I was very suprised to see how people defended the Narnia books after I called
them garbage. I honestly don't know anyone who likes them - I have them all
(a gift) and my little sister has them all on audio tape. I do not think that
i am `souless' I certainly do not lack a childlike sense of wonder, however,
the books were just so bad.... everything being alright once deus ex machina,
Aslan[read Jesus] appears. Even as a child I found them lacking - although I
will admit I thought that The Magician's Nephew began well enough. Of course,
as with my last post this is IMHO - who else's opinion would it be?
As the Narnia books were being discussed recently I felt justified in including
the comparison in my article about TSR's books.
Concerning research - I read Chuq's post and it's obvious that he does a great
deal of research. But I have never read a TSR book which has needed or had
the slightest bit - except maybe into Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms. It's
great how 12 year olds can now read say The Azure Bonds books then play the
modules of the same (`winning' or `conquering' them easily - as they know
everything about them.)

The Narnia books have nothing to say! TSR books all say the same thing: $$$$!
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
  \  \           | Adam W   9036...@wombat.newcastle.edu.au |    
   \  \          |                                          |            
   |    \        | "You could try to understand me          |                
    `'''\\       |  I could try to understand you."-N.Peart |
         `'      |------------------------------------------|
           |     | ]]]]]]]]]  ]]]   ]]] ]]]]]]]]] ]]]   ]]] |      
           |     | ]]]   ]]]  ]]]   ]]] ]]]       ]]]   ]]] |      _^
        -- * --  | ]]]   ]]]  ]]]   ]]] ]]]       ]]]   ]]] |       O  
           |     | ]]]]]]]    ]]]   ]]] ]]]]]]]]] ]]]]]]]]] |     ./|\
            \    | ]]]  ]]]   ]]]   ]]]       ]]] ]]]   ]]] |       |'  
          `_/    | ]]]   ]]]  ]]]   ]]]       ]]] ]]]   ]]] |  )(   /\/'
                 | ]]]    ]]] ]]]]]]]]] ]]]]]]]]] ]]]   ]]] |     `/  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

In article <1991Oct21.10523...@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>  
c9036...@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Eat the Sun) writes:
$$$$!

You may not agree with what they have to say (I certainly don't agree
with quite a bit of it) but the Narnia books have a lot to say.

--
Jim Mann                                      
jm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Stratus Computer

I'm no expert on Narnia. I read LL&W, and call a lot of ships
"Dawn Treader," but that's about it. I can't say I was very much
impressed by the book either way, in sharp contrast, it seems, to
all other sentient life forms. I only wonder , with all the Children's
Lit talk buzzing around, why my favorite specimen from that genre hasn't
come up: The Once and Future King. Even if Book of Merlin isn't exactly
bedtime story materiel, The Sword in the Stone is, IMHO, some of the
finest Children's Fantasy on paper. Is it just too literary for this
topic?

|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|Thine evermore, most dear lady, while this machine is to him:|
|=============================================================|
|       Craig Kenneth Bryant     |  "In the beginning the     |
| Georgia Institute of Technology| Universe was created.      |
|            Box 29863           |  "This has made a lot of   |
|        Atlanta, GA 30332       | people very angry, and has |
|(a.k.a gt98...@prism.gatech.edu)| been widely regarded as a  |
|                                | bad move."--Douglas Adams  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------
--
Craig Kenneth Bryant
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:     ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt9863a
Internet: gt98...@prism.gatech.edu

I think it says more about the poster than about the books. One needs to be
careful when interpreting "I don't like" with "This isn't good". They're not
the same thing at all.

Tastes differ.

--
Chuq Von Rospach >=< c...@apple.com >=< GEnie:CHUQ or MAC.BIGOT >=< ALink:CHUQ
    SFWA Nebula Awards administrator =+= SF Book Reviewer, Amazing Stories
           Editor, OtherRealms =+= #include <standard/disclaimer.h>
                          Go Sharks! It's HOCKEY season!

In article <1991Oct21.10523...@wombat.newcastle.edu.au>  
c9036...@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Eat the Sun) writes:
** stuff deleted **

        Humph, didn't see that the first time around, but now I will  
passionately defend Narnia. I have known people who didn't get anything out of  
Narnia, but I know of many like myself who think they are wonderful and not  
because they approve of the theology.

        My eldest brother read the first couple to me when I was quite small  
and the prospect of being able to read them myself is what spurred me to learn  
to read. I've reread them many times since. I've gotten more out of them in  
later years, but I think that on simply the surface level they are good books,  
with exciting adventure and imaginative descriptions. I particular like _A  
Horse and His Boy_.

        If you want to complain about the influence of Aslan, I think that it  
might be just a difference of theological taste. To Lewis, it's not suprising  
that the Lion be central to all the stories, since his Type his central to our  
stories. Once again, I think _A Horse and His Boy_ was best for this -- Aslan  
is the author "nowhere to be seen and everywhere to be felt".

Tom Fruchterman

In article <1991Oct23.175927.8...@rock.concert.net>, mcma...@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:
        It isn't always a matter of 'thinking' a book is 'good'.  There are
objective criteria ( use of language, plotting, etc ) which Chuq is refering
to as determining if a book is 'good' or 'bad'.  _Dhalgren_ is 'good', but
for most people unreadable.  Gor is bad, but for many very enjoyable.
You're confusing his use of 'good' and 'bad' as OBJECTIVE terms with the
use of 'good' and 'bad' as SUBJECTIVE terms.
        In most cases the use of 'good' or 'bad' subjectively is confusing
because it implies FACT rather than OPINION: 'the book is good' vs. 'I didn't
like the book'.  I would be much more likely to read a book Chuq said was
good, than one you did, because I recognize that Chuq is not making a
judgement about the book, but is commenting on it's fabrication.  I needn't
know if my tastes are the same as Chuq's, just that the book meets some
objective requirement which in most cases makes it more likely I will like it.

--
    __ Gregg Parmentier ____ parment...@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu __

         "Some might have taken him for a mere apprentice enchanter
    who had run away from his master out of defiance, boredom, fear
    and a lingering taste for heterosexuality."
                             "The Colour of Magic", Terry Pratchett

In article <58...@apple.Apple.COM>,
c...@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:

|> I think it says more about the poster than about the books. One needs to be
|> careful when interpreting "I don't like" with "This isn't good". They're not
|> the same thing at all.

How do you define what is good, then? I don't follow your logic.
If  you like something, you think it is good, and if you don't
like it you think it is garbage.

The way I define "good" is whether I like it or not. I think Melanie Rawn,
David Eddings, and Narnia are "good", whereas I think the majority
of the TSR books are "bad" because they are garbage.

I think the point is the criteria you use to judge "good" and "bad" and
"like" and "garbage" -- I personally use the "did I enjoy it" system.
If I really enjoyed reading it, and the author kept my interest for the whole
book, it is "good" and I want to read more by the author. If I couldn't get
past the first chapter, I`d call it "garbage" and avoid the author.

I wouldn't tell other people what to think about it -- I'd tell them why
I happened to like or dislike it, and let them decide. I'd certainly never
advocate boycotting a whole *company* like TSR -- just avoiding authors.
That way, whatever sold they'd copy, and get rid of the rest.

Scott
--
___________________________________________________________________________ ___
|-| mcma...@cs.unca.edu     |--| "There are no dumb questions -- only dumb |-|
|-| mcma...@uncavx.unca.edu |--| answers." -- Marshall Loeb                |-|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---

Pardon me while I play the devil's advocate for a while...

Why?

Again, why?  And who gets to determine which minds are qualified to
judge goodness/badness of a given literary work?

If goodness/badness/garbageness of a work of art or literature is an
OBJECTIVE judgement, why don't we make it our project to gather
all those trained minds you refered to, and have them write down all the
OBJECTIVE rules.  Then we can write a computer program to scan the work
in question, and assign it a goodness/badness value!  

--
Scott D. Coulter         s...@prism.gatech.edu          ++++++++++++++++++
College of Computing Software Research Center           + Cantate Domino +
Georgia Institute of Technology                         + Canticum Novum +
Atlanta Georgia, 30332                                  ++++++++++++++++++

Define "good," define "bad," define "mediocre," and be objective in all
three cases.  Further, please be sure not to define the words recursively
or in terms of other nebulous concepts, and do so from a non-humanocentric
perspective.  In my opinion, it is impossible.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, thinking that I'm saying that "what I
like" == "what is good;" that is not my belief nor my purpose in posting.
I recognize the difference between liking something and evaluating it as
good or bad.  However, I still believe that both types of judgements are
personal, and therefore subjective.

I agree with you perfectly--that wasn't my point.  Quite frankly, I can't
stand Ernest Hemingway, Da Vinci, Paul Gauguin, or Homer.  That doesn't
mean they aren't "good".  They ARE "good".  The testing of time has
proven that.  On the contrary, though I acknowledge they are good, it
doesn't mean I am going to LIKE them or enjoy them or read/view their
works.

--Sam.

mcma...@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:

See, that's the mistake. There are lots of well-written things that I don't
like. That doesn't make them bad. That makes them part of the wide world of
literature I prefer to not read.

There IS an objective good/bad determination you can make with fiction.
There is some fiction that is simply slop (and unfortunately, some of that
slop is the stuff that sells exceptionally well and makes authors rich --
which just goes to show that objective stances in literature are fairly
tenuous as well). But if we ignore the "Japanese Monster Movie" side of
SF-dom for a while, you get out of the area where you can throw something
against the wall and scream ""ugh! cooties!"

I'll give two examples on my side: Tim Powers and Phil Dick. I don't think
you'll find anyone with a knowledge of fiction (myself included) that would
claim that either of these people are bad writers. On the other hand, I find
both of them unreadable. Now that I think about it, I'll add Samuel Delany
to the list. I can't handle him, either.

So, simply because these folks aren't my style you're saying that I can call
them bad writers? Bad for me, maybe. But they AREN'T bad for me -- just
authors I don't enjoy reading.

"good" and "bad" are objective terms, and "did I enjoy it" is a subjective
evaluation. I don't see how you can map one to the other. Lots of folks do,
but it doesn't make it right.

--
Chuq Von Rospach >=< c...@apple.com >=< GEnie:CHUQ or MAC.BIGOT >=< ALink:CHUQ
    SFWA Nebula Awards administrator =+= SF Book Reviewer, Amazing Stories
           Editor, OtherRealms =+= #include <standard/disclaimer.h>

Tastes differ. "I don't like" is not the same as "this is bad".

In article <1991Oct23.175927.8...@rock.concert.net> mcma...@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:
If you don't like Shakespeare, it doesn't mean it's garbage.  To say you
don't like Shakespeare is ok, but to say it's "garbage" or "not good" says
more about you than Shakespeare.
"Liking" something is a subjective argument, based on the _opinions_ of
the people judging it.
Whether something is "good" or "garbage" is a very, very complex, but
still OBJECTIVE judgment, and it takes well trained minds to judge and
determine.  Also, the "goodness" or "garbageness" of a work requires
the objective judgment of _many_, to assure that no subjective influences
affect judgment.

--Sam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
An egotist is a person of low taste--more interested in himself than in me.
-------------------------------------------------Ambrose Bierce----------------
s...@kepler.unh.edu  

Step outside literature a moment for an example. "Modern" art. Most of
what I have seen of "Modern" art I don't like and would consider
garbage. I don't care if an art critic says that a particular painting
is great and work say $1M. If it looks like a blind man slapped paint
randomly on the canvas, I call it garbage and wouldn't pay $1 for it.
(Unless I could get it for that and resell it to the art critic for
$1M, but that's still not calling it good art, just taking advantage of
what I consider poor taste in the critic).

Back to literature. For example, I don't like Phillip K. Dick's novels
that I have read (or at least started, I don't think I have ever
finished any of them and I usually will finish a book or movie
no matter how BAD it is just out of curiosity). Currently, I won't buy
anything he might put out no matter how good a review it might get due
to his track record. If I run out of things to read, I MIGHT pick up a
book from the library that I would never pay for even if I normally
don't like that author. This allows a prevously bad (IMHO) author to
try again once in a while. Usually, I have found that things don't
normally get better but sometimes they do.

Also there are authors that I will read some things from, but not
others. For example, I have liked some of Piers Anthony's work,
but don't like any of the Xanth stuff (I have read the first 3,
haven't bothered with any of the rest).

So in closing, I am my own critic and if I don't like something, that
makes it garbage as far as I'm concerned. Others can go on all day about
how great X is or how politically correct or that it's such a "classic",
but if I have had bad luck with that author before, I probably will not
try it. If I've not seen that author before or am bored, I might try it
anyway, but it will have to be good on it's own merit for me to like it.

--
Randy Buckland                                          "It's hard to work
North Carolina State University                         in a group when you're
randy_buckl...@ncsu.edu (919) 515-5491                  omnipotent"        -- Q

In article <1991Oct23.175927.8...@rock.concert.net>, mcma...@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes...

"Good" and "bad" are objective judgments. "Like" and "dislike" are
subjective. I may like or dislike something completely aside from the
objective merits of a work. Keep in mind the idea of the "Golden
Turkey". One can enjoy the hell out of watching PLAN NINE FROM OUTER
SPACE, but that doesn't make it good. Another example I use from the
world of (non-sf) film is THE TURNING POINT. It has a fine script,
fine direction, outstanding performances from its principle cast. By
any objective standards, I would have to judge it a "good" film. But
large sections of it concern ballet, an artform that I've never been
able to develop a taste for. Because of this, I found much of the film
boring beyond belief, and thus I didn't like it. But my not liking it
doesn't prevent me from judging the movie "good" by an objective
standard.

Or it's like acknowledging that, say, Luciano Pavarotti has an excellent
voice -- and therefore is a "good singer" -- while loathing the material
that he sings -- and therefore one "doesn't like" him.

--

"Be mindful, I am the wealthiest man in Padua, and he who weds Katrina
 lands a dowry you could cry for."

--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)

boyajian%ruby....@DECWRL.DEC.COM  or  ...!decwrl!ruby.enet.dec.com!boyajian

In article <58...@apple.Apple.COM> c...@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:

   This whole discussion reminds me of a somewhat similar discussion here
5-6 years ago.  I was lambasted for having the unmitigated nerve to say I
didn't think Tolkien was a great writer (and I can sense the temperature
rising again, already :-).  When I explained that I consider Tolkien a great
*storyteller*, people generally saw my point, even if they did not totally
agree with it.  After all, I've read LOTR about as many times as I've read
_Dhalgren_. (;-)
   Gene Wolfe, now there's somebody difficult for *me* to read, and most
would also consider him a fair-to-middlin' writer.

[Note!!  Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.written]
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
Brown University Planetary Geology
Unix: plutc...@porter.geo.brown.edu
VMS:  plutc...@pggipl.geo.brown.edu -or- PGGIPL::PLUTCHAK (VMS: Just say NO!)

                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Do you really work on a `Computing Software Research Center'? It's
hard to believe when I read such a garbage as above. Please go to
your library, and study a first course book on computation; eg,
`Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation' from
Hopcroft and Ullman (probably wou will find the terms `computable,'
`decidable,' `acceptable,' and `halting problem' in the index).
   And learn a simple thing: not every problem which may be
formalized is computable. In fact, the class of non-computable
problems is larger than the class of computable problems.

--
Joachim                                 | working at, but here not speaking for,
Darmstadt, Germany                      | The Institute for Theoretical Computer
<sch...@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de> | Science at the TU Darmstadt

___________________________________________________________________________ ____
In article <1991Oct24.064651.7...@ryn.mro4.dec.com> boyaj...@ruby.dec.com (Copyright 1953, Renewed 1991) writes:

(Real point of comments deleted here)

It had, at one point, Shirley MacClaine & Anne Bancroft bashing each
other over the head with their giant purses while they tottered around on
their spike-heeled shoes trying for traction....this is a fine script ??

Followup-To:rec.arts.sf.written

In article <1991Oct24.184742.16...@rock.concert.net> mcma...@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:

        Anybody who's bothered to do a little reading outside the mass
market glop and/or THINK about what they're reading.  'Taint that hard.

        Easy.

        Uh-huh.  And hasn't anybody ever wondered WHY people through
the centuries STILL like him?

        Think about it, OK?  

        That's not subjective.  That's intersubjective.  There's a difference.

That's pretty obvious......

--
Roger Tang, gwang...@milton.u.washington.edu; Uncle Bonsai Memorial Fan Club
        "Yes. I am a victim of yuppieosa selfpityius whineitis. Please. Give
now. And stop this disease once and for all."

|> If you don't like Shakespeare, it doesn't mean it's garbage.  To say you
|> don't like Shakespeare is ok, but to say it's "garbage" or "not good" says
|> more about you than Shakespeare.
|> "Liking" something is a subjective argument, based on the _opinions_ of
|> the people judging it.
|> Whether something is "good" or "garbage" is a very, very complex, but
|> still OBJECTIVE judgment, and it takes well trained minds

"Well trained minds" ?!?   Whose minds are these?!?

|>to judge and
|> determine.  Also, the "goodness" or "garbageness" of a work requires
|> the objective judgment of _many_, to assure that no subjective influences
|> affect judgment.

But that's the point, in a way -- how can you possibly "objectively" define
what is good?

Shakespeare is "good" because he wrote stuff a lot of people have liked
and have continued liking it throughout the centuries.

But you can't objectively say that something is "good" -- it must be a subjective
decision.  The "objectivity"  you are defining comes when a lot of people
all subjectively decide it is "good" -- but it's still subjective, people all agree
on the same subjective interpretation.

This is too deep -- just read the books and shut up :-) :-)
Scott
--
___________________________________________________________________________ ___
|-| mcma...@cs.unca.edu     |--| "There are no dumb questions -- only dumb |-|
|-| mcma...@uncavx.unca.edu |--| answers." -- Marshall Loeb                |-|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---

In article <1991Oct24.184742.16...@rock.concert.net>, mcma...@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:
        I tend to think that "a lot of people have liked and have continued
liking" Shakespeare because he's 'good'.

        1. His use of language is colorful, not monotonous, or overly
                obscure for it's time.
        2. His stories ( even now ) relate to life on multiple levels.
        3. His characters are generally believable, mainly due to acting
                in ways you expect humans to act.
        4. He does not dwell on one aspect of society or technology,
                noticeably neglecting others.
        5. His stories don't follow overused plot lines.
        6. His stories don't revolve around a gimick.
        7. He doesn't return over and over to use the same literary
                devices or locations or quirks or jokes or turns of plot, etc.

        There are just seven objective criteria for stories, any of which
being missing will most likely cause a story to be 'bad'.  If I thought
longer I'm sure more would come to mind.

--
    __ Gregg Parmentier ____ parment...@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu __

         "Some might have taken him for a mere apprentice enchanter
    who had run away from his master out of defiance, boredom, fear
    and a lingering taste for heterosexuality."
                             "The Colour of Magic", Terry Pratchett

|> There IS an objective good/bad determination you can make with fiction.

Please elaborate on this!   How can you objectively do anything to fiction?
Fiction's worth is in the eye of the reader, as in the next paragraph:

|> There is some fiction that is simply slop (and unfortunately, some of that
|> slop is the stuff that sells exceptionally well and makes authors rich --
|> which just goes to show that objective stances in literature are fairly
|> tenuous as well).

Well, if this "slop" sells well, someone must be enjoying it!  Someone must
think it's "good"...

|> >I think the point is the criteria you use to judge "good" and "bad" and
|> >"like" and "garbage" -- I personally use the "did I enjoy it" system.
|>
|> "good" and "bad" are objective terms, and "did I enjoy it" is a subjective
|> evaluation. I don't see how you can map one to the other. Lots of folks do,
|> but it doesn't make it right.

The can of worms I opened asks how you can seperate the two ... saying that
a book is "good" or "bad" has to be some kind of subjective decision.
You can run it through your own process (plot, characters, pace, etc.) --
but ... it's your own set of criteria. This "objectivity" comes from a lot of
people agreeing on the same criteria, and everyone else accepting it, I believe.

As I said, it's too deep to think about much ...

|>
|> Tastes differ. "I don't like" is not the same as "this is bad".

It is to you personally.

Scott
--
___________________________________________________________________________ ___
|-| mcma...@cs.unca.edu     |--| "There are no dumb questions -- only dumb |-|
|-| mcma...@uncavx.unca.edu |--| answers." -- Marshall Loeb                |-|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---

c...@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:

Lots of good stuff about how good vs. bad != love vs. hate.  Except for....

Even good vs. bad is pretty subjective.  By calling it objective, you imply
that it's a measure that everyone will eventually agree with, maybe after a
little discussion.  But there are literary critics who think that Dick's
stuff is "bad" (I don't remember the name, but I read a great counterattack
by Lem against the original criticism).  Some people think that Lem is
"bad" because of the poor quality of science in his works, though it's near
the best SF judging by literary values.

Different people have different criteria for goodness: a *lot* of people
believe that plausibility in SF is important, despite the fact that much of
real history is implausible by the standards they apply.  You might get
more consistency in goodness/badness evaluations than in like/hate
preferences, but there are disagreements, and it's impossible to _prove_
that something's good to someone who just doesn't believe it.

Good/bad really isn't any less subjective than like/hate.

---
Tom Fitzgerald   Wang Labs        f...@wang.com
1-508-967-5278   Lowell MA, USA   ...!uunet!wang!fitz

      [ argument deleted ]

      [ more stuff deleted ]

      Not offering a judgement either way, but I am suddenly reminded
of the infamous Dr. J. Evans Pritchard PhD, in _Dead Poet's Society_;
'measure the importance along the x axis and the skill along the y axis,
and calculate the total area to determine the overall significance' (my
paraphrase).

      Andrew Hide    
      Computer Science Honours
      University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia
      ah...@cs.newcastle.edu.au

mcma...@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:

No, it's not, except to the untrained, untrainable or shallow.

You're welcome to believe whatever you want and think you're right. that's
your right. It's my right to quit wasting time on non-productive arguments.

--
Chuq Von Rospach >=< c...@apple.com >=< GEnie:CHUQ or MAC.BIGOT >=< ALink:CHUQ
    SFWA Nebula Awards administrator =+= SF Book Reviewer, Amazing Stories
           Editor, OtherRealms =+= #include <standard/disclaimer.h>

Tastes differ. "I don't like" is not the same as "this is bad".

Roger Tang (Just another theatre geek.....) pontificates:

Hmmm.  I wonder who he's thinking of.

Easy.  Just ask Roger, right?

Ah, the joys of unabashed snobbery... Is it something in the Seattle air?
The rain, and the clean scent of virgin pine, that fertilizes such a healthy
arrogance?  Perhaps the eruption of Mount St. Helens uncapped a vast vesicle
of self-righteousness deep in the earth's vitals, and spewed its contents
all over the Pacific Northwest?

c