4 ms·
I always felt like those who were good at "writing, on a technical level" never had any interesting stories, or even interesting ideas. Still waiting for someon
by NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
I always felt like those who were good at "writing, on a technical level" never had any interesting stories, or even interesting ideas. Still waiting for someone to suggest a counter-example.
- andybak 3y agoWell. Ballard?
- hotnfresh 3y agoBradbury. [edit] also, if you like short stories and novellas, I found the New Hugo Winners series (in which Asimov had taken a back seat as editor, writing in his introduction, to paraphrase, “I do not understand these kids”) has a way higher average quality of writing than the older Hugo Winners series. The ideas didn’t seem a lot worse to me, either. But I’ve also read a lot more of the regular Hugo Winner series so maybe I just got very lucky with the New Hugo volumes I’ve picked up.
- iainmerrick 3y agoThat reminds me of the HN discussion a little while back of Cordwainer Smith: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35978901 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35978901 In SF, I’d suggest James Tiptree Jr as someone with both great writing skills and great ideas.
- caskstrength 3y agoGene Wolfe?
- olddustytrail 3y agoIain Banks
- Pfiffer 3y agoUse of Weapons in particular
- philipkglass 3y agoI agree with sibling suggestions of James Tiptree Jr., Gene Wolfe, and Iain M. Banks. Also: John Crowley.
- dbspin 3y agoPhilip K. Dick, Stanislaw Lem, Ursula LeGuin, Samuel Delaney, Harlan Ellison, Cordwainer Smith, R.F. Lafferty, C.J. Cherryh and well, hundreds of others.