Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rich Horton's avatar

As you probably gathered from my Black Gate comment, I really did love Floating Worlds. That said, I haven't reread it in, well, almost 50 years now I guess! I should probably do so! I think your review is extremely perceptive.

I came to Floating Worlds not because it was science fiction, but because I was also a devoted reader of historical fiction, and I had already discovered Cecelia Holland, through her earlier novels such as Rakossy, The Earl, and Great Maria. I was delighted to realize her new novel was SF. My immediate reaction, after reading it, was that it really did seem to read as if it were historical fiction written by someone in the future of the action of the novel. I nominated it for the Hugo that year, but it didn't make the short list. (I liked it better than the novels that did.) I actually think C. J. Cherryh is a really good comparison.

I've argued before that the best training for a science fiction writer might be history, and so I implicitly agree with Delany I think.

It should be noted that while Holland is certainly primarily an historical fiction writer, and Floating Worlds is her only SF (unless you count her novel Jack, which is a sort of alternate history), she has written Fantasy -- the novel Dragon Heart, and arguably also Two Ravens, plus some short stories. And she did regularly review for Locus, the SF "trade magazine" (for which I also wrote for many years.)

Expand full comment
Rob Secundus's avatar

I think I agree with your point about SF and length, but it's odd, because SF also lends itself to lengthy *series*, which in their own way allow for immersion in the setting.

Expand full comment
17 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?