The greatest alive?

[onyxhawke]

So who is the greatest living science fiction and fantasy author? Is it Ray Bradbury who has done the rarest of all things for genre fiction and crossed over to being used in English classes from elementary school all the way to college and universities?  Does it go to Stephen King? He's sold oodles of books and even managed to convince the mainstream he isn't (usually) science fiction? Can we anoint Terry Pratchett? Despite his presence, and the legacy of Douglas Adams, People who Matter are still convinced humor doesn't sell. Another reasonable choice is Lois Bujold who has more Hugo Awards for both science fiction and fantasy, and is a perennial nominee for the Locus, Nebula, and World Fantasy awards as well? A case can be made for J.K. Rowling as well, without much need to go into what she's done. Robin Hobb certainly deserves a strong look as well. Mercedes Lackey has helped define SF/F for the last two decades and has written and sold across half a dozen of the subgenres. Another name some might throw out is China Meiville, for lush language and creativity?  R. A. Salvatore has sold well enough that he can make a legit claim to being the greatest too.

 

So is the greatest living SF/F writer one of these? Or is there someone I just don't know?

Comments

[gerriwritinglog.livejournal.com]

Anne McCaffery definitely needs to be on this list, probably well above Mercedes Lackey.

I guess it depends on what you mean by greatest. Quite frankly, while I admire their longevity, I can't stand either Harlen Ellison or Ray Bradbury. Stephen King may excite readers, but his books aren't exactly what I would call deep. Same with Pratchett. I'm not knocking their writing. They're obviously popular, but I'm not sure popular makes them one of the greatest writers ever.

Honestly, I tend to think of Bujold or Ursula K. Le Guin when I think of great writers. Michael Moorcock would be another one who I'd seriously consider a candidate. He was definitely one of my influences.

In the end, though, I'd have to go more with Bujold. She just has a richness of prose that most of the rest can't match or beat, and she tends to write very deep, even when she's writing lighter stories.

J.K. Rowling, imo, needs to come in very near the top, though. That's not just because she single-handedly introduced reading to whole generations, uniting adults and kids into one big readership. The Harry Potter series has a depth that a lot of people want to overlook just because it's a kid series. I don't think it can be.

*looks longingly at her list of favorite writers who are dead, sighs, and moves on*

[luke-jaywalker.livejournal.com]

Why is "deep" necessarily a good thing?

I tend to associate that with the overwritten, massively over-analyzed crap that we all had shoved down our throats in high school English classes.

The sort of thing that turns a lot of people away from ever voluntarily reading anything afterwards.

[gerriwritinglog.livejournal.com]

Perhaps another word would be better as a descriptor. Rich, full-bodied, well-rounded. Layered, I guess would come closest to another way to describe depth without evoking the dreaded high school classes.

I think anyone who gets the nod for greatest living writer needs to write more than the reading equivalent of cotton candy. Don't get me wrong--I like candy stories, too. But to earn the title of greatest living writer, the authors need to be writing things closer to steak or lasagna, something that sticks to the mental ribs, draws the reader back in to experience the story again and again, fills them up without the sugar rush that candy stories leave.