Was PKD considered a good writer?

No. Like most, I like him but his technical skills were at best standard.

>>8608407

Ulysses aside, what sci-fi books would you say have top tier technical writing?

Vonnegut >

>>8608414
Neuromancer has some of my favorite prose ever, but that's probably a mildly controversial position. A Canticle for Leibowitz was well-written from what I recall but it's been several years since I've read it.

File: 1474591370230.gif (241KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 300x300px

>>8608434

>neuromancer
>good prose

>>8608454
Ya, absolutely. Perfectly captures a techno-noir vibe and a sense of information overload. It's the ultimate expression of the cyberpunk aesthetic, which I find really appealing.

>>8608414
"Technical writing" rather brings to my mind writers with wretched prose like Stapledon or functional ones in the vein of Asimov, but I guess that's not what you mean. Le Guin, Zelazny, Gene Wolfe are some who are consistently solid and sometimes even better than that; Lem must depend on the translation

>>8608463
Only in parts, sadly the bulk of it is generic genre prose

>>8608399
Ehhh. He has some good ideas, but his characters are all indistinct. I can't say any of them have ever stood out. Looking back, all I can remember is the concept behind his novels, but none of the characters. That is definitely a sign of a second-rate novelist.

>>8608399 (OP)
I agree with Ursula Le Guin's assessment that PKD is a puzzle, stylistically. I think this is a reflection of his eclectic interests, tastes, and his equally prolific and haphazard working regimen.

He clearly wanted to be taken seriously outside of SF, like, Kurt Vonnegut, and wrote several non-SF novels, most of them now lost/unpublished.

He is undoubtedly a great imagination.

>>8608399
He wasn't considered a great writer at the time by the literary community but now in the 21st century seems to have changed that. I like him as a writer, but reading Flow My Tears really made me question his ability to write a story that isn't based upon depression and the conflation of reality.

>>8608399
I like PKD but he's not a "good writer" in a sense that his prose is good. In fact, it's pretty bad imo. Again, I like him though.

>>8608434
Neuromancer has terrible prose.

>>8608434
Mein gott
Neuromancer had terrible prose.
>>8608414
Gormenghast, Book of the New Sun, Silmarillion, Earthsea all have enjoyable prose in different ways.

File: 1473734327982.png (121KB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 785x757px

>>8608434

>Neuromancer has some of my favorite prose ever

Fuck you my man

>>8609720
>Earthsea
my nigga

PKD Wins by merit of quantity of quality

but I can read anything and enjoy it, except maybe Asimov

PKD has better prose than a lot of paperback sci fi trash, but hes shy of getting noted for his prose style... although I make an exception for his valis trilogy. He went somewhere else with that one.

Reading The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch last night, I realised how it always takes 30 pages to figure out what the hell's going on in a PKD book.

I think his writing is pretty average. PKD was an ideas man and he had a ton of unique ideas.

>>8608399
pkd's writing is shit but it's bearable bc he mostly wrote shortform stuff

its more about the idea than te prose.

File: image.jpg (22KB, 251x242px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 251x242px

>>8609714
>>8609720
>>8609729
>three plebs in a row

>>8610362
Nobody who likes the prose of Neuromancer and posts pepes has the right to call anyone a pleb, pleb.

>>8610415
What did you dislike about it?

one of those sci fi writers thats more of an 'ideas man' than an actual writer

>>8610452
The plot was dull, the characters were flat and generic, the prose was painful to read.
What is there even to like about it?

>>8608414

see >>8609720

>>8610461
The question was solely about the prose. In what way was it 'painful'?

>>8610465
It didn't make sense half of the time, it didn't have a flow to it, the dialogue was also pretty bad, the descriptions were overdone.
It's been more than two years now so I don't remember the exact details.

>>8610466
See
>>8608463

It 'didn't make sense' because Gibson was using language more in the service of establishing a mood than in progressing the story. It's fractured and a bit jarring to convey sensory overload.

>>8610474
That's your excuse for his bad writing. Sensory overload can be described in beautiful ways, it can often be found in mystical writings (also in Book of the Long Sun), but his was just shit.
I don't think it makes for a good excuse on why many sentences have fucked up grammatical structure and are nonsensical.
His atmosphere was also weak, compared to some other notable works that came before him, such as Book of the New Sun or Gormenghast.

Neuromancer has only one thing to offer, the aesthetic, but it is shallow so every attempt to emulate the same thing was successful. It's the kind of work which is good only in the short period of time when it is published.

>>8610493
I'm not trying to excuse bad writing; I'm disagreeing that his techniques make for bad writing. I found it a treat to read. While the sensory overload maybe wasn't 'beautiful' in the most traditional sense of the term, it has merit in offering the reader a glimpse into what the characters were feeling and experiencing. I mean the whole thing often reads like an amphetamine high. Totally exhilarating. The 'fucked up grammatical structure' or his sentences are all rooted in the noir tradition, which again serves to reinforce the mood of the novel.

I agree that Neuromancer's aesthetic is perhaps its most remarkable attribute. I'd also contend that Gibson's prose is what so effectively establishes this aesthetic.

>>8609720

what exactly makes the Titus trilogy worth reading? i have been recommended them so many times by fantasyfags who always say its the best example of "literary fantasy". The first book bores me after around 50 pages and I can never bring myself to read more

>>8610866
Do you enjoy beautiful language, thick atmosphere and subtle characterisation?
If the answer, read it.

>>8610883
Yes. Guess I gotta stick with it.

>>8610452

The plot was great, but Gibson suffers from perhaps the worst prose I've encountered so far.

He can't keep his ideas in order, despite the fact that it uses some very basic words you are constantly wondering what the fuck is going on. Specially the first acts.

>>8610883
>If the answer
Titus fans confirmed for retarded. Time to drop the book.