I ran across an interesting article while going through the digg RSS feed this morning. It's from the Washington Post's blog, about some Science Fiction book recommendations for people who don't like Science Fiction.
The article was written marginally well, I felt, but it had some good things to say. The most interesting part, as happens with many a blog post, was the large amount of comments left by people who didn't get the point of the post.
It was interesting because the majority of people who left a comment seemed to be sci-fi fans, and they all just posted their favorite sci-fi books. The point, of course, was to recommend sci-fi books for people who don't like sci-fi. That is a very difficult task, but it must be done if you're a sci-fi fan wanting to help your friends understand your hobby/obsession. The article referenced five very good books for getting people into the genre, which were very good. The two classics, War of the Worlds and 1984, were definitely necessary. War of the Worlds is the classic alien invasion story, and 1984 is good for anyone studying where society is going, or already is. Both are very easy reads, and don't require any type of sci-fi familiarity or fandom to enjoy.
As for the comments, I was amazed that people just don't get it. You can't recommend Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy to someone that's doesn't like sci-fi. I like sci-fi, and Foundation is still a bit heavy for me. Perhaps his robot stories would be a better start, but I'd still recommend leaving Asimov until one has a better liking of the genre.
Many recommended Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. Fine, I guess... though it might not be that great for first time sci-fi-ers. One post said that it definitely wouldn't be, and recommended H.P. Lovecraft instead. I must scratch my head at that. If you can't handle Card, you definitely can't handle Lovecraft. In fact, even people who can handle Asimov sometimes can't handle Lovecraft. This is mainly because he's not just sci-fi, but has many fantasy and horror themes mixed in. Definitely do not recommend Lovecraft to someone who thinks they don't like sci-fi at all. It will scare them away from the genre forever.
Others were mentioned, such as Robert Heinlein and Larry Niven, as well as cyberpunk authors such as William Gibson and Neal Sthephenson, and some others... and as I was reading, it occurred to me that these people really didn't see what they were doing. They were just posting their favorite books without thinking if they would be good for first timers. Then I came upon this comment:
"You're all nerds and virgins."
Now, I could take offense at this, since he seems to be referring to sci-fi fans as nerds and virgins. As I thought about it, though, it seemed to make sense. This is the type of person that this article is trying to reach out to, the one that doesn't like sci-fi. This is the type of person that read the title of the post and thought, "Right. Take your best shot. I don't believe there is any good sci-fi for people who don't like it." He may have read the article and somewhat liked it, but then he read all the idiotic comments and was immediately turned off again. A few comments after this one, the proof came that the people posting comments truly did not understand what was going on. It came in this first sentence of a later comment:
"What a great thread for Sci-Fi fans."
This, my friends, is the world that we live in. It truly makes me laugh.
In light of this movie, this article is extremely funny.
The movie I cited is ridiculous. Well, the movie itself isn't, but the subject matter is. It's about a little girl who is apparently a child prodigy and paints amazing pictures. They look like any kid's finger paintings to me, but people pay inordinate amounts of money for them. That's ridiculous in itself, but the controversy behind the whole thing is that people don't think the kid actually painted them. They think her father was helping her paint them.
*blink blink*
What? Are you serious? Do you really think the kid needs the help to paint something like that? I painted stuff like that all the time when I was a kid, and I didn't get a cent for it. Why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT ART. Did the kid paint them or not? Does it matter? She's not a genius artist either way. She's a kid.
That's why the Daily Mail article is so funny. A woman has given her very young son some paints and canvas and told him to go at it. She took those paintings, made up some incredibly exaggerated descriptions, and put them online for sale. She's not serious, of course, since it's only a 2-year-old's paintings. BUT PEOPLE PAYED MONEY FOR THEM.
Oh my goodness. The joke's on them, I guess.
Seriously.
[An Error Occurred While Processing This Directive].com (via boing boing, via Make Magazine. Great telephone game, eh?)
It's an exploded iPod, encased in a resin block. Now, that's cool in itself, but the thing still works. I want one!
Yes. Tim Burton is going to direct a new adaptation of none other than the classic Lewis Carrol story Alice in Wonderland.
Scifi.com (via boing boing)
He's apparently very excited about it. The article's not that long, so there's no need for me to post much else... except for this classic line:
"The stories are like drugs for children, you know?" Burton said. "It's like, 'Whoa, man.'"