The Sword and Laser discussion
Big Three
Yeah...back in the day I considered Niven and McCaffrey the "Next Two" and they did at least have popular appeal. Today? The audience is too fractured to agree in the same way. I don't think you could name a dominant group. Certainly Scalzi is popular, and also polarizing - deliberately so. Sanderson, I know people like him and he makes oodles of cash, but he's not for me. Alastair Reynolds? Probably the closest to Niven. Peter Hamilton? Neal Asher? Both solid writers but not "big three" status. Gail Carriger? Great writer and I love her to death, but paranormal romance is a bit far from SFF even if it's well done Steampunk. Robin Hobb? Sure sells a lot of Assassin's Apprentice books. You'd probably be lucky to pick a "Baker's Dozen" of SFF authors today, which kinda defeats the purpose - too many to represent true standouts.
I can see Niven and McCaffrey as later candidates as well as Ursula Le Guin. I wonder if Ellison or Silverberg would fit with their era. Ellison in particular for his influence in the New Wave. And now that I mention that I have to bring up Philip Dick but that's more retrospective respect I think.I also know Bradbury was sometimes mentioned in place of Clarke.
I just read a Peter Hamilton but wasn't overly impressed. I'd be more likely to think of Kim Stanley Robinson, Iain M. Banks, Neil Stephenson, or Dan Simmons for the 90's-00's.
Maybe Orson Scott Card for the 80's.
Sorry for jumping around. I'm tired and stream of consciousing.
I guess one immediate question is what does "Big" mean? For example, if we are talking about influence, my impression is that in recent years it is less the bombastic space/fantasy opera types that are changing the market (they are more a case of "same old, same old") and it is more the introspective, smaller dramas. The Becky Chambers', TJ Klunes and Travis Baldrees of the world. I might also include Martha Wells in this (for me at least, it is Murderbot's internal dialogues that make those book so more-ish).
Interesting question.I think Sanderson is a no-brainer for Fantasy. NK Jemisin for either. Maybe Joe Abercrombie.
Adrian Tchaikovsky for SF. Maybe Scalzi.
I think James S.A. Corey and Ann Leckie needs to branch out and create other universes to qualify.
Yes; love him or loathe him, when literary historians look back at the last decade or two, Sanderson's shadow will be hard to ignore.
Sometimes discourse from back in the Big 3 period feels like it's a plea to mainstream literary critics/readers to take SciFi seriously. A bid to set up Clarke or Asimov as having just as much literary merit as writers like Faulkner and Hemingway.To some extent it worked, but it has the whiff of desperation of little brother tagging along behind. Going by that older big 3 sort of metric, I don't think Sanderson or Scalzi fit, really. They don't seem to me to be trying to publish literary work (and thankfully they don't seem as desperate for literary recognition either).
I guess "Big 3" mainly means they have some influence on the genre and are who you, and even non-fans, think of when someone mentions Science Fiction. Heinlein got stories published in non-genre magazines like The Saturday Evening Post and was the first SF author on the New York Times best seller list; Asimov used to be interviewed on talk shows like the Tonight Show all the time.I've really enjoyed some of the more current writers mentioned like Chambers and Hobbs and Baldrees and I'd add Andy Weir but have any of them inspired other writers or changed the field or are known to the general public. I'm not saying they haven't; I just don't know. Maybe it's hard to tell as it's happening.
I wonder if J.K. Rowling or Suzanne Collins should be considered. Or Margaret Atwood.Are they more popular with mainstream than with genre fans? Did I not think of them at first because of some sort of gate-keeping?
As a note, J.K. Rowling has said she does not consider Harry Potter to be Fantasy. Which is a big swipe at the genre as if she thinks we're a bunch of smelly nerds not to be associated with. So she has left herself out. I'm too old to have been a Potterhead but to me HP is as Fantasy as Narnia.
As I ramble on through my first cup of coffee, in about the state Phil mentioned in the third post, :) thinking about Narnia reminds me of the incredible literary giants left out of the "Big Three." Let's start with Tolkien and Lewis. I suppose they were later but Tolkien's influence reaches far. What did "Big Three" mean then? I love my genre but as I think about it, it was a bit snobby to the science side. You could only be "Big Three" if you wrote about spaceships and space travel. I do recall that Bradbury was either in or out depending on who you were talking to or sometimes what time of day it was. Bradbury for me made it on the strength of Martian Chronicles alone, but the others did have a bigger output....incidentally I looked for, but could not find, a clip of Martin from the Simpsons running for class president saying he would bring to the library the ABCs of Science Fiction - Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke.
Seth wrote: "To some extent it worked, but it has the whiff of desperation of little brother tagging along behind. Going by that older big 3 sort of metric, I don't think Sanderson or Scalzi fit, really. They don't seem to me to be trying to publish literary work (and thankfully they don't seem as desperate for literary recognition either)."I never got the sense the Big Three were seeking a literary sense of approval. I definitely *did* get that sense from the 1960s New Wave authors who all but said as much.
Anne McCaffrey (mid-argument with Frank Herbert) once said to a fan that being acknowledged by the New York Times bestseller list was important for representation for Science Fiction, because so many publishers and authors eschewed the genre labels in order to be taken seriously. But I don’t get that feeling from Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein.
(I’m not even sure if Asimov even thought about it. The guy was writing so much he barely had time to be a creep to women. As Harlan Ellison once said, “Isaac once had writer’s block. It was the most miserable 10 minutes of his life.”)
I’m just gonna jump right in and say that I think that the three writers who are writing SFF right now (so ruling out the likes of Martin, Hobbs and Rowling) who are the most important and influential are:NK Jemisin
Adrian Tchaikovsky
Brandon Sanderson
I think Margaret Atwood would be recognized in a different category than the other two. You have a set of authors that come at SF&F from the literary side - and don't just write SF&F - who have respect in literary circles. But, paradoxically, less popularity in traditional SF&F circles. Which, to me at least, means they would not necessarily be considered SF's current "Big 3". Atwood, Haruki Murakami, Kazuo Ishiguro, McCarthy, Michael Faber. (I guess Atwood did win an Arthur C. Clarke award for Handmaid's Tale but no Hugos, etc. However she won the Booker prize and similar literary categories and has been shortlisted for a Nobel prize in literature.)I would argue Rowling and Collins are influential but influential more on mass-market books than SF&F as a genre. Maybe that's my bias showing through as I didn't really like Hunger Games, Twilight, The Maze, and books of that ilk. Mass market YA that leverages SF&F tropes.
In the UK, you could say Hamilton, Banks, Reynolds. Maybe Cixin Liu if he can come up with another series, although his Wandering Earth short story has spawned two vaguely related movies.Bradbury? I'm aware of his work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqU8E...
John (Taloni) wrote: "As a note, J.K. Rowling has said she does not consider Harry Potter to be Fantasy. Which is a big swipe at the genre as if she thinks we're a bunch of smelly nerds not to be associated with. So she..."I will note for all that she did not turn down her Hugo award for the goblet of fire. Or her Nebula award for deathly hallows.
The largest number of awards she received for the series, though, were children's book awards. By far. So not typical SF&F genre stuff.
John (Taloni) wrote: "As I ramble on through my first cup of coffee, in about the state Phil mentioned in the third post, :) thinking about Narnia reminds me of the incredible literary giants left out of the "Big Three...."I would agree about Tolkien and Lewis but back then I think there was more of a separation between SF and F. There were some writers who would write both like Fritz Leiber and Ray Bradbury and they would all dabble in fantasy once in a while but I don't think it was taken as seriously. Most of the big names were real life scientists or engineers. I don't know if straight fantasy stories would even be considered for the Hugo awards.
I'll admit that I was a little prejudiced against fantasy in my youth in the 70's even though I loved LOTR because it seemed frivolous to me. I would only read SF for most of the year but would read a fantasy series every summer "for fun". What a moron.
Tamahome wrote: "In the UK, you could say Hamilton, Banks, Reynolds."If your into vast sprawling space opera with big ideas (which I am) I couldn't agree more. Reynolds also falls into the category of 'scientist turned author'.
If your basing the selection on how many awards they have won, then this months BOM author should be right up there.
Technically C.J. Cherryh is still writing and has won many awards including the Grand Dame. So.But I'm not sure I would include writers in the twilight of their careers in the list of today's Big 3. Neither are exactly moving the genre any longer. I think "currency" needs to be part of it.
I think the SciFi and Fantasy genres are each too large now to have a Big Three that encompasses both major genres. Could each have a Big Three or are both too big now as well? Who are the authors in the 20++'s who are being copied the most (as a metric of their influence on the genres)?
Interesting discussion - great job, Phil!
Thanks Buzz!I definitely think you'd have to separate groups now although someone like NK Jemisin might fit on both. Thanks to Ruth for mentioning her.
The bestseller lists suggest that the big 3 is currently Maas, Yarrow, and Bardugo. God help us.Speaking of NK Jemisin is working on now? I did not think much of her New York books, so I hope she gets back to some high fantasy.
^ Haaa, why not? Two Romantasy, one...well, how would you characterize Bardugo? Some kind of Fantasy.Not gonna front, I did enjoy the days of SF being rockets & robots. But it was in its way snobby. Back then McCaffrey was the "doesn't fit" author that people loved and the snobnoscenti didn't get. Anyhoo, if authors are making money I'm all for it. It does not require me to read their books, but if others love it, great.
OK, here are my completely arbitrary proposals for current Big 3:Fantasy: Brandon Sanderson, Naomi Novik, Neil Gaiman
Science Fiction: John Scalzi, Lois McMaster Bujold, N.K. Jemisin
I'm basing this on a combination of popularity, influence, award nominations, longevity, variety of works, and how well known outside the field.
This may all change tomorrow.
There was a point 10+ years ago where I think Patrick Rothfuss may have been heading towards being in this conversation. And then the last 10+ years happened. I think Sanderson has to be considered for fantasy. After that it gets tougher. As our latest podcast proved SJ Mass is on her way to being there, but I don't think is quite there yet. If you asked the general public, I think JK Rowling (despite what she says) and GRRM would make the list. Gaiman is a great choice as well, but maybe not as much recent stuff. I guess the last 10 years has seen a broader group take the reigns, and that is probably a good thing.
And despite SF being probably a greater love for me personally, I think I'd have a harder time naming a current "Big 3" there. Even with this being based on books and authors, I almost think you have to have a film/tv adaptation to have been considered big enough for this. And the only recent sci fi authors doing that would James SA Corey, but with just 1 series. I don't think it is right to stick Andy Weir in there, with just the one big hit.
So even with no adaptations I think between the volume of his work, public recognition, and work in the industry itself, I think Scalzi should probably be included. I think Neil Stephenson probably has enough main stream recognition as well. Will have to think on 3rd
John (Nevets) wrote: "I don't think it is right to stick Andy Weir in there, with just the one big hit."Project Hail Mary has entered the chat...
John (Taloni) wrote: "John (Nevets) wrote: "I don't think it is right to stick Andy Weir in there, with just the one big hit."Project Hail Mary has entered the chat..."
I really liked both it and Artemis, but were they hits? And only 3 books overall. I very much look forward to his future works, but I'm not sure he is a Big 3, yet. But I think that is why this is a fun conversation, others have different criteria, and will probably see it completely differently.
Edit: Looking it up, I guess PHM did do better then I thought, and yes it probably should be considered a hit.
Yeah, I have a lot of love for Weir's books but I don't think he's done enough yet. Maybe in another 10 years.I'm also a big fan of Stephenson's work and could see him as a possible candidate. I wasn't sure if he's well known outside the field.
My biggest criteria are longevity and influence.I would put Kim Stanley Robinson in a top three for Sci Fi along with Neal Stephenson. Not sure about a third.
As for fantasy, Sanderson for sure. And I think GRRM, despite not finishing ASOIAF yet. Then maybe Jemisin even though she's only been published since 2009. Gaiman is another possibility.
TBH I'd probably go Tchaikovsky, Reynolds and Hamilton. But then I've always preferred the bombastic big space adventures. Anything that could have a soundtrack by Wagner, gimme. And if it's got relativistic travel? Just put it in my veins!
He is no longer with us but pTerry was one of Fantasy’s giants for nearly three decades. Banks also had enormous influence on SF space opera.
Are we looking for the big sellers or the writers who are driving thematic changes in the field?
In SF it is mostly woman writers (and AT). Jemsin, Leckie, Chambers
Writers like Scalzi and Sanderson are fun but I don’t see their works lasting much past their lifetimes.
Can I ask what people have against Scalzi? He puts out a steady stream of books, both stand alone and as parts of different series. He writes a popular blog. He gets nominated for awards almost every year and seems pretty personable. He is essentially the SF version of Sanderson. He would seem to me to be the one no-brainer for this list.Edit: I wrote this before I saw Iain's post.
Iain wrote: "He is no longer with us but pTerry was one of Fantasy’s giants for nearly three decades. Banks also had enormous influence on SF space opera.
Are we looking for the big sellers or the writers w..."
I assume you mean Terry Pratchett? I would have included both him and Banks as my choices 15 years ago. If we included dead people in the current "Big 3" you'd have to consider Frank Herbert, Tolkien and Robert Jordan right now too.
Becky Chambers is good but has only put out 4 novels, all in the same series, so far.
Ann Leckie is almost in the same boat, 5 in one series plus 1 fantasy, plus personally I didn't think of her because I didn't like the one of hers I read.
Phil wrote: "Can I ask what people have against Scalzi? He puts out a steady stream of books, both stand alone and as parts of different series. He writes a popular blog. He gets nominated for awards almost eve..."I think it comes down to Scalzi being the equivalent of pop music or one of those endless iterations of the action TV series from the 80s. His books are entertaining but don’t feel substantive. They also feel more slapdash. (Old Man’s War series being the exception. Those books feel like he put more thought into them.)
Millions of people watched shows like BJ and the Bear, Simon & Simon, Riptide, or Hardcastle & McCormick, but when was the last time you heard anyone refer to them? These shows were competently made and were on for years but haven’t had any lasting impact. To me, Scalzi’s work feels like that.
Mod
Trike wrote: "Millions of people watched shows like BJ and the Bear"
My sister-in-law's sister named her son Barry John, just so she could call him B.J after the star of that show.
But we all know that Bear was the one with all the talent, looks and charisma 😎
Tassie Dave wrote: "My sister-in-law's sister named her son Barry John, just so she could call him B.J after the star of that show."That poor kid. I assume he’s 39 by now. And of course the shortened version of Barry sounds like Bear.
The Marty Stu premises of those shows were so goofy.
“He’s an ex-POW helicopter pilot captured by the Viet Cong! Now he fights crime using his special skills while driving a truck with his best friend, a chimpanzee! Watch him destroy several mid-70s cars in this week’s thrilling episode!”
Mod
Early 40s.
There was a lot of junk TV in those days. Only good thing about them was, that they were usually self-contained single episode stories. You could easily miss a couple and not get left behind.
and, as you well know, no streaming or recording in those days. You miss it and it's gone.
Phil wrote: "Iain wrote: "He is no longer with us but pTerry was one of Fantasy’s giants for nearly three decades. Banks also had enormous influence on SF space opera.
Are we looking for the big sellers or ..."
Yes I meant Terry Pratchett. He went by pTerry when posting to Usenet back in the dawn of time. It matches the names used in Pyramids like pTraci and pTeppic (Ptolemaic names).
Number of books seems to be a poor measure of impact. Tolkien only published a handful of books. Robert E. Howard with Conan had a huge impact and then you have Lovecraft who changed horror writing.
Back in the paid by the word days of magazine publishing it made sense for writers to churn out huge numbers of works of varying quality.
Pratchett is unusual in that the quality doesn't vary much over huge run of novels (56!!!!!, Asimov hit 40 or so).
As for Scalzi most of his works have very little heft. Old Mans War is the exception to this and may stand the test of time. Most of his books seem to be quite thin with very little depth to explore. They make you laugh without making you think very much. Compare this with mature Pratchett books which use humour to explore some pretty deep and traumatic issues.
I'm 57% in Death's End, the third book. I would definitely put Cixin Liu in the top scifi category.
Mod
Not top 3 though. 😕
In Fantasy I'd be picking from Brandon Sanderson, Tad Williams, N.K Jemisin, GRR Martin, Stephen King, Robin Hobb, , Naomi Novak and Neil Gaiman
Tassie Dave wrote: "Trike wrote: "That poor kid. I assume he’s 39 by now."Early 40s.
There was a lot of junk TV in those days. Only good thing about them was, that they were usually self-contained single episode s..."
I think streaming has had an interesting effect on shows. The BBC iPlayer tagline is ‘makes the unmissable unmissable’ but I think it has the opposite effect. Instead of thinking ‘oh, that looks good I must watch that’ I tend to think ‘eh, might check that out at some point’ then never do.
Another writer to consider is Robert J. Sawyer. He's been very active and influential in the SF community, has won a ton of awards including the Hugo, Nebula, and John W Campbell awards, and his books are always thought provoking.
With a programmable DVR it's now possible to record a lot of those older shows that tend to air in the small hours of the morning on some obscure channel. Then you can bing watch them at your leisure. I'm currently watching the original Batman, Wonder Woman and TJ Hooker. Another interesting anomaly is many of these have been remasters in HD, so they look WAY better than they did back in the day.
Phil wrote: "Another writer to consider is Robert J. Sawyer. He's been very active and influential in the SF community, has won a ton of awards including the Hugo, Nebula, and John W Campbell awards, and his bo..."I’ve only vaguely heard of this guy. He could well be an excellent writer, but I don’t think he has the name recognition to be considered one of the modern “Big 3”. To me a Big 3 writer is someone who everyone interested in the genre has at least heard of.
You may be right, Ruth. He's more well known in Canada. The group did read his book Flashforward a few years ago and they made a TV series based on it, but his 15 minutes may be done.Edit: I said a few years; it was 2011.
Ah, he’s the flash forward guy. I quite liked the tv show, shame it got cancelled.
Phil wrote: "Edit: I said a few years; it was 2011."
That’s how it goes when you get past a certain age. When I say something happened “The other day”, it could be last Thursday or 1985.
Ruth wrote: "Ah, he’s the flash forward guy. I quite liked the tv show, shame it got cancelled."It was an excellent show, better than the book in my memory.
Tassie Dave wrote: "Trike wrote: "That poor kid. I assume he’s 39 by now."Early 40s. "
I originally said 42 but thought 39 sounded funnier. :p
Mod
Early 40s. "
I originally said 42 but thought 39 sounded funnier. :p"
Like how your profile says you're 59 😜
I think the counter has got stuck 🤣
That makes me think "Who are the Big 3 now? Is there a Big 3 or is the field too big for anyone to be the biggest? Would Fantasy need it's own Big 3? It wasn't that big back then. Should I stop saying "big"?"
The only one that comes to my mind is possibly John Scalzi but I don't read a lot of super up to date stuff and I don't really know how influential Scalzi is.
I might be tempted by George Martin for a Fantasy draft but he's really best known for a series that may never be finished. Maybe Sanderson would be better.
Who do you think might fit the bill? The criteria I would look for would be currently alive, active, and influential to the field.