Agreed, I don't get the Heinlein. Bradbury holds up better, but Heinlein really doesn't outside of Stranger in a Strange Land.
I should have liked American Gods -- considering I have a minor in cultural anthropology, and specialized in Folklore and myths. But Gaiman has a writing style that...well, distances the reader a bit. I could not care about Shadow. And as a result the book just ...drug. Weirdly, I like Gaiman's graphic novels better. It's odd, Gaiman recently said that he was commissioned to write American Gods and Anasazi Boys, but he doesn't see them as his best works and was somewhat surprised they did well. (I prefer Ocean at the End of the Lane, and Neverwhere - for his non-graphical novels.)
I don't like time travel much at all -- mainly because they get it wrong. It's not scientifically possible the way they write it. That's not how physics works. The only one who has gotten it right is well -- Marvel, because they went and talked to physicists about it.
Science Fiction can do romance, but not as it's central focus. It's better when it's not centered on the romance. When it is, the writer tends to lose track of all the other balls. Or so I've noticed. I don't tend to like Science Fiction Romance Novels for this reason. I like it if there's a romance in it -- but not if it's the central focus.
And oh dear, King Arthur has been overdone. I'd have picked one of the three they listed and it would have been Mary Stewart's The Crystal Cave (mainly because it was the only I enjoyed and could get through.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2019-09-09 02:38 am (UTC)I should have liked American Gods -- considering I have a minor in cultural anthropology, and specialized in Folklore and myths. But Gaiman has a writing style that...well, distances the reader a bit. I could not care about Shadow. And as a result the book just ...drug. Weirdly, I like Gaiman's graphic novels better. It's odd, Gaiman recently said that he was commissioned to write American Gods and Anasazi Boys, but he doesn't see them as his best works and was somewhat surprised they did well. (I prefer Ocean at the End of the Lane, and Neverwhere - for his non-graphical novels.)
I don't like time travel much at all -- mainly because they get it wrong. It's not scientifically possible the way they write it. That's not how physics works. The only one who has gotten it right is well -- Marvel, because they went and talked to physicists about it.
Science Fiction can do romance, but not as it's central focus. It's better when it's not centered on the romance. When it is, the writer tends to lose track of all the other balls. Or so I've noticed. I don't tend to like Science Fiction Romance Novels for this reason. I like it if there's a romance in it -- but not if it's the central focus.
And oh dear, King Arthur has been overdone. I'd have picked one of the three they listed and it would have been Mary Stewart's The Crystal Cave (mainly because it was the only I enjoyed and could get through.)