![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The six million year spree
May. 20th, 2008 08:50 pmI was reading House of Suns by Alastair Reynolds and enjoying it but something about it was nagging at me - something familiar. Then a couple of comments exchanged with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
random_alex made it click. Robots, galaxy spanning action and a story told mainly with dialogue - its like an Isaac Asimov novel. Not a pastiche or anything so obvious - it just seems to be borrowing some things. A quiet homage perhaps. Except that it isn't just an Asimov style book. While not typical of Reynolds, it is still recognisably within his style too. I think if you look there may be other authors present there too. Its retro - it invokes a feeling of the 50s while still being a modern tale.
If it is a homage, you have got to give Reynolds a lot of credit for recognising an aspect of the writing of the likes of Asimov that I think gets missed by many - the clarity of the prose. Asimov never obscured his message - his prose was always clean and clear and by the end of a book everything was explained. This clarity was characteristic of writers of the period. They weren't trying to be clever or tricky with their writing style - they were just trying to tell a story. I don't mean simple either - you can tell a complicated story and have properly drawn characters while being clear.
It is an interesting thing this clarity issue. It seems that as science has become a more complex and fuzzy discipline, then the forms that align closely with it have become complex and fuzzy too (and why this discussion does not apply to fantasy and other forms that are further removed). Obviously I'm talking generally here and there is variation - I think Peter F Hamilton tells a clean story for example. Clarity of style isn't an indicator of quality either - in some respects I thought that this Reynolds book was lacking some of the pace and sparkle that shows up in some of his other work. Despite that qualification, I still think a bit more precision and a bit less tricky cleverness would benefit the science fiction end of the genre a bit.
random_alex made it click. Robots, galaxy spanning action and a story told mainly with dialogue - its like an Isaac Asimov novel. Not a pastiche or anything so obvious - it just seems to be borrowing some things. A quiet homage perhaps. Except that it isn't just an Asimov style book. While not typical of Reynolds, it is still recognisably within his style too. I think if you look there may be other authors present there too. Its retro - it invokes a feeling of the 50s while still being a modern tale.If it is a homage, you have got to give Reynolds a lot of credit for recognising an aspect of the writing of the likes of Asimov that I think gets missed by many - the clarity of the prose. Asimov never obscured his message - his prose was always clean and clear and by the end of a book everything was explained. This clarity was characteristic of writers of the period. They weren't trying to be clever or tricky with their writing style - they were just trying to tell a story. I don't mean simple either - you can tell a complicated story and have properly drawn characters while being clear.
It is an interesting thing this clarity issue. It seems that as science has become a more complex and fuzzy discipline, then the forms that align closely with it have become complex and fuzzy too (and why this discussion does not apply to fantasy and other forms that are further removed). Obviously I'm talking generally here and there is variation - I think Peter F Hamilton tells a clean story for example. Clarity of style isn't an indicator of quality either - in some respects I thought that this Reynolds book was lacking some of the pace and sparkle that shows up in some of his other work. Despite that qualification, I still think a bit more precision and a bit less tricky cleverness would benefit the science fiction end of the genre a bit.