yo yo yo search it!

Loading...

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

how cool is this wapo? pretty damn cool

This article is excerpted from one that appeared in New Scientist magazine. The original is available through www.newscientist.com.

Writers and scientists name science fiction books that should be called classics
From "The War of the Worlds" to "1984," some science fiction goes down in history. What about the brilliant books that got away? New Scientist magazine asked scientists and writers to nominate lost sci-fi classics. 

'FLOATING WORLDS' (BY CECELIA HOLLAND)

Nominated by Kim Stanley Robinson, science-fiction writer: " 'Floating Worlds' was published to acclaim in 1976, but has not been remembered as much as it should be. But Holland's immense power as a novelist, and her new take on old science fiction themes, turn everything to gold."

Outline: A story about Earth and other colonies in the solar system, some hundreds of years from now, when humans have begun to evolve into separate species and Earth is a mess. "Floating Worlds" is the only science-fiction book by historical novelist Cecelia Holland...............

4 comments:

stray said...

Margaret Atwood's nomination sounds like a short story by Michael Ende, about an enclosed underground world where everyone is content until the main character has a dream about a window.

a rose is a rose said...

haven't read that one (ende that is). let me tell you i like atwood a LOT. however, i did read oryx and krake and i HATED it with a passion. it was HORRID

stray said...

because the writing was horrid or the subject was horrid? (I haven't read it...yet).

a rose is a rose said...

well i was going to say subject, but i guess it was the writing as well. i didn't care ONE iota for anyone in that book and therefore i didn't care what the hell did or didn't happen to them. i'm surprised i made it all the way through. do NOT take my word though. i guess it's a fairly popular book. i'm glad i didn't get the second one at the same time. i would have kicked myself