PS I'm not saying that innovative & idea-heavy sf is necessarily grim and putdownable! I've read at least one book of yours in which I had only a vague idea what was going on, but they've all been books I wanted to get back to. I do think idea-heavy sf scares a lot of people off, though, & perhaps needs more sweeteners to make it palatable; the Cowper and Delany books I mentioned, the most cerebral of the 70s sf novels I've read up to now, are also a sweet campus romance and a mad space opera respectively.
In Glasgow during Worldcon 2024 I hunted down and bought the ONLY copy in town. And then there were none none none to which I say no Golly no nonny no. I thought it a bit weird in the book to thank everybody who works there including coffee-makers for NOT making a demonstrably existing book available during a WORLDcon of potential buyers, but then I noticed that this seems to be the new fashion with Gollybooks. That fills up 2 or 3 pages.
When I finish The Continuous Katherine Mortenhoe I'll seriously consider it. I mention TCKM because (a) where else am I going to be able to mention that book with any prospect of name recognition? but also because (b) I'm finding reading it (in among a batch of 70s sf novels) a very odd experience: it's obviously *good*, there's no question of that - it gives me the same "swimming at the deep end" sensation that I got from Richard Cowper and Samuel Delany - but I don't actually enjoy it or look forward to picking it up. The conceit - "reality-TV misery-porn shot through an always-on camera implanted in the eyes of a ball-scratching homme moyen sensible" - is nice and chewy, and arguably ahead of its time (1975)*, but the effect is just a bit grim. I guess being conceptually innovative *and* dealing with big questions *and* putting a spring in the reader's step is a tall order. Even Burgess only had the one big hit.
I bought the hardback. This one will likely be the fourth of your books I have read this year. There will be others this year I am sure. I think it is the weird/normal ratio combined with science fiction that keeps me returning.
The ends of several of your books have left my head buzzing. 🤣 I look forward to reading this and being rebuzzed.
I have a question that you may prefer to leave unanswered: can you recommend any other science fiction writers who, while fans of yours, tend not to read much other science fiction?
Brilliant book. The Audio book is very good too.
Looking forward to it. Also, the good people at scifier.com will sell it to you for less than Amazon, for those so inclined.
PS I'm not saying that innovative & idea-heavy sf is necessarily grim and putdownable! I've read at least one book of yours in which I had only a vague idea what was going on, but they've all been books I wanted to get back to. I do think idea-heavy sf scares a lot of people off, though, & perhaps needs more sweeteners to make it palatable; the Cowper and Delany books I mentioned, the most cerebral of the 70s sf novels I've read up to now, are also a sweet campus romance and a mad space opera respectively.
In Glasgow during Worldcon 2024 I hunted down and bought the ONLY copy in town. And then there were none none none to which I say no Golly no nonny no. I thought it a bit weird in the book to thank everybody who works there including coffee-makers for NOT making a demonstrably existing book available during a WORLDcon of potential buyers, but then I noticed that this seems to be the new fashion with Gollybooks. That fills up 2 or 3 pages.
Yes: my acknowledgements take up a page; the publisher's take 2 or 3. It's the way now.
When I finish The Continuous Katherine Mortenhoe I'll seriously consider it. I mention TCKM because (a) where else am I going to be able to mention that book with any prospect of name recognition? but also because (b) I'm finding reading it (in among a batch of 70s sf novels) a very odd experience: it's obviously *good*, there's no question of that - it gives me the same "swimming at the deep end" sensation that I got from Richard Cowper and Samuel Delany - but I don't actually enjoy it or look forward to picking it up. The conceit - "reality-TV misery-porn shot through an always-on camera implanted in the eyes of a ball-scratching homme moyen sensible" - is nice and chewy, and arguably ahead of its time (1975)*, but the effect is just a bit grim. I guess being conceptually innovative *and* dealing with big questions *and* putting a spring in the reader's step is a tall order. Even Burgess only had the one big hit.
*Although _The Family_ went out in 1974
I bought the hardback. This one will likely be the fourth of your books I have read this year. There will be others this year I am sure. I think it is the weird/normal ratio combined with science fiction that keeps me returning.
The ends of several of your books have left my head buzzing. 🤣 I look forward to reading this and being rebuzzed.
I have a question that you may prefer to leave unanswered: can you recommend any other science fiction writers who, while fans of yours, tend not to read much other science fiction?