2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
Great collection, 2007-10-05
I really enjoyed this collection and found it useful. I can understand the arguments people make that the collection can be contradictory, but that is do to the fact that there are different essays by different people with different roads to success. There is no one sure-fire way to write a good story, if there were we wouldn't need different perspectives. This seems obvious to me. Each writer can only comment on their own particular field of science fiction. Some people love hard science fiction, while others love cyber-punk, space operas, anthropological science fiction, etc etc. All of these sub-genres have niches and ways to go about writing.
In fact, if you read the opening essay by Heinlein, he clearly says that the essay is merely pointing out basic ideas toward interesting pieces that will be sold. So, while there are "guidelines" to follow, the guidelines aren't biblical commandments of writing science fiction/fantasy, and they can be broken.
It also tells you throughout the essays what clearly NOT to do if you don't want to end up with a cliche-ridden story that will get rejected over and over.
It is true that this book deals more toward the process of creating a short story than a novel, but generally that is how science fiction authors break into the field and get noticed, and if you didn't notice the book was compiled by Analog and Asimov's science fiction, which are two of the most famous SHORT STORY publications. That said, I would recommend this to people who want to write speculative fiction stories to sell to magazines like Asimov's, Analog, Science Fiction and Fantasy, etc.
It is not loaded with information on Fantasy or novel-writing, but if you are serious about writing, this book will give you some good weapons to add to your writing arsenal and get you pumped to do some writing. I agree it is not the end-all book on writing, but realistically as an aspiring writer you should read whatever you can find, and this features some of the greatest names in the field writing honestly about what they know.
6 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
1 1/2 stars really, 2004-08-08
I bought this book because I thought there would be more material concerning fantasy. Aside from the chapter "Turtles all the Way Down" there is little to do with fantasy, some chapters even have passages along the line of "fantasy maybe, but we're talking about sct-fi."
There are also several mixed messages. One chapter says "Show, don't tell" and the next chapter says "Tell, don't show." The book as a whole doesn't agree on issues of the importance of plot v. characters as well.
And this book needs revisions to be useful for readers and writers of the 21st century; typewriters seem obsolete and there are no websites listed. Its a very dated book.
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
Good diversity of input on the subject, 2004-06-08
As some other reviewers have pointed out, this is not a cohesive, straight through guide to writing by a single author. It is a collection of 20 essays by 14 different authors on many different aspects of writing. The book covers plotting, characterization, creation of future societies, and (most important of all for aspiring writers) guidance on getting your first story published.This is an excellent book if you know what you are getting in to. It does not go into great depth on writing fantasy despite the title and it focuses mainly of the short story, not novels. If, however, you are interested in writing short science fiction this book is a great resource.
28 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
Wildly Uneven, But Worth it For The Good Bits, 2004-06-04
At the most basic level, this book delivers what the title and subtitle promises: How-to essays by some of the biggest names (as of the mid-1980s) in science fiction writing. The majority deal with science fiction (rather than fantasy) and with magazine (as opposed to book-length) pieces. Would-be fantasy writers should beware, but should also be willing to cut the editors a little slack on the subject. New writers with no track record and no agent (the book's target audience) have always had an easier time publishing short fiction than novels. Fantasy is (and has been for decades) almost entirely published as novels, but there's still (if only barely) a market for magazine-length science fiction.
The book is not, however, what it clearly *wants* to be: THE book for writers trying to break into the genre. The essays in it were written at different times and for different purposes. They vary wildly in length, depth, and (most critical) in the amount of knowledge they assume on the part of the reader. Trying to read the book straight through can give you a severe case of intellectual whiplash. If you want a unified, coherent book about how to write quality science fiction and fantasy, this is NOT it. (Try Orson Scott Card's _How To Write Science Fiction and Fantasy_ or Barry Longyear's _Notes to a Science Fiction Writer_ instead.)
The real gems of this book include, as other reviewers have noted, Stanley Schmidt on worn-out plot devices and Connie Willis on humor. IF you want to write hard science fiction (stories where the scientific details are firmly in the foreground and integral to the story), then add Hal Clement's on aliens to that list. IF you want to write fantasy, then add Jane Yolen's superb essay on using elements from mythology and legend. Either group could benefit from Poul Anderson's essay on world-building. (As Diana Wynne Jones pointed out in her hilarious _Tough Guide to Fantasyland_, fantasy writers are notorious for creating worlds that make no ecological sense.)
The book is, ironicaly, least useful where it's most closely concerned with the mechanics of writing. Isaac Asimov's five essays are breezy and genial but offer little in the way of really concrete advice. Robert Heinlein's single essay (written in the early 1950s, if memory serves) is valuable *only* if you keep in mind that it was written when the market for magazine SF was *much* larger than it is today. Sheila Williams' essay on "The Mechanics of Submission" is now badly out of date, since it was written before e-mail and inkjet printers. Many of the markets listed at the end of the book have, sadly, ceased publication years ago.
The good bits of this book are very, very good. The essays by Anderson, Willis, and Yolen alone are worth the price of (paperback) admission. Be aware, though, that you get a *lot* of chaff along with the wheat.
20 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
Great for Science Fiction, not for Fantasy, 2004-05-03
I was disappointed with this book because my primary focus is on fantasy, not science fiction. Originally I decided to pass on this book until I found out that a SF writer and teacher I admire loves this book, so I changed my mind and got it.
If you know Analog which focuses on hard science fiction and Asimov's which focuses on character-driven science fiction, this book is exactly what you would expect. There are some incredible articles on how to create a believable planet and how to extrapolate from the present society to hypothesize what a future society might be. Stanley Schmidt, the current editor for Analog, included some interesting articles on story ideas editors see so often they know the ending after reading the first paragraph, and articles on what as an editor he is trying to do for both the writer and the reader. If you are a fan of Asimov or Heinlein, you may be interested in their articles just to understand how they think. Except for Connie Willis's wonderful essay on comedy and the world-, creature-, and society-building essays, the actual writing advice is good for a beginning writer, but won't have new information for an intermediate/advanced writer.
For the right person, this book is a gem. If you are trying to publish in Analog or Asimov's, I'd say it is a must. If you are interested in hard science fiction, there is a lot this book has to offer. If you are interested solely in fantasy, this book probably will be a bit of a disappointment.