The idea of the canon is outdated, colonialist, racist, sexist, and anti-queer. It’s easy to say that this is only true because old stuff is colonialist, racist, sexist, and anti-queer, but that’s a bullshit cop out. People who aren’t white men didn’t suddenly appear, fully formed like Athena once Al Gore invented the internet. And brilliant people who aren’t white men have been doing incredible work all along.
I get what you are trying to say, but there are better ways of saying it.
Your canon is your canon, mine is mine. There may be shared points of contact or none at all.
I find LotR bloated rubbish, but I'd happily read Emily St John Mandel, Michael Chabon or a Paolo Bacigalupi book that was of the same length, as I find their worlds better.
Surely the point should be 'Expand your canon'.
Or is there some official canon list I've never encountered before?
She's using the word canon in place of "what has been historically popular". Such a pity to dump on the love people have of SF tho. Personally I loved Orson Scott Card till I learned what a dick he's been about gay people, it doesn't reduce his skill as a writer one jot tho, I just chose not to read him now. Same with David Brin, he's mega popular and I've enjoyed his stuff. If he's not to this bloggers taste.... I say just read something else and save your energy.
"The idea of the canon is outdated, colonialist, racist, sexist, and anti-queer."
The idea of the canon is a way to sort the little nuggets of gold from the field of dross. Some few works echo down the years, most do not.
You don't have to -like- David Brin or his stories, but you do have to admit they were significant at the time they were published. They're a piece of SF history.
I read LeGuin and for the most part found her achingly boring. Your mileage clearly differed.
But no one can pretend "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" was not an influential story. It's influence on me was to put a chapter in one of my own books envisioning a return to Omelas with orbital fire support, because you don't just walk away from something like that.
That's what a true canon is. That some of us detest the Omelas story is not relevant, it is still an important piece of SF history.
"outdated, colonialist, racist, sexist, and anti-queer"?
Wow, the bitter resentment contained within this blog post is quite breathtaking.
This blogger sounds angry there were mega-successful people of a different race/sexuality to her *before* she was born. It sounds very much like this blogger is someone with multiple chips on multiple shoulders.
If enough people like this bloggers choice of books it will probably go on to be called a "cannon" in it's own right, but bitterness isn't attractive, so I don't see that happening.
This is terrific and very encouraging. Feeling my shoulders loosen and a breath of relief at your discussion of opening up beyond Asimov, Dick, Heinlein etc. They are excellent but there is so much more out there .
I get what you are trying to say, but there are better ways of saying it.
Your canon is your canon, mine is mine. There may be shared points of contact or none at all.
I find LotR bloated rubbish, but I'd happily read Emily St John Mandel, Michael Chabon or a Paolo Bacigalupi book that was of the same length, as I find their worlds better.
Surely the point should be 'Expand your canon'.
Or is there some official canon list I've never encountered before?
She's using the word canon in place of "what has been historically popular". Such a pity to dump on the love people have of SF tho. Personally I loved Orson Scott Card till I learned what a dick he's been about gay people, it doesn't reduce his skill as a writer one jot tho, I just chose not to read him now. Same with David Brin, he's mega popular and I've enjoyed his stuff. If he's not to this bloggers taste.... I say just read something else and save your energy.
Angry bitterness is so off-putting.
I love the ideas of David Brin but his writing style makes me ill.
"The idea of the canon is outdated, colonialist, racist, sexist, and anti-queer."
The idea of the canon is a way to sort the little nuggets of gold from the field of dross. Some few works echo down the years, most do not.
You don't have to -like- David Brin or his stories, but you do have to admit they were significant at the time they were published. They're a piece of SF history.
I read LeGuin and for the most part found her achingly boring. Your mileage clearly differed.
But no one can pretend "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" was not an influential story. It's influence on me was to put a chapter in one of my own books envisioning a return to Omelas with orbital fire support, because you don't just walk away from something like that.
That's what a true canon is. That some of us detest the Omelas story is not relevant, it is still an important piece of SF history.
"outdated, colonialist, racist, sexist, and anti-queer"?
Wow, the bitter resentment contained within this blog post is quite breathtaking.
This blogger sounds angry there were mega-successful people of a different race/sexuality to her *before* she was born. It sounds very much like this blogger is someone with multiple chips on multiple shoulders.
If enough people like this bloggers choice of books it will probably go on to be called a "cannon" in it's own right, but bitterness isn't attractive, so I don't see that happening.
🕊️❤️
This piece seems to be using the word "canon" in a way I would never have thought of before.
Outstanding.
This is terrific and very encouraging. Feeling my shoulders loosen and a breath of relief at your discussion of opening up beyond Asimov, Dick, Heinlein etc. They are excellent but there is so much more out there .