Consider Phlebas, Iain M Banks (1987)

[major_clanger]

Following Iain Banks's untimely death I resolved to push my unread book pile to one side and re-read (or in some cases read), in order of publication, his Culture books. For reference, these are:

Consider Phlebas (1987)
The Player of Games (1988)
Use of Weapons (1990)
The State of the Art (1991) - short stories, three Culture-related.
Excession (

Comments

[philmophlegm]

Consider Phlebas is on the to-read shelf* in my library. I've never read any Banks, so that would seem as good a place to start as anywhere.

Science fiction has lost a true great in the last couple of weeks. And while I appreciate that lots of people think Iain (M) Banks is a great SF novelist, I'm afraid he isn't that 'true great'. The true great I refer to is Jack Vance.

There was huge coverage in the news about Iain Banks's death, but almost nothing about Vance's. Was this different in other countries? I get the impression that Banks is much more popular and famous in the UK, especially Scotland, than he is elsewhere. Is that fair? I mean if you look at the major SF awards, then all Banks ever got was a single Hugo nomination. As far as major awards, total body of work and above all influence on other writers, Vance is by far the more important author of the two.

I wonder if the situation was reversed in the US and Vance's death got more coverage.

(This possibly reads as a little disrespectful. It's not meant to, honest.)

* Well, actually, there are three such shelves, and each is overstuffed with books, so it will probably be a while before I get around to it.

[autopope]

Science fiction has lost a true great in the last couple of weeks. And while I appreciate that lots of people think Iain (M) Banks is a great SF novelist, I'm afraid he isn't that 'true great'. The true great I refer to is Jack Vance.

Disagree.

Vance was an interesting stylist ... but Banks was one of the five most important Scottish novelists of the past century, and one of the Greats of British literature.

Who happened to write (and enjoy writing) SF as well.

[philmophlegm]

How much of the mainstream press coverage given to Banks was because he was "one of the five most important Scottish novelists of the past century and one of the Greats of British Literature" (which I don't doubt), and how much was because he also wrote SF?

A lot of the obituaries I saw referred to him as "Crow Road author Iain Banks" or something similar. The BBC website says "He was best known for his novels The Wasp Factory, The Crow Road and Complicity", while mentioning further down the page that he "also penned sci-fi titles under the name Iain M Banks".

Conversely, the BBC website failed to mention Jack Vance's death.

Four years ago, Vance got this piece in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19Vance-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&%20_r=5&partner=rss&emc=rss . It picked up on the fact that he was overlooked, but also found plenty of more famous and commercially successful authors to say things like "If he'd been born south of the border, he'd be up for a Nobel Prize" (Dan Simmons) and "If ‘The Last Castle’ or ‘The Dragon Masters’ had the name Italo Calvino on it, or just a foreign name, it would be received as a profound meditation, but because he’s Jack Vance and published in Amazing Whatever, there’s this insurmountable barrier" (Michael Chabon).

It would be nice if both authors' work could be celebrated, but I do have the nagging suspicion that over here at least, Banks is more "important" because he didn't just write "genre" fiction.

[autopope]

The Brit Lit establishment still has a rather condescending attitude to SF in some quarters. However, he was also the UK's pre-eminent SF writer as well. Go read "Use of Weapons" if you're not sure why. Or "The Bridge" (sold as mainstream, arguably SF/magical realism).

[philmophlegm]

"However, he was also the UK's pre-eminent SF writer as well."

Yes, and that should count for something, while if I'm being honest, Vance's best work was all a long time ago.

Out of interest, with Banks's passing, who would you consider to now be the UK's pre-eminent SF writer? Macleod? Hamilton? Reynolds? Baxter? (And feel free to put modesty to one side to answer.)

[autopope]

To be perfectly honest, I'm a slow reader (eye trouble) and can't read recreationally while I'm producing, so I don't read broadly enough -- or keep enough of an eye on the market -- to be remotely qualified to answer that question.

Also, it depends on how you define pre-eminent. I initially assumed you meant "most highly respected in terms of quality". But in terms of market share/visibility, the answer would be quite different. I believe Pete Hamilton out-sells everyone except the late Iain M. Banks, although he publishes more SF novels (Iain's habit of alternating SF and mainstream titles had something to do with that). I believe there's then a clump of front-list authors including Baxter, Reynolds, and (yes) myself. Possibly Hannu, although he's still very new to the market. I'm not sure how well Ken sells; he might be there, but I'm not sure.

TL:DR; Confusion R'Us.

[philmophlegm]

I can relate to the problem of wanting to read more books than you have time to. I'm a slow reader too. In fact it has occurred to me that people who are fast readers might not appreciate Jack Vance as much as slow readers. I mean if you're skimming, you'll miss out on hearing the sound of a particularly Vanceian sentence in your head.

I also wish many of the current crop of British SF authors would write shorter books. Hamilton is seemingly the worst for this. I read through the whole Night's Dawn trilogy. While I did like it, and he does create an interesting, well-developed setting, the ratio of plot to pages is quite small (and the ratio of characters to plot is huge). Bizarrely, if you asked me to explain the plot of Night's Dawn to you, I reckon it would take less time than explaining the plot of Asimov's Foundation, which is a tiny book.

So many books, so little time. Rule 34 is somewhere on my to-read shelf, but at this rate it might be a while. I've just read Reynolds's first novel 'Revelation Space' and liked that a lot, so I now have to add more of his work. Currently reading Saladin Ahmed's fantasy 'Throne of the Crescent Moon'.

[fjm]

There is a difference between "lost" and "lost before his time". Also, Vance was in a much smaller field when he was at his best.

[philmophlegm]

Yes, both of those are fair points.

However, to measure Vance's greatness, you have to consider his influence. More than a few fantasy and SF authors cite Vance as a major influence - George R R Martin, Dan Simmons, Gene Wolfe, Tanith Lee etc. Anyone who has ever played a D&D wizard is influenced by Vance, whether they know it or not. The same with the D&D thief class (explicitly based on Cugel from the Dying Earth books, according to Gary Gygax). And if you think how much modern fantasy literature has been inspired by D&D...

[philmophlegm]

Both fair points.

However, I'd argue that you have to consider Vance's influence when measuring his importance. Think of all the major fantasy and SF authors who cite him as an influence - Martin, Wolfe, Simmons, Tanith Lee etc. Now add in all the people who ever played a wizard or a thief in D&D (both the magic system and the thief class being based on 'The Dying Earth' stories) and all the subsequent fantasy based on D&D. That's the true measure of Vance's importance as a writer, even more than his wonderful use of language.

[pauldormer]

Both got fairly large obits in The Independent.

But, of the two, Banks is the one I did think about re-reading.