appreciation of his music." In this case, Stephenson is a social commentator with appreciative, sound opinions, the way someone else might appreciate Beethoven's sounds (A bit of a play on words there;). Maybe he's trying to compensate by being the workhorse amongst his peers. In any case, meritocracy has flaws, because opinions shouldn't carry weight based on one's status in society, considering it can be completely unrelated to their specialty. It shows why free speech, and anonymized opinions on an online forum allow more diverse views to be heard (pending the screening of dominant trolls), ideally with proportional representation from the demographics of the wider population. Any minority opinion is susceptible to the tyrrany of a majority opinion.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
On Friday, April 20, 2012 12:28:36 PM UTC-4, Cory Geesaman wrote:The guy hasn't really made any good sci-fi and seems to be making an attempt to hype up whatever his upcoming works are by getting his name out. It would be cool if movies started coming out to make the common person less resentful toward people pursuing science - there has been a lot of trash coming out lately that seems to be making an attempt at turning people of different intellectual capabilities against one another, possibly only as an aside to the whole excuse of "some people are just smarter" that keeps many from even making an attempt to further themselves.--
On Friday, April 20, 2012 6:56:02 AM UTC-4, Giovanni Lostumbo wrote:Saw this article coincidentally while reading about sci-fi authors like Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke yesterday. I thought it would be a good counterbalance to some of the anxieties posted here about garage biology, but also to consider biology research from the context of outerspace, and not just terrestrial milieus, yet still able to benefit terrestrial life/matters.
"Neal Stephenson on Science Fiction, Building Towers 20 Kilometers High ... and Insurance" :
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/27775/
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.msg/diybio/-/DbXJEEtvajUJ .
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com .
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en .
On Monday, April 23, 2012 7:39:37 AM UTC-4, David wrote:
--Personally I thought snow crash was pretty awful but with a few good points mixed in.
Love the diamond age though. the end kind of falls flat and at points the writing is poor but the world he builds is wonderful beyond measure.
I would highly recommend Interface by Neal Stephenson and George Jewsbury. They seemed to compliment each other well.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Giovanni Lostumbo <giovanni.lostumbo@gmail.com> wrote:
One thing that is worth differentiating is that even if an author is subjectively a "bad" or "terrible" writer, he or she can still make an insightful and much needed social commentary on the state of science fiction, which is largely fearsome and pessimistic. If anyone wanted to change that literary atmosphere, it requires someone to come forward to admit that, and in this case Stephenson admits his own works were prone to this tendency too. The merits of one's views, no matter how mediocre one's larger body of works are, are always independent and equally subjective to their other contributions. I guess it depends on how one wants to group intent. A quote by Carl Woese: "All the junk written about Beethoven's irascible personality does not add at all to the appreciation of his music." In this case, Stephenson is a social commentator with appreciative, sound opinions, the way someone else might appreciate Beethoven's sounds (A bit of a play on words there;). Maybe he's trying to compensate by being the workhorse amongst his peers. In any case, meritocracy has flaws, because opinions shouldn't carry weight based on one's status in society, considering it can be completely unrelated to their specialty. It shows why free speech, and anonymized opinions on an online forum allow more diverse views to be heard (pending the screening of dominant trolls), ideally with proportional representation from the demographics of the wider population. Any minority opinion is susceptible to the tyrrany of a majority opinion.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
On Friday, April 20, 2012 12:28:36 PM UTC-4, Cory Geesaman wrote:The guy hasn't really made any good sci-fi and seems to be making an attempt to hype up whatever his upcoming works are by getting his name out. It would be cool if movies started coming out to make the common person less resentful toward people pursuing science - there has been a lot of trash coming out lately that seems to be making an attempt at turning people of different intellectual capabilities against one another, possibly only as an aside to the whole excuse of "some people are just smarter" that keeps many from even making an attempt to further themselves.--
On Friday, April 20, 2012 6:56:02 AM UTC-4, Giovanni Lostumbo wrote:Saw this article coincidentally while reading about sci-fi authors like Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke yesterday. I thought it would be a good counterbalance to some of the anxieties posted here about garage biology, but also to consider biology research from the context of outerspace, and not just terrestrial milieus, yet still able to benefit terrestrial life/matters.
"Neal Stephenson on Science Fiction, Building Towers 20 Kilometers High ... and Insurance" :
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/27775/
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.msg/diybio/-/DbXJEEtvajUJ .
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com .
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en .
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/diybio/-/7tYkxBDU9kwJ.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en.
0 comments:
Post a Comment