frumiousb

This morning, as I get ready to fly to Wisconsin to see my sister, I have been puzzling over this idea about what makes science fiction classic.

Well, to be honest, what I've really been doing is finishing To Open The Sky by Robert Silverberg. So let me spend a moment on that first. As some of you who follow my reviews know, one of my projects lately has been re-reading the fantasy and science fiction books that I enjoyed as a child. That project led me back to the Majipoor Series and Robert Silverberg. Of all of those books, Silverberg is one of the few authors whose work really stood out for me as still being every bit as good as I remember. So lately I have been looking for second hand copies of Silverberg's other books to see if I liked them just as well. To Open the Sky is the first in that effort.

I really enjoyed the book. It is a heady mix of religion, overpopulation, schism, transformation and hope. It took me surprisingly long to read the slim volume (203 pages, in my edition). My only quarrel at all with it was that it sometimes felt a little bit of interconnected short stories more than a novel. And that, dear reader, was exactly what it turned out to be. Wikipedia tells me that To Open the Sky was a fixup of stories originally published by Frederik Pohl in one of his magazines.

What got me thinking about the post today is that Wikipedia also notes about Silverberg that "in 2004 he was named a Grand Master by the Science Fiction Writers of America". And then I wondered what a grand master was, really. Perhaps just in the genre, perhaps in everything. I'm not sure yet. Sometime a few weeks ago, I did one of those book list memes, this time supposedly the best 100 Science Fiction Novels of all time. In the debate that followed, I kind of set the following thoughts for myself:

• I might be able to make a list of the 100 best science fiction authors, assuming that I had read them all.
  
• I might also be able to make a list of my favorite 100 science fiction books. Although that would take some thinking, honestly.
  
• I do not think that I believe in a list of the 100 best science fiction novels.

So, in other words, I tend to believe in the Grand Master concept, but not in the best books concept.

Here's a question-- can a book be great, even if a writer is not what you would class as "Great"? Can a writer be great if they turn out a lifetime career of solid, but not spectacular books?

Anyhow, if you'd really like to muse on that subject, you should go take a look at sartorias' thread on Greatness. She's much more eloquent than I am.

Have a good Sunday, and I'll see all of you in the flyover states later in the day!