Critical Reception of Gartner's Science Fiction Collection
The critical response to Gartner's collection of science fiction and fantasy stories has been notably polarized, reflecting a divide between those who praised the prose and those who questioned the structural depth of the genre work. While some critics lauded the collection for its emotional impact and writing quality, others argued that the lack of experienced genre writers hindered the overall execution.
Key Facts
- CBC Radio ranked the collection as the best Canadian work of science fiction and fantasy for 2010.
- The Los Angeles Times praised the high quality of writing across the collection.
- Quill and Quire criticized the decision to prioritize literary writers over experienced science fiction authors.
- Reviews ranged from describing the work as "excellent" to claiming the scenarios felt "second-hand."
Positive Critical Acclaim
Several major publications highlighted the collection's strengths, focusing primarily on the aesthetic and emotional quality of the narratives. The Los Angeles Times noted that while the originality of the stories varied, the overall quality of the writing remained "wonderfully high." Similarly, The Globe and Mail described the work as "excellent."
The collection also received significant recognition within Canada. CBC Radio awarded it the top spot for Canadian science fiction and fantasy in 2010. From a thematic perspective, the Georgia Straight characterized the scenarios as "dismal," "grim," and "genuinely scarifying," yet concluded that the experience of reading the collection was "riotously enjoyable."
[ไม่มีภาพประกอบ]Critical Controversies and Critiques
Despite the praise, some critics focused on the editorial direction of the collection. Quill and Quire specifically targeted Gartner's decision to select primarily literary contributors rather than authors with established experience in science fiction. This choice, they argued, led to narratives that felt like "colloids"—substances where particles are suspended but not fully integrated—resulting in slack and unformed storytelling.
The publication further suggested that the contributors lacked a broad reading history within the genre, making many of the futuristic and dystopian speculations feel derivative or "second-hand." This sentiment was echoed by Geist, which noted that the quality and originality of the stories varied wildly and that many of the pieces "try too hard."
Summary of Critical Perspectives
| Publication | Verdict | Primary Focus |
|---|---|---|
| CBC Radio | Positive | Best Canadian SF/Fantasy of 2010 |
| Los Angeles Times | Positive | High writing quality |
| Georgia Straight | Positive | Enjoyable despite grim themes |
| Quill and Quire | Negative | Lack of genre experience in authors |
| Geist | Mixed/Negative | Inconsistent quality and originality |
Frequently Asked Questions
How did CBC Radio rank the collection?
CBC Radio ranked it as the best Canadian work of science fiction and fantasy for the year 2010.
What was the main criticism from Quill and Quire?
They criticized the editorial decision to favor literary contributors over authors with specific experience in the science fiction genre, arguing this led to unformed narratives.
How did the Georgia Straight describe the tone of the stories?
The publication described the scenarios as "dismal," "grim," and "genuinely scarifying," while still finding the collection "riotously enjoyable."
What did the Los Angeles Times say about the writing?
The Los Angeles Times emphasized that the quality of writing across the entire collection was "wonderfully high," despite varying levels of originality.
What was Geist's conclusion regarding the stories?
Geist concluded that the quality and originality of the stories varied wildly and that many of the narratives tried too hard.