Re: [SFC] Re: Re Welcome
- In a message dated 5/20/02 3:08:18 AM, ian.massey@... writes:
<< ...whereas other people rave about him. The friend that recommended
the "Foundation" books wasn't overly happy when I told him that I
didn't particulary enjoy them. Mind you, I seem to remember thinking
his novelisation of "Fantastic Voyage" was OK.
>>Generally, just musing out loud and not addressing anyone in particular, I
think to appreciate (not to mean "enjoy") Isaac Asimov, we have to keep his
work in perceptive. I enjoyed Foundations when I first read them 40 years ago
or so and then again three years ago, I enjoyed the books again, but for a
different reason-it was more like visiting an old friend. We could, if we
wanted to, say that Isaac Asimov is the Father of much of today's modern
Sci-fi. In Cave of Steel, he gave us a vision of the future; In I, Robot, he
defined much of the "laws of Robotics" that leach into today's writings.
Data's programing on Next Generation is right out of I, Robot.
I can understand how today's reader might not understand the
"Psychologists" in Foundations. If the work were to be moderized, like in the
Dune series, they would be called "witches" instead. Back in the day,
"Psychologists" were a mystical bunch, as we see in Van Vogt's work (World of
Null A). Though the work is "dated," like Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange
Land (which is very dated and not a very good read), these works will remain
among the short list of classics that have shaped the Sci Fi literature of
today. After all, we don't read Moby Dick to see if Ahab gets the whale; we
don't read The Odyssey to see if Odysseus gets home.
Karl C Klein
- In a message dated 6/9/2002 2:30:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Also we should note the difference between small presses(they have anThe third party review is the big difference, agreed. But those who
> and self published books...
self-publish often do all the work themselves, or they hire a copyeditor or
even a literary editor. Writing is something done as a hobby, but publishing
a book is not. It's important to make that distinction.
Independent filmmakers often do all or most of the work themselves, hiring
people to do the rest for them. The actors are seldom paid upfront, most
accepting only videocopy, a screen credit, and a possibility of "future pay"
as their compensation. This is one person's vision brought to life, and it is
very much like an independent author who must write the book, the promo
materials (precis, synopsis, summary, bio, press release, cover letters,
query letters, ads, etc), design the cover (or hire someone to do it), all
the revising and editing, then pay for the publishing (it ain't cheap), then
handle copyrighting, LCN and ISBN registration, distribution (or contracting
a distributor), fulfillment, promotion, and the biggest challenge of them
all: marketing. As you can see, this is not a hobby -- this is a full time
job. It costs money and takes a lot of time. A small press author might do
some of these things, and an author who is published by a major publishing
house only has to write the book and do some optional promotion. Given the
amount of work that goes into independent publishing, wouldn't you agree that
it might be a fairly safe bet that the book that is being produced is
probably at very least a good read?
Small press books and independent books are published the way they are NOT
because they couldn't pass the third-party review of an agent or publisher,
but because the author chose a different route to getting it there. Many
authors use self-publishing and small press publishing to establish a market
for their work in an effort to get picked up by the big publishers. This is
actually a very common practice, and it is much more effective than sending
in an unsolicited manuscript or spending years querying agents.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]