hmm. Wish it were someone I'd actually heard of.


  I am:James Tiptree, Jr. (Alice B. Sheldon)

In the 1970s she was perhaps the most memorable, and one of the most popular, short story writers. Her real life was as fantastic as her fiction.

  Which science fiction writer are you? [paulkienitz.net]

If you'd ever heard of Tiptree, you'd know exactly how awesome you are.

I am:

Gregory Benford

A master literary stylist who is also a working scientist.

  Which science fiction writer are you? [paulkienitz.net]

Not someone I've read, but dystopias are fun and check out the stylish scarf.

I am:

John Brunner

His best known works are dystopias -- vivid realizations of the futures we want to avoid.

  Which science fiction writer are you? [paulkienitz.net]

Now I have to Google ...

I am: David Brin

Bestselling producer of impossible-to-put-down epic adventures in a far-flung future.

Which science fiction writer are you? [paulkienitz.net]

In Response to zamphir (#27276):

Me too.

+1 concise
-1 "me too"

Not being an SF buff, I thought I'd just do the quiz and not post. but somehow I got a different answer from other people, as well as someone I'd heard of:

I am:

Isaac Asimov

One of the most prolific writers in history, on any imaginable subject. Cared little for art but created lasting and memorable tales.

  Which science fiction writer are you? [paulkienitz.net]

In Response to Rich (#27279):

Now I have to Google ...

David Brin wrote a lot of good stuff, including the series of short stories that the really really bad Kevin Costner (but I think I just repeated myself) movie The Postman was "based" on.

The Practice Effect is a good fun read, even for people who aren't "SF buffs" - whatever that is... maybe some sort of Mundane's word for "fen".

In Response to zamphir (#27282):

bleh.

Buff is the word I use for someone who reads books from a particular genre or on a particular subject.

As I do not read any books, I am not a buff.

In Response to unFalln (#27284):

Where's tel? Usually he'll chime in with anything to do with your buffness, or lack thereof ...

Well, great, the site is down. Take it easy with the linking, people.

I don't need to take the test, though. Writer from SF? Just call me Jack.

In Response to deerboy (#27287):

Just call me Jack.

Jack Vance? Jack London? Jack Chalker? Jack Adams? Jack Finney? ...
... um, ok, I'm out.

In Response to zamphir (#27276):

If you'd ever heard of Tiptree, you'd know exactly how awesome you are.

Zamphir, meet tautology. Tautology, meet Zamphir.

In Response to unFalln (#27281):

The dude certainly was a prolific author. For those of you who know Dewey, know this: he has a book in every group of hundreds:

000 Generalities
100 Philosophy & psychology
200 Religion
300 Social sciences
400 Language
500 Natural sciences & mathematics
600 Technology (Applied sciences)
700 The arts
800 Literature & rhetoric
900 Geography & history

Actually, some of his most gripping work (relatively speaking) isn't his sci-fi, which, although full of new ideas isn't exactly full of good writing. But the Black Widows series is actually pretty interesting. Short, neat mystery stories where all the clues are laid out, a bunch of men ask questions about them, and then the butler solves them.

Oh, and could someone more familiar with Asimov please correct me if I'm wrong, but did he ever give a major role in any of his writing to a woman? Seems like at best they play romantic interests in some of his works, but in general his stories involve men moving through worlds of men. Women get only a passing mention.

In Response to deerboy (#27287):

Take it easy with the linking, people

Seriously, this is info that I've been dying to know about myself.

In Response to Deathalicious (#27293):

Azimov is a pet peeve, actually, as many writers I discovered in childhood seem to be. His writing is quite often horrible, and while the Black Widower series occasionally had a story with a neat twist, most of his attempts at 'mystery' writing usually had a patently obvious 'solution', or relied on cultural icons and norms which dated quite quickly. He was also a MENSA member and promoted it avidly, which is usually the sign of an insufferable jerk. Having said that, I do have a soft spot for almost all his robot stories, and while his Foundation series started to get a little old after a while, it started well.

On to the peevishness - no, he didn't write female characters well, except for one exception - Dr Susan Calvin, who was a staple in many of the robot stories. And she was actually quite good - three-dimensional and interesting. But given that every other female he ever wrote, even those in books set far in the future, was at best a wife and/or mother, and at worst an outright retarded, exposition-inducing bimbo, I almost feel comfortable calling Dr Calvin a fluke.

Actually, I recall reading an essay or interview where he said he couldn't write believable female characters, so he simply didn't try. I can, grudgingly, accept that - but the existence of the one exception to that self-imposed rule indicates, to me, that he could write women, as long as he didn't think of them primarily as women. However I have a feeling he got a lot of flak for making her so 'cold and unsympathetic', so maybe he just gave up after that.

(I always liked her as a child, she was cool. Probably a subconscious role-model there, actually)

In Response to Deathalicious (#27292):

Zamphir, meet tautology. Tautology, meet Zamphir.

Man.

A tautology is an obvious and meaningless truth.

While it is obviously true that both Tynic and Tiptree are awesome... neither are meaningless.

In Response to tynic (#27288):

I think Jack London is associated with Oakland more than SF.

Keep thinking . . .

In Response to deerboy (#27298):

Tynic'd have to go out on the road to figure that one out, right?

In Response to doriette (#27300):

Tynic'd have to go out on the road to figure that one out, right?

Where is Teledildonix...

I really didn't think Deerboy swung that way.

He certainly has never looked like Willie Nelson to me.

In Response to zamphir (#27301):

You have finally crossed the obscure/nonsense boundary.

In Response to zamphir (#27297):

Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that Tiptree's awesomeness was -11 on a scale from 0 to 10. So, if Tynic knew who Tiptree was, then she would know exactly how awesome Tiptree was: not at all.

Conversely, given the Tiptree is indeed awesome (as you say; I've added it to my mental list of authors-to-read), then if Tynic knew who Tiptree was, then she would know how awesome Tiptree was: very.

So it's a tautology.

If you had said, "If you had ever read Tiptree, you would know that she is awesome," that would not be a tautology.

In Response to sentdata (#27303):

-1 What the fuck?

In Response to Deathalicious (#27304):

You have forgotten that the starting assumption is "Tynic = Tiptree".

Ergo, they can not return different values from .getAwesome().

So, in the phrase "If you knew how awesome X was {X.getAwesome()}, you'd know how awesome Y is {Y.getAwesome()}", again... it's true that X and Y are replaceable.

But not meaningless.

I'd start with Brightness falls from the Air if you can find it. And Out of the Everywhere has some of my most favorite stories ever.

And find a biography, as well.

In Response to Deathalicious (#27304):

Accuracy over Tact!

In Response to mcgrue (#27307):

Accuracy over Tact!

The problem is that he's not accurate.

A tautology is a truth that is meaningless or useless IN CONTEXT.

If you are working a proof, and you end up with the statement "1 = 1" that is not a tautology - it's a conclusion!

It may mean that the thing you were trying to prove is a tautology, on the other hand.

But tautologies are usually trivial to prove as well. Like starting out to prove that 1 = 1.

In Response to Deathalicious (#27305):

I take it that "How do you know you're reading Philip K Dick?" is the title of a work by Tiptree and sentdata just forgot a colon.