|Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 09:47 am: |
The F&SF website column for Sept. 2007 has been posted: "Gardner Dozois, the Revitalization of Genre SF,and The New Space Opera."
It can be found at:
|Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 12:27 pm: |
Excellent article, Dave, and keep cranking out the good stuff! Oh, wait. Wrong forum.
You putrid bag of wind. How dare you mingle the Irish spring scent of Gardner Dozois with your own. Gag me. Give me a toxic waste protection suit and wish more fervently than all the stars in the night sky can handle that the suit doesn't leak. Dave, you defile the name of Gardner Dozois. You defile the air. You defile the solar system and with your unholy interest in science fiction as opposed to speculative fiction, you threaten to defile the very universe itself. You should be ashamed!
|Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 12:49 pm: |
LOL. Thanks, Byron. I live to defile.
Ahmed A. Khan
|Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 01:13 pm: |
A very interesting article, Dave, but your use of the imperial "we" jarred. Nothing wrong with a simple "I", I say.
|Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 01:41 pm: |
As to the occasional use of "we"? Actually, it's an editorial "we." It's been used since time immemorial. Some like it, some don't, but it's been a common usage, like I say, for a _long_ time in magazine editorials and the like. I tend to slip in and out of it at my own whim, which may not be technically the thing to do, but...
While attempting to get around using this editorial "we" and not wishing to use "I," Alfred Bester used (see my first two F&SF columns) instead "this department." As in, "this department" feels X's work to be of superior quality, or "this department" feels Y's work would be better if....
So your objection is duly and sincerely noted, and is something I'll be thinking about. As of now, I'm not sure which standardized form I'll be using in the future. But I _will_ be thinking about it, so thanks.
I could also claim (as a jest only) that I'm just being "cutting edge" and flaunting stylistic convention by slipping in and out of the editorial "we" just to be rebellious. (At least I know the rule before I consciously break it, right?)
|Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 06:17 pm: |
A good article! You've just convinced me to pick up another Dozois-edited anthology.
The only fault I've found with the Dozois-edited anthologies I've acquired in the past is an unfortunate lack of stories in them written by Gardner Dozois. There are a few of his stories to be found online, and of course a couple in recent issues of F&SF. (I really liked his short story When the Great Days Came. Something about the artful simplicity of that one hit me just right.)
BTW, I was uncertain for a long time just how to pronounce that last name. According to Say How? A Pronunciation Guide to Names of Public Figures it's: duh-ZWÄ, with the "uh" being like the "a" in "sofa". (I don't know how to make the little upside-down "e" symbol without turning my monitor over. ) Do they have it right? Or am I still saying it wrong?
|Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 07:22 pm: |
I've always pronounced Gardner's last name as if it were of French origin: Doe-Zwah. Maybe he'll check in here and enlighten us all.
And I'll let you in on something else I've belatedly discovered over the past several years: those little Ace paperback _reprint_ collections he and Jack Dann edit are really damned good. For me they are invaluable resources for older stories that either haven't been collected before, or collected rarely, or contain a classic that is nice to have in a themed collection.
I don't seek out the Cat or Unicorn Fantastique variety that they've edited, of course (or whatever those Ace collections use as their generic titles), but there are a ton of really cool ones I'll be looking for in used book shops that he and Dann have edited--along with any new ones. Stuff like Aliens Among Us, A.I.s, Futures Past, Hackers, Galileo's Children (ed. by Gardner alone from PYR), and on and on. There's a bunch more I've made a list of and folded into my wallet for whenever I frequent used book stores.
And for you and everyone else above, thanks for the kind words about the column. I'd read the books (or refamaliarized myself with two of them--the Good Old and New Stuff) and had begun the column before Gardner went in the hospital, so the reading, the theme, and virtually all of the notes had been written before his stay in the hospital. It was just a fortunate coincidence that I was working on the column at that time already. I hope, now, that it'll maybe give him a little lift after all he's been (and is still) going through.
Jeezus, can you imagine the crap I'd've gotten if I'd hated the book and written most of the review only to learn he was in the hospital undergoing a quintuple bypass? I shudder at the thought. Luckily, the book was terrific, so things worked out great.
|Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 08:17 pm: |
"can you imagine the crap I'd've gotten if I'd hated the book"
Dave, you're a dung beetle so I think you would have enjoyed it just the same.
But we're all happier that it didn't go that direction. Seems to me that folk will be better spirited when you review books that you like.
|Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 09:47 pm: |
I have rarely, if ever, cussed on these boards. People have called me the foulest names in the book over and over and over, and I have resisted at every turn returning the favor. I have been accused of the foulest motives imaginable, and unjustly. I have taken it and taken it and taken it
In this case I'll make an exception.
PM, go fuck yourself. You're a blight on this board and I'm tired of your sick-fuck ragging on every single little thing I say, no matter how innocent. Either act like a decent human being or leave me, and the rest of us, alone. Go find a fucking life, and get your sick kicks elsewhere.
I apologize to everyone else for my language, and hope you'll forgive me this one lapse.
|Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 06:39 am: |
You're forgiven, Dave.
A critic who would always like what he reads wouldn't be a critic. Being strongly opinionated is part of the job description (IMO).
Garder don't publish his own stories in his own anthologies. It's intellectual and professionnal honesty on his part. Still, a Gardner Dozois collection is definitely lacking in my bookshelves. Time for a Best Of Gardner Dozois, I think!
|Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 09:58 am: |
"Time for a Best Of Gardner Dozois, I think!"
I've been lusting after this book for a while.
Andrew J. Breitenbach
|Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 10:20 am: |
Just read the column, and I couldn't agree more. I proudly own all four books reviewed, and treasure them. Thanks for your column!
|Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 11:17 am: |
"It's intellectual and professional honesty on his part."
Yep, I'm sure that's what it is. It's hard for any writer to be objective about his or her own work. (Love it one day, hate it the next.) If anybody would know that better than a writer, it would probably be an editor.
Thanks for posting the link to Strange Days. I didn't know it was out there!
(Dung beetles were sacred to the ancient Egyptians. Maybe that was a compliment?)
Lee R. Shipp
|Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 12:24 pm: |
Looking the TOC's lists I make of anthologies I have, I don't see any where Gardner added one of his own stories to an anthology he alone edited.
He (they ?) did put one or two Dozois & Dann stories in at least one of their collaborative anthologies. But in those cases they both had to agree that the story fit the theme, or else it was part of the deal with the publisher, that they add a story of their own as collaborators to help the sales-value of the anthology. But in these collaborative Dann&Dozois anthologies I don't see any story written solely by Dozois or solely by Dann.
Says everything, IMHO, you need to know about the calibre & professionalism of the man as editor. I for one miss his daily presence over at the 'Mov's forum.
|Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 09:21 pm: |
To tell the truth, I always pictured Dave as more of a bombardier beetle. Bombardier beetles tend to be cooler than many people I know.
Admittedly, this is coming from someone with the last name of Bailey, doomed to forever reaquire the nickname of "Beetle" whenever he introduces himself to new people, always trying to smile while they laugh hysterically at the moniker they have just given me as if being called "Beetle Bailey" was the apex of wit and humor. (It actually was a little funny in first grade). In short, as a beetle all my life -- curse you Mort Walker! --, you might have to take what I say about beetles with a ball of dung.
|Posted on Friday, September 07, 2007 - 09:35 pm: |
"Thanks for your column!"
Thank _you_, Andrew. I had a lot of fun writing it. The high I got while reading THE NEW SPACE OPERA and ESCAPE FROM EARTH was great inspiration for putting the whole thing together.
|Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 09:00 am: |
At other times, I picture Dave as more of a rhinoceros beetle, perhaps the strongest creature on Earth relative to body weight, able to lift 850 times its own weight, always charging forward to meet an opponent head on. There's something admirable about rhinoceros beetles and there's something admirable about Dave.
Yet for the life of me (sorry, only a phrase, not a promise), I can't see Dave as a dung beetle. The dung beetle is anything if not green, recyclers extraordinaire. Ralph Nader and Al Gore may be dung beetles, may be worthy of being worshipped as gods now and in ancient Egypt, but Dave? Like I said, I just can't see it. Dave definitely has his own views on what the good stuff is, and it ain't shit.
|Posted on Saturday, September 08, 2007 - 04:59 pm: |
Nice double entendre, Byron, though I thought we'd left the scatalogical references (cough) behind us.
|Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 04:14 am: |
apparently there's a Gardner collection available: Morning Child and other stories.