4 ms·

For me-- I loved Neuromancer(which I've read multiple times), but thought his other books were very meh, very forgettable. That said, his writing style is grea

For me-- I loved Neuromancer(which I've read multiple times), but thought his other books were very meh, very forgettable. That said, his writing style is great. Most sci-fi (and fantasy) seem to love a lot of padding-- 300+ page books of which 200 is fluff. Gibson wrote comparatively short and sharp books- no unnecessary exposition, no character spending 3 pages describing the city, or admiring themselves in the mirror so we can learn about the strange alien races. I wish more scifi books were short and quick/easy to read.

mattowen_uk 5y ago
> I wish more scifi books were short and quick/easy to read. I echo this. I'm currently slogging my way through Blue Mars, the third weighty tome of Kim Stanley Robinsons Mars Trilogy...
- tcoff91 5y ago
  Many sci-fi novels could be edited down to the length of Fahrenheit 451 and be improved by doing so.
  - e12e 5y ago
    Many books should be edited down. Neal Stephenson is a prime example of getting away with leaving in so much mediocre stuff that it drags down the quality of his books, even though he can be brilliant too. My favorite Murakami book so far is "South of the Border" - and I'm not sure "Norwegian Wood" could not have been made even better with a few (only a few !) cuts.
  - mattkevan 5y ago
    Peter F Hamilton has entered the chat. He has great plots, but they’re buried under so much unnecessary detail, reading his books is like an archaeological dig. Unless you really want to know in excruciating detail what every character, no matter how minor, had for breakfast.
  - germinalphrase 5y ago
    and most movies should be a short, snappy 70 minutes, too.
ben7799 5y ago
Well certainly Phillip K. Dick wrote a lot of short stuff. It's from an earlier era but a lot of his great stuff was very short stories. And yet a Scanner Darkly really dragged for me... Overall though I agree, a shocking amount of modern sci-fi seems to be full of needless details where the author tries to prove to you that they're really smart and so on. Project Hail Mary was REAL bad about that, despite having an overall great story.

mattowen_uk 5y ago

> I wish more scifi books were short and quick/easy to read. I echo this. I'm currently slogging my way through Blue Mars, the third weighty tome of Kim Stanley Robinsons Mars Trilogy...

tcoff91 5y ago
Many sci-fi novels could be edited down to the length of Fahrenheit 451 and be improved by doing so.
- e12e 5y ago
  Many books should be edited down. Neal Stephenson is a prime example of getting away with leaving in so much mediocre stuff that it drags down the quality of his books, even though he can be brilliant too. My favorite Murakami book so far is "South of the Border" - and I'm not sure "Norwegian Wood" could not have been made even better with a few (only a few !) cuts.
- mattkevan 5y ago
  Peter F Hamilton has entered the chat. He has great plots, but they’re buried under so much unnecessary detail, reading his books is like an archaeological dig. Unless you really want to know in excruciating detail what every character, no matter how minor, had for breakfast.
- germinalphrase 5y ago
  and most movies should be a short, snappy 70 minutes, too.

ben7799 5y ago

Well certainly Phillip K. Dick wrote a lot of short stuff. It's from an earlier era but a lot of his great stuff was very short stories. And yet a Scanner Darkly really dragged for me... Overall though I agree, a shocking amount of modern sci-fi seems to be full of needless details where the author tries to prove to you that they're really smart and so on. Project Hail Mary was REAL bad about that, despite having an overall great story.