
Are Golden Age Writers Worth It For New SF Readers? - ColinWright
http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2011/06/mind-meld-are-golden-age-writers-worth-it-for-new-sf-readers/
======
cstross
What's a "new" SF reader?

Someone who's young and reading SF is probably going to start out on Harry
Potter or contemporary young adult fiction. By the time they're reading adult
stuff -- be it current cutting-edge authors or golden age classics -- they're
not going to be "new" to the genre and its conventions.

Someone who is coming to SF for the first time as a mature reader may well
have difficulty handling the internal dialogue within contemporary adult SF,
as it has been evolving for decades -- but there should be no problem starting
with the likes of H. G. Wells or Jules Verne (recognized literary classics by
those outside the genre) or _1984_ or _Brave New World_ and working inward
from there.

Either way, I figure it's unlikely that anyone truly "new" to the genre is
going to start with the likes of Asimov or Heinlein or Clarke today (which is
not to say they they should be ignored, but that's a whole different
argument).

------
mmastrac
Yes, although it's a mixed bag. I've found all of the Asimov stuff to hold up
well.

Heinlein is hit or miss. I loved Heinlein's "The Moon is Harsh Mistress" (one
of my favorites), but I found "Stranger in a Strange Land" to be utterly full
of sexist behaviour that I struggled through it.

I can say for sure: definitely Clarke and definitely Asimov.

------
sdh
hmm, should new painting viewers bother with rembrandt, michelangelo,
caravaggio, da vinci, etc?

um, yes!

asimov, bradbury, clarke, huxley, etc are worth reading no matter what century
you're in.

