SciFi/Fantasy Fav Books List
Papp Denis
was overwhelming, getting almost 40 people in 3 days.
HOW TO DO IT: Answer,
'Give me a list of all SciFi/Fantasy books/series that you think
should be considered to be among the BEST Scifi/Fantasy books
of all time.'
If it is not too inconvenient, give the answers with author's
complete name (first+last). Title of Novel OR Name of Series and #
of books in series. If you just want to pick specific books from
the series then give me the numerical placement of the book within
the series. I dont need the title of the book if this is this case.
eg. Card, Orson Scott Ender's Game (3) book 2
(format not required)
Email to dp...@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca
WN - SCI-FI/FANTASY ECHO
FAV BOOKS LIST (87 PEOPLE POLLED)
---------------------------
PICKS AUTHOR(S) BOOK OR SERIES TITLE (# BOOKS IN SERIES)
---------------------------------------------------------------
28 TOLKIEN, J.R.R. Lord of the Rings (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
17 Card, Orson Scott Ender's Game (3) book 1
17 Eddings, David The Belgariad (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------
16 Jordan, Robert Wheel of Time (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------
15 Asimov, Isaac Foundation (7?)* books 1-3
---------------------------------------------------------------
14 Eddings, David The Malloreon (5)
14 Feist, Raymond E Riftwar Saga (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------
13 Donaldson, Stephen R 1st Chronicles of T Covenant... (3)
13 Tolkien, J.R.R. The Hobbit
---------------------------------------------------------------
12 Asimov, Isaac Foundation (7?)* books 4-7
12 Card, Orson Scott Ender's Game (3) book 2
12 Herbert, Frank Dune Chronicles (6) book 1 (Dune)
---------------------------------------------------------------
11 Asimov, Isaac Robot Series (4)*
11 Donaldson, Stephen R 2nd Chronicles of T Covenant... (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------
10 Card, Orson Scott Ender's Game (3) book 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
9 Weiss, Margaret & Dragonlance Chronicles (3)
" Hickman, Tracy "
---------------------------------------------------------------
8 Adams, Douglas Hitchhiker's Guide ... (5) books 1-3
8 Heinlein, Robert A Stranger in a Strange Land
8 Heinlein, Robert A The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
8 Niven, Larry Ringworld
8 Weiss, Margaret & Dragonlance Legends (3)
" Hickman, Tracy "
---------------------------------------------------------------
7 Brooks, Terry Sword of Shannara
7 Brooks, Terry Elfstones of Shannara
7 Clarke, A.C. 2001: A Space Odyssey
7 Clarke, A.C. & The Rama Series (3+)
" & Lee, Gentry "
7 Gibson, William Neuromancer
---------------------------------------------------------------
6 Brooks, Terry Wishsong of Shannara
6 Donaldson, Stephen R Mordant's Need (2)
6 Niven, Larry & The Mote in God's Eye
" Pournelle, Jerry "
6 Pratchett, Terry Discworld (14+) (Mort, Reaper Man...)
---------------------------------------------------------------
5 Adams, Douglas Dirk Gently books (2) book 1
5 Adams, Douglas Hitchhiker's Guide ... (5) books 4-5
5 Anthony, Piers Xanth series (16) first 8 books
5 Le Guin, Ursula K The Dispossessed
5 Moorcock, Michael Elric of Melnibone saga (6)
5 Smith, Edward E. "Doc" LenSman series (6)
5 Williams, Tad Memory, Sorrow & Thorn (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------
4 Adams, Douglas Dirk Gently books (2) book 2
4 Asimov, Isaac Empire (4)*
4 Brooks, Terry Magic Kingdom... (Landover bk 1)
4 Clarke, A.C. 2010: Odyssey 2
4 Eddings, David The Elenium (3)
4 Herbert, Frank Dune Chronicles (6) book 2
4 King, Stephen The Stand
4 Lewis, C.S. The Narnia Chronicles (7)
4 McCaffery, Anne Dragons of Pern (?)
4 Niven, Larry Ringworld Engineers
4 Pohl, Frederik Gateway (4) book 1
4 Saberhagen, Fred Complete Book of Swords (3)
4 Zelazny, Roger Chronicles of Amber (5?)
---------------------------------------------------------------
3 Anthony, Piers Xanth series (16) last 8 books
3 Brin, David The Postman
3 Brin, David Startide Rising
3 Brooks, Terry Heritage of Shannara (4)
3 Clarke, A.C. 2061: Odyssey 3
3 Clarke, A.C. Childhood's End
3 Farmer, Phillip Jose Riverworld Series (5)
3 Gibson, William Burning Chrome
3 Herbert, Frank Dune Chronicles (6) books 3-6
3 King, Stephen Dark Tower (10)
3 Kurtz, Katherine Deryni (12+)
3 Le Guin, Ursula K Earthsea (4)
3 McKiernan, Dennis L Iron Tower (3)
3 Moon, Elizabeth The Deed of Paksenarrion (3)
3 Moorcock, Michael Dancers at the End of Time (?)
3 Rosenburg, Joel Guardians of the Flame (6) books 1-3
3 Saberhagen, Fred Book of Lost Swords (6)
3 Varley, John The Persistence of Vision
3 Weiss, Margaret & Rose of the Prophet (3)
" Hickman, Tracy "
3 Williams, Walter John Hardwired
---------------------------------------------------------------
2 Aspirin, Robert (ed) & Thieves' World (12) (multi-author series)
" Abbey, Lynn (ed) "
2 Benford, ?? & Heart of the Comet
" Brin, David "
2 Bester, Alfred The Demolished Man
2 Bradley, Marion Zimmer The Mists of Avalon
2 Brin, David Earth
2 Brooks, Terry Wizard at Large (Landover bk 2)
2 Brooks, Terry The Black Unicorn (Landover bk 3)
2 Brunner, John Shockwave Rider
2 Brunner, John Stand on Zanzibar
2 Card, Orson Scott Speaker for the Dead
2 Cherryh, C.J. Cyteen (Union/Alliance - book 5)
2 Cook, Hugh Chronicles of an Age of Darkness (9+)
2 De Lint, Charles Yarrow
2 Donaldson, Stephen R The Gap (4+)
2 Effinger, George Alec When Gravity Fails (3)
2 Farmer, Phillip Jose Dayworld (3)
2 Feist, Raymond E Prince of the Blood (Riftwar bk 5?)
2 Gibson, William Count Zero
2 Heinlein, Robert A Time Enough for Love
2 Heinlein, Robert A Starship Troopers
2 Heinlein, Robert A Friday
2 Herbert, Frank The White Plague
2 Hubbard, L Ron Battlefield Earth
2 Hubbard, L Ron Mission Earth (10)
2 Hughart, Barry Bridge of Birds
2 Kay, Guy Gavriel Fionavar Tapestry (3)
2 Kay, Guy Gavriel Tigana
2 King & Peter Straub The Talisman
2 Leiber, Fritz Lankhmar Series (7)
2 Le Guin, Ursula K The Left Hand of Darkness
2 Lovecraft, H.P. The Shadow out of Time
2 Lovecraft, H.P. The Best of H.P. Lovecraft
2 McCaffery, Anne Dragonsinger
2 Moorcock, Michael The High History of the Runestaff (?)
2 Moorcock, Michael The Chronicles of Castle Brass (?)
2 Moorcock, Michael The Swords of Corum (?)
2 Moorcock, Michael The Chronicles of Corum (?)
2 Moorcock, Michael The Cornelius Chronicles (?)
2 Niven, Larry The Man Kzin Wars
2 Niven, Larry & Dream Park
" Barnes, Stephen "
2 Pohl, Frederik Gateway (4) books 2-4
2 Pratchett, Terry Gnome books (3)
2 Robinson, Spider Stardance
2 Salvatore, R.A. FR:Dark Elf (3)
2 Silverberg, Robert Lord Vanlentine's Castle (?)
2 Simak, Clifford D City
2 Sterling, Bruce Islands in the Net
2 Sterling, Bruce Draka (?)
2 Stewart, Mary Merlin (4)
2 Tolkien, J.R.R. The Silmarillion
2 Turtledove, Harry The Videssos Cycle (4)
2 Varley, John Titan (Titan/Wizard/Demon) (3)
2 Weiss & Hickman Darksword (3)
2 Weiss & Hickman Death Gate Cycle (7)
2 Wolfe, Gene The Urth of the New Sun (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------
HONORABLE MENTIONS (196 books/series)
---------------------------------------------------------------
email me if you wish to get a complete list
* - In Asimov's Foundation Mega-Series there are 15 books. 7(?) in
Foundation, 4 in robot, 3 in Empire, 1 of short stories about
robots. For the sake of the list, the last one is considered part
of the Empire group.
FR: - Forgotten Realms Novels
NOTE: I think for most series where there is more than one book and
someone only picks certain ones out of it, I will give a vote to
the entire series - rather than split it into one entry per book in the
series. eg. You pick only books 1-3 of the Malloreon, then I will
give 1 vote to the whole 5 book series. I will make exceptions
for series that are easy to split up (Dune is one example, as most
people have only read book 1).
Denis Papp
NOTE: I give permission to reprint/copy this list in any form for
personal use provided only corrections are made to it and no
facts are altered (such as number of picks a certain novel/series
has had).
Elizabeth Ayer
(Lots o' good books deleted)
|> 12 Card, Orson Scott Ender's Game (3) book 2
(Lots more books deleted)
|> 2 Card, Orson Scott Speaker for the Dead
Ummmmm. . . . The second book of the Ender's Game series *is*
_Speaker_for_the_Dead_.
-Elizabeth
______________________________________________________________________
Elizabeth Ayer | Duke University Computer ASSIST Center
eca...@acpub.duke.edu | Learn how to be a guru!
| (or just look like one)
Dani Zweig
>Response on Usenet was overwhelming, getting almost 40 people in 3 days.
The word you were looking for was 'underwhelming'. Forty out of however
many tens of thousands. With, judging by the responses, a serious
self-selection bias.
>...among the BEST Scifi/Fantasy books of all time.'
>28 TOLKIEN, J.R.R. Lord of the Rings (3)
>17 Card, Orson Scott Ender's Game (3) book 1
>17 Eddings, David The Belgariad (5)
>16 Jordan, Robert Wheel of Time (9)
>15 Asimov, Isaac Foundation (7?)* books 1-3
>14 Eddings, David The Malloreon (5)
>14 Feist, Raymond E Riftwar Saga (4)
Enjoyable books all, but it's hard to take this list seriously.
>...
>9 Weiss, Margaret & Dragonlance Chronicles (3)
>" Hickman, Tracy "
Very hard.
-----
Dani Zweig
da...@netcom.com
God helpe the man so wrapt in Errours endless traine -- Edmund Spenser
Evelyn C. Leeper
> dp...@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca (Papp Denis):
> >Response on Usenet was overwhelming, getting almost 40 people in 3 days.
>
> The word you were looking for was 'underwhelming'. Forty out of however
> many tens of thousands. With, judging by the responses, a serious
> self-selection bias.
>
> >...among the BEST Scifi/Fantasy books of all time.'
>
> >28 TOLKIEN, J.R.R. Lord of the Rings (3)
> >17 Card, Orson Scott Ender's Game (3) book 1
> >17 Eddings, David The Belgariad (5)
> >16 Jordan, Robert Wheel of Time (9)
> >15 Asimov, Isaac Foundation (7?)* books 1-3
> >14 Eddings, David The Malloreon (5)
> >14 Feist, Raymond E Riftwar Saga (4)
>
> Enjoyable books all, but it's hard to take this list seriously.
>
> >...
> >9 Weiss, Margaret & Dragonlance Chronicles (3)
> >" Hickman, Tracy "
>
> Very hard.
The word *you* were looking for is "impossible." :-)
Evelyn....@att.com
+1 908 957 2070
--
The [Christian] supremacists who lead the anti-gay crusade are wrong
morally. They are wrong because justice is moral, and prejudice is
evil; because truth is moral and the lie of the closet is the real sin;
because the claim of morality is a subtle sort of subterfuge, a
strategem which hides the real aim which is much more secular. The
supremacists don't care about morality, they care about power. They
care about social control. And their goal, my friends, is the
reconstruction of American Democracy into American Theocracy.
--Urvashi Vaid (April 25, 1993)
Ted Ko
|> >...among the BEST Scifi/Fantasy books of all time.'
|>
|> >28 TOLKIEN, J.R.R. Lord of the Rings (3)
|> >17 Card, Orson Scott Ender's Game (3) book 1
|> >17 Eddings, David The Belgariad (5)
|> >16 Jordan, Robert Wheel of Time (9)
|> >15 Asimov, Isaac Foundation (7?)* books 1-3
|> >14 Eddings, David The Malloreon (5)
|> >14 Feist, Raymond E Riftwar Saga (4)
|>
|> Enjoyable books all, but it's hard to take this list seriously.
As someone who made a contribution to this list, I find this comment somewhat
insulting. Do you mean to imply that our opionions are such that they should
not be taken seriously? That you're opinions on the greatest books are
somehow more intelligent, more truthful?
True, there are books near the top which I personally believe have no business
being there, but I certainly don't think that that makes the list any less
worthwhile as a survey of current opinion. If you want to make your choices
known, post your own list and lay off the insults to the 80+ people who
participated....
|> Dani Zweig
|> da...@netcom.com
|>
|> God helpe the man so wrapt in Errours endless traine -- Edmund Spenser
--
Ted Ko "Oi! Sitting in front of a Sparc all day
E-mail: t...@athena.mit.edu can give ya such a crick in the
t...@faline.bellcore.com wrists!"
Evelyn C. Leeper
To which Dani Zweig replied:
> |> Enjoyable books all, but it's hard to take this list seriously.
> As someone who made a contribution to this list, I find this comment somewhat
> insulting. Do you mean to imply that our opionions are such that they should
> not be taken seriously? That you're opinions on the greatest books are
> somehow more intelligent, more truthful?
>
> True, there are books near the top which I personally believe have no business
> being there, but I certainly don't think that that makes the list any less
> worthwhile as a survey of current opinion. If you want to make your choices
> known, post your own list and lay off the insults to the 80+ people who
> participated....
It was, according to your post at that time, 40 people, not 80. In any
case, the list is described as "favorite books" in the subject line,
but "best books" in the text. The first may be true (though the sample
is still small), but the second is clearly open to debate. More people
preferred HOME ALONE to CYRANO DE BERGERAC. This may make HOME ALONE
one of people's favorite movies, but it does not make it one of the
best.
What Dani appears to be saying (and I'm sure he will correct me if I'm
wrong) is that given his opinions, and the opinions of people whose
judgement he knows and respects on what is "best" and comparing that
with the votes on this poll (from a group of whom he has no knowledge),
he does not give much credibility to the taste/opinions of the
consensus of the respondents.
Nor do I.
Dani Zweig
>|>>...among the BEST Scifi/Fantasy books of all time.'
>|>Enjoyable books all, but it's hard to take this list seriously.
>
>As someone who made a contribution to this list, I find this comment somewhat
>insulting. Do you mean to imply that our opionions are such that they should
>not be taken seriously?
I wish there were a way to respond without dredging up the perennial
debate about whether "good" has a meaning beyond "I enjoyed it". If
you like "Beach Bunnies of Gor" and dislike "Wuthering Heights", does
that mean that BBoG is a better book than WH, and that your opinion in
this regard is as good as anyone else's?
The subject line referred to 'favorite' books, but the body of the message
and followups referred to 'best'. I have no problem with a group of
readers deciding that they'd much rather read "Dragonlance Chronicles"
than "The Bridge of Birds". By any definition of 'better', however,
other than "I liked it more", DC is not *better* than TBoB.
-----
Ted Ko
|> I wish there were a way to respond without dredging up the perennial
|> debate about whether "good" has a meaning beyond "I enjoyed it". If
|> you like "Beach Bunnies of Gor" and dislike "Wuthering Heights", does
|> that mean that BBoG is a better book than WH, and that your opinion in
|> this regard is as good as anyone else's?
Actually, I'd be interested in getting some kind of summary about this
perennial debate which I seem to have missed. No, I don't want to start
another thread, but I would like to hear a quick synopsis of arguments that
have been made.
In direct answer to your question, though, I say yes, if I'd rather read
Beach Bunnies of Gor than Wuthering Heights than my opinion is that BBoG
is a better book and that opinion is as valid as yours. A definition of better
is relative to the standards of the reader so why try to define an absolute
"better" scale?
|>
|> The subject line referred to 'favorite' books, but the body of the message
|> and followups referred to 'best'. I have no problem with a group of
|> readers deciding that they'd much rather read "Dragonlance Chronicles"
|> than "The Bridge of Birds". By any definition of 'better', however,
|> other than "I liked it more", DC is not *better* than TBoB.
As above, you've just given one definition of 'better' that does have
DC better than TBoB. IMO, I think reading enjoyment is a major consideration
of how "good" a book is in the sense that the relative worth a book seems
rather small if no one wants to read it!
E.g. I feel that books such as Heinlein's Friday was much better than
say Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant 'cause I could read Fridau without
falling asleep. Yet, Anne Tyler is what you find on school reading lists....
coz...@garnet.berkeley.edu
>
>E.g. I feel that books such as Heinlein's Friday was much better than
> say Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant 'cause I could read Fridau without
Wow!
I couldn't!!
Dorothy J. Heydt
UC Berkeley
coz...@garnet.berkeley.edu
Disclaimer: UCB and the Cozzarelli lab are not responsible for my
opinions, and in fact I don't think they know I have any.
avondale
|> >...among the BEST Scifi/Fantasy books of all time.'
|>
|> >28 TOLKIEN, J.R.R. Lord of the Rings (3)
|> >17 Card, Orson Scott Ender's Game (3) book 1
|> >17 Eddings, David The Belgariad (5)
|> >16 Jordan, Robert Wheel of Time (9)
|> >
|> >...among the BEST Scifi/Fantasy books of all time.'
|>
|> >28 TOLKIEN, J.R.R. Lord of the Rings (3)
|> >17 Card, Orson Scott Ender's Game (3) book 1
|> >17 Eddings, David The Belgariad (5)
|> >16 Jordan, Robert Wheel of Time (9)
>As someone who made a contribution to this list, I find this comment somewhat
>insulting. Do you mean to imply that our opionions are such that they should
>not be taken seriously? That you're opinions on the greatest books are
>somehow more intelligent, more truthful?
>True, there are books near the top which I personally believe have no business
>being there, but I certainly don't think that that makes the list any less
>worthwhile as a survey of current opinion. If you want to make your choices
>known, post your own list and lay off the insults to the 80+ people who
>participated.... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> Dani Zweig
|> da...@netcom.com
|>
|> God helpe the man so wrapt in Errours endless traine -- Edmund Spenser
>--
>Ted Ko "Oi! Sitting in front of a Sparc all day
>E-mail: t...@athena.mit.edu can give ya such a crick in the
t...@faline.bellcore.com wrists!"
Thank you, Ted. I didn't myself post in this poll, but I do agree with
some of the rankings, albeit that I disagree with others. Anyway, everyone is
entitled to their own opinion, so don't knock ours...
avondale
Jim Kasprzak
|>
|> As above, you've just given one definition of 'better' that does have
|> DC better than TBoB. IMO, I think reading enjoyment is a major consideration
|> of how "good" a book is in the sense that the relative worth a book seems
|> rather small if no one wants to read it!
|>
|> E.g. I feel that books such as Heinlein's Friday was much better than
|> say Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant 'cause I could read Fridau without
|> falling asleep. Yet, Anne Tyler is what you find on school reading lists....
got the right mindset.
------------------------------------------------------------------
__ Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
___/ | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *| "You're out of your tree."
\_| "It's not my tree."
==== e-mail: kas...@rpi.edu or kasp...@mts.rpi.edu
David Wren-Hardin
Friday is one of my favorite Heinlein books, and I like Anne Tyler too, so
go figure :-).
--
*****************************************************************************
David Wren-Hardin bd...@quads.uchicago.edu University of Chicago
Thousands of years ago the Egyptians worshipped cats as gods.
Cats have never forgotten this.
Barbara Swetman
cancelled:
>6 Pratchett, Terry Discworld (14+) (Mort, Reaper Man...)
^^^
Tell me it isn't so. I read my first Discworld book from the library this
weekend. I had every intention of tracking down more of the same, but
not if it's over 14 tomes (even if they are short) Can anyone recommed
their favorites?
Thanks
Barbara
Claire Fanger
Not wishing to knock anyone's opinions in the least, I have to say
that I was disappointed in this list. The reason is that it is
essentially a list of bestsellers. I suppose if you get any
large group of people together and ask them for a list of their
favorite reading you will end up with a list of bestsellers. I have
never used a bestseller list as a guide to my reading, and indeed the main
reason I follow this newsgroup is to find out more about odd, quirky
little books that I might actually like to read. I might have thought
that a list of favorite or best books on this group would look
different from a list of bestsellers, and was disappointed to find
Timothy Connal Delaney
Two pieces of advice ... track them down and be prepared for addiction.
In addition to the discworld PTerry (you'll get the joke when you read
"Pyramids") has written *other* books.
To find out more, subscribe to alt.fan.pratchett. BTW, *don't* ask what
the order of the books are ... Leo Breebart will go bonkers. Instead, have
a look at the FAQ, biliography, Annotated Pratchett File, etc ... they
get posted.
_/_/_/_/
_/_| _/_| _/_| _/_/_/ _/_| _/_/_/
_/ _| _/ _| _/ _| _/ _/ _| _/ _/
_/ _|_/ _| _/_/_/_| _/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/_| _/ _/
_/ _| _| _/ _| _/_/_/_/ _/ _| _/_/_/
Tim Delaney u925...@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au
Jim_...@transarc.com
|>
|> >28 TOLKIEN, J.R.R. Lord of the Rings (3)
|> >17 Card, Orson Scott Ender's Game (3) book 1
|> >17 Eddings, David The Belgariad (5)
|> >16 Jordan, Robert Wheel of Time (9)
|> >15 Asimov, Isaac Foundation (7?)* books 1-3
|> >14 Eddings, David The Malloreon (5)
|> >14 Feist, Raymond E Riftwar Saga (4)
|>
>|> Enjoyable books all, but it's hard to take this list seriously.
>As someone who made a contribution to this list, I find this comment some\
>what
>insulting. Do you mean to imply that our opionions are such that they sh\
ould
>not be taken seriously? That you're opinions on the greatest books are
>somehow more intelligent, more truthful?
Given the list of books, yes, I would. But then again, we're
back to the old argument about objective standards in literature
vs. "taste." Or, put another way, if Joe Sixpack things
championship mud wrestling is better than any book ever written,
who are you to say he's wrong?
--------------
Jim Mann
Transarc Corporation
jm...@transarc.com
Belinda Asbell
There are *9* of them? I've only read what i thought were the first four!
(_Eye of the World_, _The Great Hunt_, _The Dragon Reborn_, _The Shadow
Rising_).
What are the other 5??
Belinda
--
Belinda Asbell + System Admin - Harris Controls, Melbourne, FL
m...@ccd.harris.com + HCD doesn't share my opinions (i hope! :)
Clust doeth a lwnc wybodaeth.
Dani Zweig
>|>I wish there were a way to respond without dredging up the perennial
>|>debate about whether "good" has a meaning beyond "I enjoyed it".
On second thought, there is a way, by following Evelyn's lead: The
list of 'best' sf/f books differed from other such lists I've seen,
compiled by people I know to be knowledgeable and whose opinions I
respect. The preponderance of recent best-sellers near the top of
the list strongly suggests that a large proportion of the contributors
to that list are simply not widely read in the genre.
>Actually, I'd be interested in getting some kind of summary about this
>perennial debate which I seem to have missed. No, I don't want to start
>another thread, but I would like to hear a quick synopsis of arguments that
>have been made.
A reasonable request under the circumstances, but one I don't feel up to.
It really hasn't been long enough, and it's a debate that does *not*
lend itself to synopsis. (The abortion debate is clear-cut, by comparison.)
If anyone else feels like tackling this (ideally with rekindling the
debate), feel free to jump in.
-----
Dani Zweig
da...@netcom.com
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity." -- W.B. Yeats
Joel Kent Baxter
>In article <1993Jun21.2...@walter.bellcore.com>, t...@danny.bellcore.com (Ted Ko) writes:
>|>
>|> As above, you've just given one definition of 'better' that does have
>|> DC better than TBoB. IMO, I think reading enjoyment is a major consideration
>|> of how "good" a book is in the sense that the relative worth a book seems
>|> rather small if no one wants to read it!
>|>
>|> E.g. I feel that books such as Heinlein's Friday was much better than
>|> say Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant 'cause I could read Fridau without
>|> falling asleep. Yet, Anne Tyler is what you find on school reading lists....
>
> Ted, have you considered a career in the publishing industry? You've
>got the right mindset.
I'm a bit puzzled by this thread. The only possible reason I can see for
someone saying that one book is better than another, even though they "enjoyed"
the latter book more, is an admission by that person that they have poor
tastes in literature, and an acknowledgement that more qualified people would
have a different opinion. Now, that may be true in many cases, but it's
certainly an odd sort of admission for anyone to make, especially a "reader".
If, for the sake of argument, you think that you are a pretty good judge of
writing, what are you going to say? "Yes, I was dazzled by the plot, moved
by the characters, enthralled by the author's deft use of language, and
fascinated by the entire premise of the book, but I don't think that it was
very good," or maybe, "I was bored from page 1, the characters were lifeless,
the writing was impenetrably obscure, and the whole idea behind this book
is ridiculous, but I believe it to be a Great Book."
Unless, of course, the genre of the book isn't to your taste (which is probably
the motivating force behind this "Friday" business), but in a restricted poll
like this one, that shouldn't affect much.
I was probably the first person here to make a snide remark about the
preliminary poll results, but, as someone else pointed out to me, a more
effective thing to do would be to put in my own vote, which I did. When I
voted, I didn't try to discriminate between "the best books" and "the books
that I enjoyed the most". For me, they're the same. Although you could
disagree with me over what "the best books" are, and you definitely could
<not> disagree with me over which books I enjoyed the most, from my point
of view, the selection criteria don't change. I enjoy books (hopefully)
<because> of the qualities that make a book a "good book".
Anyway, I would hope that more people from this group participate in the
poll. I like to read SF to burn an hour or two after a day of heavy
thinking :), but it's difficult to find a quality evening's read. I'm hoping
to pick up some good suggestions from this list.
Hmm. Maybe, when you send in your vote, you could mark it with an asterisk
or something to let me know that it is one of the good ones... ;)
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Serious Discussions.
JB
Sea Wasp
>In direct answer to your question, though, I say yes, if I'd rather read
>Beach Bunnies of Gor than Wuthering Heights than my opinion is that BBoG
>is a better book and that opinion is as valid as yours. A definition of better
>is relative to the standards of the reader so why try to define an absolute
>"better" scale?
AAAAAAAAaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Run! Run! It's starting again! STOP ME
BEFORE I FLAME AGAIN! :)
Seriously, Ted, the arguments have all boiled down to the following:
1) "Better is purely subjective, thus what I like is better."
2) "There really are objective standards of 'better', and on
those standards, X, Y, and Z fail to be better than *****."
I haven't seen anyone be CONVERTED from one basic point of view
to another. Those who hold opinion (1) think that the (2)s are
pompous elitist windbags and those who hold opinion (2) think that
the (1)s are uneducated barbarian louts.
(It's rarely stated that bluntly, but that's what it comes down
to.)
Me? I think that "better" is purely subjective when it comes to
writing. Otherwise I can't imagine why there would be people who would
rate "Childhood's End" as better than "Moon is a Harsh Mistress".
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
ST40...@brownvm.brown.edu
valid in discussing books. Because, just like in
science and math, knowledge does make a difference.
And so does smarts. So, some folks start out reading,
say, Eddings. They love it. Then they become better,
more educated readers, and Eddings starts to pale. They
discover Nabokov and Kundera, for example. And they
look back on their Eddings days and chuckle. Some
folks probably never grow past Eddings; that's okay.
But the difficulty in quantifying what elevates Nabokov
and Kundera way out of Eddings league doesn't mean that
the difference is an illusion. And the fact people tend
to uniformly progress with education in a fairly well
defined direction lends credence to the idea that the
judgements are real. I don't know anyone who has read
and understood Dostoevsky who has later gone on to say
"wow. Brothers Karamazov was great, but Sword of Shannara -
that was a masterpiece."
Furthermore, there is a difference between "taste" and
"great literature." The classic example is the difference
between those educated readers who have a taste for Tolstoy,
and those who have a taste for Dostoevsky. Both are great
novelists, but they are novelists of very different sorts.
If you prefer finely crafted, magnificently structured,
sweeping plots, you probably prefer Tolstoy. If you prefer
novels that tackle philosophical and psychological questions
in gritty detail, but often at the expense of plot, you
probably prefer Dostoevsky.
I have a taste for Dostoevsky. But I can read and appreciate
the greatness of Tolstoy.
It is just a matter of education, folks. Knowing more
about physics makes you better at sizing up physical phenomena;
knowing more about lit. makes you better at sizing up lit.
The people who are raving about the latest 27 volume epic
quest fantasy may well join the ranks of those who know why
Kazuo Ishiguro is brilliant. But the reverse is never
true. Doesn't that ever give you relativists some pause?
So I'm sorry, folks, if you don't like the judgement. But
you may someday understand it.
Read what you like - nothing wrong with favorite books,
even if they are cheesy SF novels. But if you keep reading,
and keep challenging yourself as a reader, you'll realize
why the rest of us are loathe to agree that some of that is
great lit.
-Tim"entering a profitless debate"J
brian.d.reh
>t...@danny.bellcore.com (Ted Ko):
>>|>>...among the BEST Scifi/Fantasy books of all time.'
>>|>...
>>|>Enjoyable books all, but it's hard to take this list seriously.
>>
>>As someone who made a contribution to this list, I find this comment somewhat
>>insulting. Do you mean to imply that our opionions are such that they should
>>not be taken seriously?
>
>I wish there were a way to respond without dredging up the perennial
>debate about whether "good" has a meaning beyond "I enjoyed it". If
>you like "Beach Bunnies of Gor" and dislike "Wuthering Heights", does
>that mean that BBoG is a better book than WH, and that your opinion in
>this regard is as good as anyone else's?
>
>The subject line referred to 'favorite' books, but the body of the message
>and followups referred to 'best'. I have no problem with a group of
>readers deciding that they'd much rather read "Dragonlance Chronicles"
>than "The Bridge of Birds". By any definition of 'better', however,
I'm sure you recognized immediately after you responded that you
REALLY meant "Bridge of Birds" rather than "THE Bridge of Birds"
Surely, as literate and well-read as you obviously are, you would
not get the title incorrect.
I love these great literary discussions.
Brian Reh
att!ihlpe!bdr
Mike Godwin
>>E.g. I feel that books such as Heinlein's Friday was much better than
>> say Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant 'cause I could read Fridau without
>> falling asleep. ....
>
>Wow!
>
>I couldn't!!
No kidding, Dorothy. I mean, if I were going to argue Heinlein's worth,
I'd start with a book other than FRIDAY.
--Mike
Mike Godwin
>I'm a bit puzzled by this thread. The only possible reason I can see for
>someone saying that one book is better than another, even though they "enjoyed"
>the latter book more, is an admission by that person that they have poor
>tastes in literature, and an acknowledgement that more qualified people would
>have a different opinion.
I don't see how this follows. I enjoy loafing around more than I enjoy
an aerobic workout on the Stairmaster, but there's not much doubt in my
mind that the latter is better for me. Or for almost anyone.
--Mike
Curtis Yarvin
>
>The people who are raving about the latest 27 volume epic
>quest fantasy may well join the ranks of those who know why
>Kazuo Ishiguro is brilliant. But the reverse is never
>true. Doesn't that ever give you relativists some pause?
Ha! Stumbling around for three hundred words, but I believe
you've finally laid a finger on the Beauty. Or is it the
Beast? Will you scream? Or will you move on?
> So I'm sorry, folks, if you don't like the judgement. But
>you may someday understand it.
He moves on. So let me flesh out the awful skeletoon for
y'all, because I think this is a discovery of truly momentous
proportion.
As we all agree, some books are better than others; and as we
all agree, it's impossible to find objective criteria to judge
books on. (Ha! Take your preposition THERE, Mr. Strunk!) So
what can we do?
The answer poses coyly above, arms hiding her breasts. Thank
you, ST402711, ghost from my alma mater; you have exposed if
only partly a great truth.
Don't try to judge the _books_ - it's a fool's errand. Judge
the _people who read them_! You need to be an expert to judge
books, but any fool can judge people and few shirk at the
chance.
Ishiguro versus Eddings. What kind of people read Ishiguro?
Cultured, intelligent young men and women willing to challenge
themselves with delicate, powerful fiction. What kind of
people read Eddings? Fuckwits. Whose is the better work?
Ishiguro's without a doubt.
Eddings versus Ishiguro. What kind of people read Eddings?
Hard-working young men and women who need good fun in their
sparse spare time. What kind of people read Ishiguro? Pansies.
Can we doubt where the merit lies? We cannot. Whose is it?
It is Eddings'.
The advantage of this scheme, you see, is that it _always
works_, and it works for _everyone_. Could a better be
proposed? Never. Never, sirs, never.
c
Dane E. Johnson
technical and *somewhat* subjective. For instance, a point of style may
be the halmark of excellence for one reader while reviled by another,
based on personal taste. When faced with this it becomes hard to say
that one book or writer is better than another 'absolutely'. Hard, but
not impossible.
Clearly, I think many people will agree that writer A is good, while B
is my favorite. The two are close in quality, close enough that small
(relatively) stylistic factors, not to mention the subject matter and
plot details, affect the readers' respective judgements.
<Shrug>
Also, there is the matter of enjoyment. As we all know, some people
*like* gameshows. They enjoy them. Some people would even rate them as
"the best" television programs. The same sort of an effect is present
in the literary world -- Some people *enjoy* a certain type of plot or
style and will mindlessly read anything that resembles it. Thus, we
have the eight million Star Trek novelisations and the role-playing game
tie-in novels. These books are written in such a way as to attract
readers who enjoy a particular thing: they are formulaic <sp?> In a
fundamental way, they are different from many other types of books.
I think Eddings belongs in this catagory, as does Piers Anthony and,
perhaps, Alan Dean Foster. The thing is, the people who generally enjoy
a book that I would put into this sort of a catagory are judging the book
differently than I might: they are looking for how well it meets their
expectations of the genre (ie, how star-treky, how swords & sorcerish,
how DnDish, etc.), while books which fall outside this (rather) narrow
band are not considered as highly.
While I think this sort of reading is somewhat narrow, it's certainly
valid. It's obviously common :). And it doesn't necessarily hold to
the same criterion you might want to apply to a good book. Creativity,
especially when applied to *new and different* forms, will probably not
be as prized as you might think. Depth of character, ditto. And so
on...
Well, I think I've pontificated enough on this :) This is all IMHO, of
course!
Dane
--
trav...@llnl.gov
djoh...@willamette.edu
TNS Stringer
Terra/Solomani Rim (1827 G867975-8)
Roy Navarre
> AAAAAAAAaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Run! Run! It's starting again! STOP ME
>BEFORE I FLAME AGAIN! :)
>writing. Otherwise I can't imagine why there would be people who would
>rate "Childhood's End" as better than "Moon is a Harsh Mistress".
Sorry, this is pure crap.
We are able to define standards of excellence. Period.
One such test, is the test of time.
Let me know who is reading beach bunnies of Gor in 200 years will you?
Roy :)
Roy Navarre
> It is just a matter of education, folks. Knowing more
>about physics makes you better at sizing up physical phenomena;
>knowing more about lit. makes you better at sizing up lit.
>The people who are raving about the latest 27 volume epic
>quest fantasy may well join the ranks of those who know why
>Kazuo Ishiguro is brilliant. But the reverse is never
>true. Doesn't that ever give you relativists some pause?
> So I'm sorry, folks, if you don't like the judgement. But
>you may someday understand it.
> Read what you like - nothing wrong with favorite books,
>even if they are cheesy SF novels. But if you keep reading,
>and keep challenging yourself as a reader, you'll realize
>why the rest of us are loathe to agree that some of that is
>great lit.
I will agree with much of your post.
You aren't implying that SF cant be great literature are you?
Or that just because something is popular it cant be good?
Roy
ST40...@brownvm.brown.edu
[A fruitless argument, of course. Curtis, look to
the bottom for a name. This post, like the last, is
signed. (Brown is not, incidentally, my alma mater.)]
There is, however, a difference in quality between
works of Nabokov and Danielle Steele, between the
works of Miles Davis and Kenny G., and between the
works of Rembrandt and the innumerable semi-anonymous
creators of black velvet paintings of Elvis.
And furthermore, the more educated you are, the
more obvious it is. Not very egalitarian, to be
sure - but neither is a fine sense of egalitarianism
the best standard for truth; in the arts or in the
sciences.
-Tim
Bronis Vidugiris
)But the difficulty in quantifying what elevates Nabokov
)and Kundera way out of Eddings league doesn't mean that
)the difference is an illusion.
A difficulty or inability to explain why one thinks X is 'better than' Y
certainly suggests, at least to me, that one is simply relying on appeals to
authority rather than one's own judgment. It's also rather unclear and
tends to be argumentative, IMO.
And the fact people tend
)to uniformly progress with education in a fairly well
)defined direction lends credence to the idea that the
)judgements are real.
The fact that people believe what they are taught is logical and 'real' to
a certain extent, but it's not particularly clear that there is anything
objectively 'real' about literary judgements. Perhaps it would be useful to
distinguish here betweeen 'real' and 'true'. Literature seems to me to be more
like religion than like physics - there is a 'real' phenomenon where people believe
what they are taught by authority figures, but it is not particularly clear that
what they are taught is 'true' in any objective sense. There is also a considerable
amount of disagreement among different literary schools, for instance, as there
is among different religions. Take postmodernism for example....
I don't know anyone who has read
)and understood Dostoevsky who has later gone on to say
)"wow. Brothers Karamazov was great, but Sword of Shannara -
)that was a masterpiece."
...
) It is just a matter of education, folks. Knowing more
)about physics makes you better at sizing up physical phenomena;
)knowing more about lit. makes you better at sizing up lit.
)The people who are raving about the latest 27 volume epic
)quest fantasy may well join the ranks of those who know why
)Kazuo Ishiguro is brilliant. But the reverse is never
)true. Doesn't that ever give you relativists some pause?
The ultimate test of 'knowing' about physics is to be able to
predict the results of actual physical experiments, however. This is
a test that is lacking in literature (or religion.)
Some people seem to be quite happy with an argument by appeal to popular
prejudice and/or authority - I personally find this particular sort of argument
to be rather lacking. I think people who rely on it are missing a chance to
improve their knowledge of themselves and the world around them by actually
thinking about *why* X is better than Y than maintaining it as an article
of faith.
Physics is not just a matter of education, and neither, I suspect, is
literature. Take Abian in sci.physics for a good (bad) example of assuming
that educated people always know what they are talking about. Or, to a lesser
extent, Jack Saffarti.
--
The worms crawl in
The worms crawl out
The worms post to the net from your account
Bronis Vidugiris
)
) Seriously, Ted, the arguments have all boiled down to the following:
) 1) "Better is purely subjective, thus what I like is better."
)
) 2) "There really are objective standards of 'better', and on
)those standards, X, Y, and Z fail to be better than *****."
Unfortunately, people maintaining position 2 seem to be mainting that objective
standards exist, but are usually unwilling to actually state them. One suspects that they
realize that actually stating them would tend to demonstrate the weakness in
their arguments, as there would quickly be a demonstrated lack of widespread
agreement on what these 'objective' standards actually are.
Bronis Vidugiris
)I'm a bit puzzled by this thread. The only possible reason I can see for
)someone saying that one book is better than another, even though they "enjoyed"
)the latter book more, is an admission by that person that they have poor
)tastes in literature, and an acknowledgement that more qualified people would
)have a different opinion. Now, that may be true in many cases, but it's
)certainly an odd sort of admission for anyone to make, especially a "reader".
)If, for the sake of argument, you think that you are a pretty good judge of
)writing, what are you going to say? "Yes, I was dazzled by the plot, moved
)by the characters, enthralled by the author's deft use of language, and
)fascinated by the entire premise of the book, but I don't think that it was
)very good," or maybe, "I was bored from page 1, the characters were lifeless,
)the writing was impenetrably obscure, and the whole idea behind this book
)is ridiculous, but I believe it to be a Great Book."
For the sake of argument, one might say:
I mostly liked <blah>, but I'm a sucker for books with Big Ideas about the Grand
Scheme of Things, and readers interested more in plot and characterization might
notice some notable lacks in those particular areas with this book, and a
*really* lame ending.
On the other hand, one might say:
I didn't like <blah>, but it was because I really hate the 'essentialist' attitude
of the author, which I found very distracting. Readers without this bias might
find it worthwhile, as it seemed reasonably well-crafted in other respects.
It seems to me that it is rather short-sighted to assume that there is anything as
simple as a one-dimensional 'figure of merit' which can be used to rate a book,
or to assume that 'qualified' people agree on books merits any more than the
average usenetter does in r.a.s.w
Bronis Vidugiris
)I don't see how this follows. I enjoy loafing around more than I enjoy
)an aerobic workout on the Stairmaster, but there's not much doubt in my
)mind that the latter is better for me.
So far so good.
)Or for almost anyone.
Doesn't really follow. A large fraction of the world gets enough exercise in
their daily life (subsistence farming, for instance) that they probably don't
need the Stairmaster, and would probably benefit physically more by 'loafing
around'. It's true in the context of the probable usenet reader, perhaps.
Sea Wasp
>There are ways to talk about what opinion is most
>valid in discussing books. Because, just like in
>science and math, knowledge does make a difference.
>And so does smarts. So, some folks start out reading,
>say, Eddings. They love it. Then they become better,
>more educated readers, and Eddings starts to pale. They
>discover Nabokov and Kundera, for example.
And some read Nabokov and Kafka and Shakespeare and tons of other
classics, and still see something worthwhile in Shannara. You aren't managing
to prove your point at all, anymore than it was proven the last seventeen
times this debate was ignited.
The thing is, that I will say "well, I've read and enjoyed {insert
classics}, but I prefer {insert some popular book that you think is fluff}
and enjoy it more", and you will simply say, referring to the above,
that THIS means I'm not a good reader, for whatever reason.
I don't ascribe to that. I can take apart a book pretty
well on many levels, understand criticism of a book on multiple
levels, and still think that most of the criticism is b*llS**t,
and prefer The Moon is a Harsh Mistress or even The Elfstones of
Shannara to 1984.
It's a matter of opinion... and so is your opinion that there's
a difference. Not everyone ascribes to it. I don't.
[...] I don't know anyone who has read
>and understood Dostoevsky who has later gone on to say
>"wow. Brothers Karamazov was great, but Sword of Shannara -
>that was a masterpiece."
Now, the ABOVE is in itself a masterpiece. It SEEMS reasonable
enough, until you notice the cute little qualification: "read AND UNDERSTOOD
Dostoevsky". Those two little words make your argument both utterly
irrefutable and completely pointless. Any counterexample presented
to you can be easily refuted by you simply saying "ah. That just proves
you didn't UNDERSTAND Dostoevsky." Pfui.
> It is just a matter of education, folks. Knowing more
>about physics makes you better at sizing up physical phenomena;
>knowing more about lit. makes you better at sizing up lit.
>The people who are raving about the latest 27 volume epic
>quest fantasy may well join the ranks of those who know why
>Kazuo Ishiguro is brilliant. But the reverse is never
>true. Doesn't that ever give you relativists some pause?
NEVER true? NEVER? That's an amazingly sweeping statement. I would
be strongly inclined to doubt it.
And no, even if true, it doesn't give me pause. I consider my taste
to be infinitely superior to anyone elses -- FOR ME. And since *I* am the
one doing the reading, in this case, I cannot help but be perfectly, and
infallibly, correct about which book is better... even if twenty billion
people disagree. Perhaps the situation you describe simply emphasizes the
power of certain forms of subtle academic brainwashing.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Sea Wasp
Sorry. THAT is pure crap.
Ask me if I care what people read in 200 years. Perhaps they have
different tastes. Perhaps a small group of entrenched elite managed
to establish their tastes. Perhaps it's a manifestation of groupthink.
Test of time tells absolutely nothing except that the book
has managed to survive for one reason or another. Saying that just because
it remains popular I have to admit that it's better is poppycock. That
would be the same as admitting that just because more people voted for
X than for Y that X is better than Y. I don't admit other people's tastes
to have any relevance whatsoever to mine, nor that the "weight of time"
has one little bit to do with any intrinsic value, if any, of any
work.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Joel Kent Baxter
>
>For the sake of argument, one might say:
>
>I mostly liked <blah>, but I'm a sucker for books with Big Ideas about the Grand
>Scheme of Things, and readers interested more in plot and characterization might
>notice some notable lacks in those particular areas with this book, and a
>*really* lame ending.
>
>On the other hand, one might say:
>
>I didn't like <blah>, but it was because I really hate the 'essentialist' attitude
>of the author, which I found very distracting. Readers without this bias might
>find it worthwhile, as it seemed reasonably well-crafted in other respects.
>
>It seems to me that it is rather short-sighted to assume that there is anything as
>simple as a one-dimensional 'figure of merit' which can be used to rate a book,
>or to assume that 'qualified' people agree on books merits any more than the
>average usenetter does in r.a.s.w
>
>
Good point. In a way, you seem to be sidestepping a couple of caveats that I
made...I did attempt to say that sweeping generalizations can't be made about
correlations between reader enjoyment and literary value without taking
into account the personal preferences of the reader(s) involved. <But> the
examples you give do point out how difficult that would be. Especially since
many readers are not introspective enough to wonder why they didn't like a
certain book.
Oh, well. I'm afraid that, in opining that a reader's enjoyment of a book
should not be totally decoupled from the "worth" of the book, I have
unwittingly taken on quite a few passengers from the last subjective/objective
debate. I'll make one more attempt to clarify what I am and am not saying:
I <am> saying, completely IMHO, that given a narrow field (like
SF), the fact that someone who enjoys the genre (and is widely
read) recommends a specific book as one of the best ever written
in that field is a good indication that it is a "good" book: that
the author did his/her job, and that readers of similar experience
will probably enjoy it. Thus my request for more poll participants
from r.a.b. More generally, I would contend that the worth of
<any> book must bear some relation to how much people "enjoy" it.
Since other people with more stamina (and time) than I have taken
up this thread, I'll just sit back and read it with the rest of you.
I am <not> saying that literary value is a popularity contest. It
still disturbs me that <anyone> would vote for an Eddings megaseries
as the best SF ever written, but I can understand it if they
interpreted the criterion as being the best that they personally
had ever read. I suppose that the very fact that I am disgruntled
by Eddings showing up at the head of the list must indicate that,
deep down, I acknowledge some sort of objective criteria for
literary value. Otherwise, my above contention would not be very
logical, since the constraints I placed on the worth of a subjective
evaluation are themselves subjective.
The bottom line is that I'm not trying to throw in on one side or the other
of this debate. In case all of my qualifications and equivocations have
totally obscured what I'm trying to say, it is simply this: subjective and
objective evaluation of literature are two great tastes that taste great
together! An objective evaluation could never be complete enough, and
besides, no one would agree on the criteria anyway. Heuristics have got to
come into play somewhere.
So, there you have it. I won't be particularly upset if anyone disagrees
with me, but at least (hopefully) we understand each other. I'll let the
philosophical heavyweights tackle this, and I'll get back to simple things
like electrical engineering.
JB
Tim O'Connor
: dp...@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca (Papp Denis):
: >Response on Usenet was overwhelming, getting almost 40 people in 3 days.
:
: >...among the BEST Scifi/Fantasy books of all time.'
:
: >28 TOLKIEN, J.R.R. Lord of the Rings (3)
: >17 Card, Orson Scott Ender's Game (3) book 1
: >17 Eddings, David The Belgariad (5)
: >15 Asimov, Isaac Foundation (7?)* books 1-3
: >14 Eddings, David The Malloreon (5)
: >14 Feist, Raymond E Riftwar Saga (4)
: Enjoyable books all, but it's hard to take this list seriously.
:
: >...
: >9 Weiss, Margaret & Dragonlance Chronicles (3)
: >" Hickman, Tracy "
:
: Very hard.
:
: -----
: Dani Zweig
: da...@netcom.com
Oh well, so theres some Crud in there. (Eddings and to a lesser extent,
Fiest are 'hacks' IMHO) We each have our own opinions on such things.
I couldnt believe that No-one had Julian May in the list though. :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Timothy O'Connor, Dip App.Sci (Chemistry), PIT. ~
~ EMAIL: t...@arcadia.cs.rmit.edu.au, T931...@arcadia.cs.rmit.edu.au, ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tim O'Connor
One persons Masterpiece is anothers Pap. Obviously book 'ranking' is
a near impossible task, aside from simply their sales, but it is still
interesting to look at the concensus of opinions among people of similar
interests. I think the big problem that most fantasy/sci-fi novels suffer
from is poor character development. That is how I rate my books. Thats
why I dislike the Eddings books, (Yes I did read them all :)) in hindsight,
because of the extremely poor (IMO) character development particularly
near the end of the 'mallorean'. Yet no doubt a lot of you loved it.
Im not saying that my opinion is any more worthy than yours, just high-
lighting the differences in how people percieve such qualities as this.
For the record, my favourite books (in any pigeon hole, not just sci-fi/
fantasy) are the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, by Stephen Donaldson, and
Intervention, by Julian May. (God I loved that book)
pa...@arc.ug.eds.com
These are my opinions on the enjoyment/quality issue, based on books I've read:
(restricted to sf/f examples)
_The_Belgariad_ (David Eddings) - enjoyable, but not *good*. Mind candy, good
reading for when I'm too tired to appreciate a better book.
I might put this one in my top 100 for "favourite" books, but nowhere
for "best".
_The Dragonbone_Chair_ (Tad Williams) - The writing style is good, but the book
is hopelessly cliched in plot and characterisation.
Wouldn't rate in either "favourite" or "best".
_A_Fire_Upon_The_Deep_ (Vernor Vinge) and _Aristoi_ (Walter Jon Williams)
Both writers seem to be limited in terms of characterisation and plot,
but each book is an extremely good depiction of a fascinating universe.
The strengths of the books greatly overwhelm the weaknesses.
Top 10 material for "favourite" and "best".
_Schismatrix_ (Bruce Sterling), _Use_of_Weapons_ (Iain M. Banks).
My personal favourites and (IMHO) worthy of being listed with the
*best* sf/f books.
Paul King
ST40...@brownvm.brown.edu
>>and understood Dostoevsky who has later gone on to say
>>"wow. Brothers Karamazov was great, but Sword of Shannara -
>>that was a masterpiece."
>
> Now, the ABOVE is in itself a masterpiece. It SEEMS reasonable
>enough, until you notice the cute little qualification: "read AND UNDERSTOOD
>Dostoevsky". Those two little words make your argument both utterly
>irrefutable and completely pointless. Any counterexample presented
>to you can be easily refuted by you simply saying "ah. That just proves
>you didn't UNDERSTAND Dostoevsky." Pfui.
Cute little qualification, eh? Important little
qualification, too. If you read Brothers Karamazov
and thought it was nothing more than a murder mystery,
guess what - you were wrong. And if that is your
opinion, it is not just as valuable as anyone else's.
And if that upsets you, well....your self-esteem ain't
my problem.
-Tim
Ted Ko
put in another $.02...although I find most of my arguments already given
by the Sea Wasp (thanks for explaining the subjective position so well, 'cause
I certainly wouldn't have had the time!)
My note comes from someone's comparison of the objective view to religion.
I find it interesting that the subjective position leaves plenty of room for
the the objective people to maintain their own opinions while the objective
position is essentially saying "you are wrong".
(BTW, tim from brown, you're "objectivism", IMO, has an extremely arrogant cast
to it which weakens all the arguments which can be made with a little more
respect for the intelligence of your fellow netters. Of course, respect
for the opinons of your fellow netters is the whole issue....)
So which position seems to be more close to the "truth" or reality? The one
which allows for the infinite variety of equally valid truths, or the one
which propogates its own truth for centuries without convincing everyone?
i.e. if there exists people of equal intelligence, but not necessarily educated
towards one standard, and these people disagree, how can that standard be
propose to be THE truth? This of course is your basic religious argument.
--
Ted Ko "Oi! Sitting in front of a Sparc all day
E-mail: t...@athena.mit.edu can give ya such a crick in the
t...@faline.bellcore.com wrists!"
Ross Smith
>In article <1993Jun21.2...@walter.bellcore.com> t...@danny.bellcore.com (Ted Ko) writes:
>>
>>E.g. I feel that books such as Heinlein's Friday was much better than
>> say Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant 'cause I could read Fridau without
>> falling asleep. ....
>
>Wow!
>
>I couldn't!!
Me either ... although I did manage to wake up long enough for a good laugh
at the scenes that were supposedly set in New Zealand :-)
--
... Ross Smith (Wanganui, New Zealand) ... al...@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ...
"Where are we going?" "Planet Ten!"
"When?" "REAL SOON!"
Lawrence E. Brown
I have evolved some definite ideas about this point which I
think is an important one. I have for many years had a
distinction in my head between my favorite "films" and my
favorite "movies". "Movies" are *not* to be understood as of
lesser value. "Gone With the Wind" and "Star Wars" could
never be on the "films" list and "Cries and Whispers" would
never make the "movies" list. Other things would be less clear
such as "Blade Runner" which is certainly near the top of both
lists (I have a strange fascination with lists, always have).
This distinction was initially intuitive to me, but I've tried
to think about it seriously since.
With books, the distinction for me is often less clear, but is
still very strong in many cases. I don't necessarily see a
contradiction between saying that Edgar Rice Burroughs writes
unbelievably good action sequences and on that account I
"enjoyed" _Tarzan of the Apes_ more than _Sartor Resartus_ for
instance, but that maybe _Sartor Resartus_ is "better" because
it provoked more thought. This sort of distinction is, however,
not really what I have in mind. If nothing else, it is much too
perjorative to say book A was not as good as book B. Good art
of any kind provokes responses in several areas of the psyche
and I think that a more productive delineation than "enjoyed"
vs. "good" is experiential aesthetics vs. rational aesthetics.
To give another example from three books I like very much, the
writing in _Ender's Game_ is tight and visceral, the experience
of violence and action is immediate and the plot is linear, the
"ideas" are reasonably straightforward, although they are not
simple. The experience of _The Book of the New Sun_ is oblique
and the prose is laconic; the ideas, and often the action itself
is not clear. _Dhalgren_ is extremely mind oriented, asking for
a good deal of concentration and deals at least as much with
thoughts about the book itself as with the events in the book.
_Ender's Game_ is solidly experiential(so are _Great
Expectations_ and _The Lord of the Rings_), _Dhalgren_ is
solidly rational (so are _Ulysses_ and _Tristram Shandy_), _The
Book of the New Sun_ is both places. All of these books, have
strong components from both lists, however. I guess the
distinction is clearer for _Tarzan_, which doesn't bear thinking
about, or for _Sartor Resartus_ which is rarely a particularily
pleasurable experience for the non-rational components of *my*
aesthetic sense. It is tempting to say that the work which
effects the most aesthetic components wins the game, but I think
this temptation should be resisted. It is possible that
focusing on one aesthetic component only, you can achieve a
higher effect *in that component* than if all of your components
are engaged. I think _Ender's Game_ works much better at
exciting a mental feeling of speed (for lack of a better term)
than, for instance, _Speaker for the Dead_ which is trying to do
several things at once.
I suppose that maybe this setup could give one a crowbar to pry
those damned _Dragonlance_ books of the list (if one were so
inclined) since both _Dragonlance_ and _Bridge of Birds_ are
trying to act upon the same aesthetic senses, a comparison could
be made by any reader and it is very hard to imagine anyone
preferring the former. It would certainly be useful to try to
figure out why zhe (neuter pronoun, easier to pronounce that
s/he :) ) did. I think the knee jerk name calling on seeing the
list (I felt my leg twitch too) is probably mostly tied in to
the frustration some of us feel at seeing so many readers
missing BoB because Dragonlance is thrust in their faces and so
many promising young writers who could be telling us new and
exciting things, forced (or lured) to write Star Trek novels or
to share-crop in some established writer's universe. There is a
great deal of publishing effort which could be better spent
IMHO. On the other hand, publishers want to make money, and
there are orders of magnitude more TV viewers than there are
recreational readers, so Star Trek can catch the bleed off from
TV and make a lot more money (or so the thinking goes). The best
way to "raise the tone" of the list may be to press copies of
BoB into your younger friends' hands, get em off that mass
product and onto the good stuff, and vote on this list, so that
the "good stuff" will float to the top.
Whew, I feel better now.
Larry
--
Larry Brown "Philip K. Dick is dead, alas
el...@gamma.phys.clemson.edu Let's all queue up to kick God's ass"
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy --Michael Bishop in _The Secret Ascension_
Clemson University
pa...@arc.ug.eds.com
If enjoyment of a book is the same thing as "quality" can anyone explain how I
can enjoy a book AND believe that it is of low literary quality ?
(I know ! I've been brainwashed by the Literary Mafia :-)
My views on literary quality is that it consists of several (largely
independant) factors - all coloured by subjectivity, but at the same time
not entirely subjective. Enjoyment of a book is related, but can be
influenced - positively or negatively - by *other* factors.
This explains how I can :
Enjoy a book, while thinking it low in "literary quality"
See signs of "quality" in a book I otherwise dislike (perhaps because it is
lacking in other factors I see a part of "quality", perhaps in factors
related to enjoyment alone)
Regard a book as being of "high quality" while still seeing flaws.
Also it explains why there seems to be *some* consensus on literary value
without invoking "academic brainwashing"
Paul King
David Wren-Hardin
for lack of a better word. I read, and most readers probably do the same,
more of the latter than the former. Why ? The former is more challenging.
Most of my reading is to relax, decompress at the end of a long day.
I read late at night, often when I'm tired. If I'm reading a 'Good book'
I find I miss things, allusions, etc, because of this. Good reading
is fun, and so is reading a Good Book, but a GB can be exhausting,
exhilerating, but exhausting. It's like mountain climbing... How often
does a Mountaing Climber attack Everest, and how often does he practice
on the climbing wall at his health club ?
Challenges are great, and should be undertaken, but in day to day life
there are activities that are fun, but no one would catagorize as
great life broadening challenges.
Anyway, just some random thoughts.
--
*****************************************************************************
David Wren-Hardin bd...@quads.uchicago.edu University of Chicago
Thousands of years ago the Egyptians worshipped cats as gods.
Cats have never forgotten this.
Teddy Bear
>
> Test of time tells absolutely nothing except that the book
> I don't admit other people's tastes
>to have any relevance whatsoever to mine, nor that the "weight of time"
>has one little bit to do with any intrinsic value, if any, of any
>work.
These comments caught my eye, and I had to say something about them...if so,
why do people read Shakespeare, but not Ben Jonson? Why do people read
Huckleberry Finn, but not Jude the Obscure? These are just examples from
different eras--I'm sure there are authors from the 1600's or 1900's that no-
one ever looks at.
Books which LAST a long time and are still readable, enjoyable, and
interesting have some intrinsic value to them. Granted most SF and F
hasn't lasted long enough to really stand the test of time. But more
people read, say, early Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein than read John
Campbell's or Hugo Gernsback's short stories. Test of time. Classics.
This is not to say one should blindly follow the herd of critical opinion, of
course. But books that survive *usually* do so because of very good reasons.
Joel Singer *Harvey Mudd College* ( jsi...@jarthur.claremont.edu )
"Ecce Eduardus Ursus scalis nunc tump-tump-tump occipite gradus pulsante
post Christophorum Robinum descendens." -- A.A. Milne, via Alexander Lenard
Dan'l DanehyOakes
> I haven't seen anyone be CONVERTED from one basic point of view
>to another. Those who hold opinion (1) think that the (2)s are
>pompous elitist windbags and those who hold opinion (2) think that
>the (1)s are uneducated barbarian louts.
Oddly enough, mein freund, I *have* seen such "conversions." They aren't
at all rare. But they rarely come from argument; they mostly come from
experience and/or education. Note that by "education" I don't mean "being
brainwashed by the cultural-academic elite"; I mean exposing onesself to a
wide variety of writing and learning about what it has to offer.
The (1)s are not "barbarian louts," but that they are uneducated -- in the
specific sense I mention -- is true.
As to the "superiority" of one point of view over another, I can't say, but
I will note that conversions from POV (1) to POV (2) are far more common than
conversions the other way.
Laissez les bontemps roulez. Please, for all our
sakes. Laissez les bontemps roulez.
-- Alan Moore
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, Net.Roach
My opinions do NOT represent Pacific Bell,
Professional Development, or anyone else.
But I'm willing to share.
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>As we all agree, some books are better than others; and as we
>all agree, it's impossible to find objective criteria to judge
>books on...
Well, no, it isn't. There are clear objective criteria -- does the book's
style convey whateverinhell it's trying to convey? Is it reasonably coherent?
This is a fundamental test. Even a "fuckwit," to use your delightfully
descriptive term, can usually apply it.
Other criteria are more complex. They require education and experience to
apply, and sometimes even to understand. The general idea of such criteria
is to determine what the book is attempting to accomplish, and to determine
how well it accomplishes it.
One can also apply a criterion of whether what it accomplishes, or sets out
to, is *worth* accomplishing. "Mere" entertainment often is. "Higher"
goals sometimes aren't.
>Don't try to judge the _books_ - it's a fool's errand. Judge
>the _people who read them_! You need to be an expert to judge
>books, but any fool can judge people and few shirk at the
>chance.
Feh. You've taken a basically good idea and screwed it sideways.
If you want to use this _sort_ of test, you shouldn't look for
"who" reads them, but for what _sort_of_reading_ the book
supports.
Sea Wasp
(About distinction of motion pictures into two categories,
"Films" and "Movies", with the latter category including "Star Wars"
and "Gone With the Wind")
>This distinction was initially intuitive to me, but I've tried
>to think about it seriously since.
It certainly isn't intuitive to ME. Where do you put "Casablanca"
in that list? Is it a Film or a Movie? And what are the criteria? If
"Blade Runner" sits on the border, what would shove it to one side or
the other?
>TV and make a lot more money (or so the thinking goes). The best
>way to "raise the tone" of the list may be to press copies of
>BoB into your younger friends' hands, get em off that mass
>product and onto the good stuff, and vote on this list, so that
>the "good stuff" will float to the top.
This assumes that there is "good stuff" and that your younger
friends will be CONVERTED, Halleluja! to the True and Right way of thinking.
If Bridge of Birds does the same thing as Dragonlance, then you may
at least get another reader of Bridge of Birds. But if in actuality the
similarity is, at best, tenuous, you may simply turn them OFF of your
"good stuff" by convincing them that you don't know what you're talking
about.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Dan'l DanehyOakes
> And some read Nabokov and Kafka and Shakespeare and tons of other
>classics, and still see something worthwhile in Shannara...
That's because of some things that get ignored a *lot* in these debates:
1) Learning to enjoy "good" books does not automatically cut you off from
the ability to enjoy "trash" books on their own level. It expands your range
of potential enjoyment.
2) Almost *nobody* reads "good" books all the time -- and those who do are
generally the true snobs. (The existence of such people is what gives literary
reading a bad name among the "barbarians.") Most readers of Nabokov et all
like to relax with a good thriller now and then.
3) Nabokov, Kafka, and Shakespeare don't write heroic fantasy. One can be
an "educated" reader in one genre and not in another. (One occasionally spots
this in the "slumming" professor of literature who *prefers* trashy SF *for*
its trashiness.) Reading Wolfe or Russ requires a breadth of taste and
knowledge as complex as those required for Nabokov et al -- but *NOT* the
same.
> [...] I don't know anyone who has read
>>and understood Dostoevsky who has later gone on to say
>>"wow. Brothers Karamazov was great, but Sword of Shannara -
>>that was a masterpiece."
>
> Now, the ABOVE is in itself a masterpiece. It SEEMS reasonable
>enough, until you notice the cute little qualification: "read AND UNDERSTOOD
>Dostoevsky". Those two little words make your argument both utterly
>irrefutable and completely pointless. Any counterexample presented
>to you can be easily refuted by you simply saying "ah. That just proves
>you didn't UNDERSTAND Dostoevsky." Pfui.
This, O Wasp, is so much poopy-kaka. Sorry, but you're simply wrong and
apparently too damn proud of your own invincible ignorance. There are
objective ways to determine whether someone has understood what they've
read -- at the grade school level they're called "comprehension tests."
Remember those?
One can do similarly with Dostoevsky or any other more complex writer: one
makes a list of a few subtleties and implications that are important for an
understanding of what the book "is getting at," and asks the reader questions
which elicit information as to whether or not s/he has grasped these subtleties
and implications. This is fairly objective and doesn't require any Catch-22
of the sort you are looking for.
Now, I reiterate the claim of the previous writer: If you find, by this test,
that a given reader has "understood" (say) WAR AND PEACE, this reader will
not turn around and claim that Terry Brooks is the better writer and ELFSTONES
OF SHANANA the greater masterpiece.
I further claim that you can have someone who *does* love ELFSTONES devise a
similar test for "understanding" it, and that *any* reader who "passes" both
tests will prefer the Dostoevsky.
Now, how much more objective can you fucking get?
>>The people who are raving about the latest 27 volume epic
>>quest fantasy may well join the ranks of those who know why
>>Kazuo Ishiguro is brilliant. But the reverse is never
>>true. Doesn't that ever give you relativists some pause?
>
> NEVER true? NEVER? That's an amazingly sweeping statement. I would
>be strongly inclined to doubt it.
So would I. I would, however, claim that "the reverse" is extremely rare,
statistically, compared to that which it reverses. "You can argue with me,
son, but you can't argue with statistics."
> And no, even if true, it doesn't give me pause. I consider my taste
>to be infinitely superior to anyone elses -- FOR ME. And since *I* am the
>one doing the reading, in this case, I cannot help but be perfectly, and
>infallibly, correct about which book is better... even if twenty billion
>people disagree. Perhaps the situation you describe simply emphasizes the
>power of certain forms of subtle academic brainwashing.
I suppose it all depends on what you mean by "better." If you refuse to
accept the idea that facts are important, then by all means you can live
in whatever subjective fantasy land you choose.
This puts you in the same class as people who believe that God created the
Universe in seven twenty-four hour days, or that a six-minute foetus is a
fully ensouled human being with all the rights pertaining thereunto, or that
the Earth is flat, or that the Holocaust never happened.
You're free to believe any of those things if you want to. Many people do.
To paraphrase, then:
"Even if photographs taken from space show a round Earth,
it doesn't give me pause. I consider the Bible to be
infinitely superior to any human wisdom -- FOR ME, and every
lover of truth. And since *I* am basing my opinion on the
Bible, it cannot help but be perfectly and infallibly correct
about what is true... even if twenty billion people disagree.
Perhaps the situation you describe simply emphasizes the power
of certain forms of subtle secular humanist brainwashing."
"Even if [evidence indicates that the Holocaust really
happened], it doesn't give me pause. I consider my
opinion to be infinitely superior to anyone elses -- FOR
ME. And since *I* am the one doing the believing, in this
case, I cannot help but be perfectly, and infallibly, correct
about what is true. . . even if six million corpses disagree.
Perhaps the situation you describe simply emphasizes the power
of certain forms of subtle left-wing brainwashing."
This last brings us perilously close to the realm of Godwin's Law of Nazi
Analogies. I, of course, am not calling you or anyone else a Nazi, but
surely it is inevitable that someone will think I am, and the end of the
discussion is near.
The only analogy I am drawing is that in these fields, as in many others,
ignorant people believe that their opinions have equal validity to facts.
This is not true. To quote Harlan Ellison, "Everyone is entitled to an
_informed_ opinion."
Three cheers for an elitism that values fact over opinion!
Bronis Vidugiris
)In article <205ap9$l...@agate.berkeley.edu> coz...@garnet.berkeley.edu () writes:
)>In article <1993Jun21.2...@walter.bellcore.com> t...@danny.bellcore.com (Ted Ko) writes:
)>>
)>>E.g. I feel that books such as Heinlein's Friday was much better than
)>> say Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant 'cause I could read Fridau without
)>> falling asleep. ....
)>
)>Wow!
)>
)>I couldn't!!
)
)Me either ... although I did manage to wake up long enough for a good laugh
)at the scenes that were supposedly set in New Zealand :-)
I've had 'going to sleep' problems with some of Heinleins later books, but
Friday wasn't one of them. I actually got through "Number of the Beast and
Time Enough for Love" somehow, not quite sure how I managed it anymore :-).
Friday, though, was quite readable (IMO).
I still like his earlier stuff better - or at least remember it more fondly -
like "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
--
"Stop or I'll scream" -- Black Bolt
Sea Wasp
>In article <14...@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sea...@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>> Now, the ABOVE is in itself a masterpiece. It SEEMS reasonable
>>enough, until you notice the cute little qualification: "read AND UNDERSTOOD
>>Dostoevsky". Those two little words make your argument both utterly
>>irrefutable and completely pointless. Any counterexample presented
>>to you can be easily refuted by you simply saying "ah. That just proves
>>you didn't UNDERSTAND Dostoevsky." Pfui.
>This, O Wasp, is so much poopy-kaka. Sorry, but you're simply wrong and
>apparently too damn proud of your own invincible ignorance. There are
>objective ways to determine whether someone has understood what they've
>read -- at the grade school level they're called "comprehension tests."
>Remember those?
Yes, and I remember clearly that those tests were so much bull.
Either they tested plain-text statements (which ARE inarguable) -- that is,
the text said "Joe put on his red hat" and the question asked "what color
was Joe's hat" -- or they asked about trivial implications (a story in which
all trees were killed off and everyone died because of oxygen deprivation,
and the question would be "was it good to kill trees").
>One can do similarly with Dostoevsky or any other more complex writer: one
>makes a list of a few subtleties and implications that are important for an
>understanding of what the book "is getting at," and asks the reader questions
>which elicit information as to whether or not s/he has grasped these subtleties
>and implications. This is fairly objective and doesn't require any Catch-22
>of the sort you are looking for.
Well, it DOES require that you be able to state (objectively and
verifiably, with no appeal to authority, but with a test measurable by some
instrument which doesn't require any knowledge of the answer) that you know
for a fact these things that Dosoevsky is "getting at". I submit to YOU
that you can't PROVE such things, above the most gross level (1984 is
implying that there's a great danger to individuality in certain socio-
political movements, etc).
>Now, I reiterate the claim of the previous writer: If you find, by this test,
>that a given reader has "understood" (say) WAR AND PEACE, this reader will
>not turn around and claim that Terry Brooks is the better writer and ELFSTONES
>OF SHANANA the greater masterpiece.
>I further claim that you can have someone who *does* love ELFSTONES devise a
>similar test for "understanding" it, and that *any* reader who "passes" both
>tests will prefer the Dostoevsky.
>Now, how much more objective can you fucking get?
I'd be interested to SEE these tests you postulate. I'd also be
interested to see if you could VERIFY the supposedly-objective information
WITHOUT using literary authorities to do so.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
R o d Johnson
>>As we all agree, some books are better than others; and as we
>>all agree, it's impossible to find objective criteria to judge
>>books on...
>Well, no, it isn't. There are clear objective criteria -- does the book's
>style convey whateverinhell it's trying to convey? Is it reasonably coherent?
I don't mean to disagree deeply with your fundamental position,
Dan'l, but you've done a dreadful job of establishing it here.
First, tell me how one can "objectively" determine, in a way that
leaves no room for disgareement:
a. what a book's style *is*;
b. what that style conveys (to whom? when?) (can a style "convey"?);
c. what the (book? style? author?) is "trying" to convey;
d. whether b. and c. match;
e. what the criteria for coherence are
These are all extremely non-trivial questions. But they also contain
all sorts of assumptions about the point of writing and reading that
are extremely questionable, to wit:
f. that the goal of books is to "convey" something
g. that style is the crucial vehicle for this "conveying"
h. that what the [book|style|author]'s is trying to "convey" is the
ultimate criterion for interpretation.
In my field (linguistics) we have a situation where people can't even
"objectively" agree on the correct representation for sentences, and
you wave your hands and tell us that it's possible to do it more the
vastly more complex, and even more underdetermined question of
literary meaning, and *then* extrapolate from that into normative
questions like literary worth? Yer nuts!
>This is a fundamental test. Even a "fuckwit," to use your delightfully
>descriptive term, can usually apply it.
OK, go ahead, show us (oops, I hope that doesn't sound like I'm
backhandedly implying you're a "fuckwit"), if it's so easy to apply.
Don't forget, this has to be "objective".
>Other criteria are more complex. They require education and experience to
>apply, and sometimes even to understand. The general idea of such criteria
>is to determine what the book is attempting to accomplish, and to determine
>how well it accomplishes it.
Or else, the basic purpose of all that education is to develop tastes
that are in sync with other people of education, in which case, as Ryk
says, you're talking about groupthink, not "objective" standards.
>One can also apply a criterion of whether what it accomplishes, or sets out
>to, is *worth* accomplishing. "Mere" entertainment often is. "Higher"
>goals sometimes aren't.
And all the same doubts apply here as well.
>>Don't try to judge the _books_ - it's a fool's errand. Judge
>>the _people who read them_! You need to be an expert to judge
>>books, but any fool can judge people and few shirk at the
>>chance.
>Feh. You've taken a basically good idea and screwed it sideways.
>If you want to use this _sort_ of test, you shouldn't look for
>"who" reads them, but for what _sort_of_reading_ the book
>supports.
Foo. You've taken Curtis' clever (if rather arch) little satire and
completely missed the joke.
This is where the part where I'm sort of on Dan'l's side after all:
The problem with this argument is that the vocal people always act as
if there are only two possible positions, the most extreme
"objectivist" and "subjectivist" one: meaning, and therefore value,
*must be* either in the text and objectively knowable, or totally
constructed by the reader and thus radically subjective. Both these
positions ignore the possibility that people can argue about literary
value, that there is very broad agreement about what constitutes good
and bad writing, and that there may be transpersonal systems of value
that aren't totally transcendent. I happen to disagree with Dan'l's
version of those standards, but at least he's not saying there (a) are
no standards or (b) these standards are metaphysically inscribed by
God on the void as the one true way to judge literature.
(Hey Vance, this is a continuation of my response to you in
rec.music.classical last week.) When Baudelaire said that the
greatest French poet was "Victor Hugo, helas," he was admitting that
there was a cultural consensus about what greatness is and at the same
time registering his dissent from that. Baudelaire can do that
because he's *Baudelaire*, someone who's already established his value
as a reader. When someone says "Yeah, the Brothers Karamazov was a
great work, but I prefer Eddings," we might think that's weird, but
allow that judgement, however unexpected, as something worth arguing
about.
But when someone simply says "The best book of all time is _The
Belgariad_ by David Eddings," I think we can feel somewhat justified
in guessing that this person is some 18-year-old computer science
student who hasn't read a hell of a lot, and until he or she does and
can argue the point, that his or her opinion doesn't have much weight.
This is not "Hey, get out of here with your David Eddings and don't
come back till you've read Dostoyevsky"--but who can take
him/her/it/them seriously? And when the only counterargument is the
skeptical "My opinion is worth as much as yours because it's all
subjective anyway," since this is only a reassertion of what we
already know (you like the book) and tells us nothing of value about
either you or the book, there's no reason to accord it any more
seriousness.
I'd be happy to read a real argument to the effect that Eddings is
good, as long as it's not along the lines that "I like it and that's
that" or "it's mind candy and sometimes you need mind candy." Maybe
so, but it's not gonna convince the doubters. But if someone wants to
argue that there's more to Eddings than he's given credit for, or that
we're reading him in an inapproriate way and judged by the right
standards he's good--great. Let's hear it. *No one* I've ever seen
on the net has tried to make such arguments--they always just say
"It's good cuz I like it and you're lit'ry snobs if you disagree."
--
* Rod Johnson
* r...@umich.edu
Lawrence E. Brown
>
> (About distinction of motion pictures into two categories,
>"Films" and "Movies", with the latter category including "Star Wars"
>and "Gone With the Wind")
>
>>This distinction was initially intuitive to me, but I've tried
>>to think about it seriously since.
>
> It certainly isn't intuitive to ME. Where do you put "Casablanca"
>in that list? Is it a Film or a Movie? And what are the criteria? If
>"Blade Runner" sits on the border, what would shove it to one side or
>the other?
>
immediate feeling. I didn't mean to imply it was an obvious
distinction to someone else. Should have made that clearer.
And "Blade Runner" doesn't sit on the border, it is on both
lists. To answer the second question (sortof, like I said, I've
been thinking about this, I still haven't completely figured it
out), "Total Recall" is on the movies list. It's got pretty
pictures and action (those will get you on the Movies list), but
it doesn't engage MY rational faculties with a complex symbol
structure and a thesis about God and Man (at least it didn't hit
me that way), it only used the reality blurring for a sort of
"twist-ending" effect . "Casablanca" would be on the movies list for the
same reasons (pretty pictures and action). The "movies" list is
NOT "lower" or "popular" or "worse" or "less significant", it
just produces a different aesthetic response in me. Now that I
think about it, the movies/film split (maybe I should do some
jargonogenesis and choose new terms, maybe these carry too much
freight) is similar to a comedy/tragedy distinction, the two
provoke distinctly different aesthetic responses.
>>TV and make a lot more money (or so the thinking goes). The best
>>way to "raise the tone" of the list may be to press copies of
>>BoB into your younger friends' hands, get em off that mass
>>product and onto the good stuff, and vote on this list, so that
>>the "good stuff" will float to the top.
>
> This assumes that there is "good stuff" and that your younger
>friends will be CONVERTED, Halleluja! to the True and Right way of thinking.
>
> If Bridge of Birds does the same thing as Dragonlance, then you may
>at least get another reader of Bridge of Birds. But if in actuality the
>similarity is, at best, tenuous, you may simply turn them OFF of your
>"good stuff" by convincing them that you don't know what you're talking
>about.
>
>
> Sea Wasp
> /^\
> ;;;
Hold on there Pilgrim, I just thought they might like BoB; that
would be nice because if I get someone to read something I liked
and they like it too, it gratifies something in me. It's like I
get to experience reading it again for the first time by
watching them read it for the first time. I've driven my wife
absolutely bugfuck trying to get her to read _Gravity's Rainbow_.
Additionally, enough people buying Barry Hughart might convince
publishers to put more stuff on the racks that *I* want to read.
"raise the tone" and "good stuff" were meant to be taken very
tounge-in-cheek.
Christopher Lee Cavender
>In article <14...@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sea...@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>
>>classics, and still see something worthwhile in Shannara...
>
>That's because of some things that get ignored a *lot* in these debates:
>
>1) Learning to enjoy "good" books does not automatically cut you off from
>the ability to enjoy "trash" books on their own level. It expands your range
>of potential enjoyment.
>
>2) Almost *nobody* reads "good" books all the time -- and those who do are
>generally the true snobs. (The existence of such people is what gives literary
>reading a bad name among the "barbarians.") Most readers of Nabokov et all
>like to relax with a good thriller now and then.
>
>3) Nabokov, Kafka, and Shakespeare don't write heroic fantasy. One can be
>an "educated" reader in one genre and not in another. (One occasionally spots
>this in the "slumming" professor of literature who *prefers* trashy SF *for*
>its trashiness.) Reading Wolfe or Russ requires a breadth of taste and
>knowledge as complex as those required for Nabokov et al -- but *NOT* the
>same.
>
would you describe Hamlet?
>
>> [...] I don't know anyone who has read
>>>and understood Dostoevsky who has later gone on to say
>>>"wow. Brothers Karamazov was great, but Sword of Shannara -
>>>that was a masterpiece."
>>
>> Now, the ABOVE is in itself a masterpiece. It SEEMS reasonable
>>enough, until you notice the cute little qualification: "read AND UNDERSTOOD
>>Dostoevsky". Those two little words make your argument both utterly
>>irrefutable and completely pointless. Any counterexample presented
>>to you can be easily refuted by you simply saying "ah. That just proves
>>you didn't UNDERSTAND Dostoevsky." Pfui.
>
>This, O Wasp, is so much poopy-kaka. Sorry, but you're simply wrong and
>apparently too damn proud of your own invincible ignorance. There are
>objective ways to determine whether someone has understood what they've
>read -- at the grade school level they're called "comprehension tests."
>Remember those?
>
>One can do similarly with Dostoevsky or any other more complex writer: one
>makes a list of a few subtleties and implications that are important for an
>understanding of what the book "is getting at," and asks the reader questions
>which elicit information as to whether or not s/he has grasped these subtleties
>and implications. This is fairly objective and doesn't require any Catch-22
>of the sort you are looking for.
Now, the question becomes, just *what was* the book getting at? And Don't tell
me it's obvious. Unless the test is being written by a psychiatrist working
with the author for a number of months, the test will NOT be accurate. You
could get a test that will show how much the reader gets that the Author intended
him to get, but then you are testing both the Authors skill and the reader's
comprehension, with no way of telling which failed or succeed.
>
>Now, I reiterate the claim of the previous writer: If you find, by this test,
>that a given reader has "understood" (say) WAR AND PEACE, this reader will
>not turn around and claim that Terry Brooks is the better writer and ELFSTONES
>OF SHANANA the greater masterpiece.
>
>I further claim that you can have someone who *does* love ELFSTONES devise a
>similar test for "understanding" it, and that *any* reader who "passes" both
>tests will prefer the Dostoevsky.
>
>Now, how much more objective can you fucking get?
>
Much fucking more. :)
>
>>>The people who are raving about the latest 27 volume epic
>>>quest fantasy may well join the ranks of those who know why
>>>Kazuo Ishiguro is brilliant. But the reverse is never
>>>true. Doesn't that ever give you relativists some pause?
>>
>> NEVER true? NEVER? That's an amazingly sweeping statement. I would
>>be strongly inclined to doubt it.
>
>So would I. I would, however, claim that "the reverse" is extremely rare,
>statistically, compared to that which it reverses. "You can argue with me,
>son, but you can't argue with statistics."
>
>
Why is it always readers of "Quality" books who try to convince readers of
"trash" books? Is it a deep seated need for approval? An honest urge to
raise up those worse off than yourselves? What is it that causes prosetylization
in otherwise inoffensive people?
>> And no, even if true, it doesn't give me pause. I consider my taste
>>to be infinitely superior to anyone elses -- FOR ME. And since *I* am the
>>one doing the reading, in this case, I cannot help but be perfectly, and
>>infallibly, correct about which book is better... even if twenty billion
>>people disagree. Perhaps the situation you describe simply emphasizes the
>>power of certain forms of subtle academic brainwashing.
>
>I suppose it all depends on what you mean by "better." If you refuse to
>accept the idea that facts are important, then by all means you can live
>in whatever subjective fantasy land you choose.
>
Click. Minor flaw in understanding encountered. Better is by definition
a subjective term, a purely OPINION statement. Wherein do facts show up?
>This puts you in the same class as people who believe that God created the
>Universe in seven twenty-four hour days, or that a six-minute foetus is a
>fully ensouled human being with all the rights pertaining thereunto, or that
>the Earth is flat, or that the Holocaust never happened.
>
>You're free to believe any of those things if you want to. Many people do.
>To paraphrase, then:
>
[ stuff on flat earth ]
>
[ stuff on holocaust no happing ]
the two things I deleted were examples of people insisting that the earth was
flat and that the holocaust never happened because of the facts they choose to
believe. (and good example's I would of liked to have for an argument in
alt.culture.internet about politeness for all people :) )
>
>This last brings us perilously close to the realm of Godwin's Law of Nazi
>Analogies. I, of course, am not calling you or anyone else a Nazi, but
>surely it is inevitable that someone will think I am, and the end of the
>discussion is near.
Never heard of this, what is it?
>
>The only analogy I am drawing is that in these fields, as in many others,
>ignorant people believe that their opinions have equal validity to facts.
>This is not true. To quote Harlan Ellison, "Everyone is entitled to an
>_informed_ opinion."
>
>Three cheers for an elitism that values fact over opinion!
Fact is an illusion, go watch a good magician. EVERYTHING is an opinion. But
that is more of a philosophical discussion than a book argument.
>
> Laissez les bontemps roulez. Please, for all our
> sakes. Laissez les bontemps roulez.
> -- Alan Moore
What's this say?
>
[ sig be gone ]
Chris
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is Love? - Me | "Repent Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman |
Love is Truth! - Plato |------------------------------------------|
What is Truth? - Pontus Pilate | "More Light! More Light!" Anthony Hecht |
Laura Johnson
> Tell me it isn't so. I read my first Discworld book from the library this
> weekend. I had every intention of tracking down more of the same, but
> not if it's over 14 tomes (even if they are short) Can anyone recommed
> their favorites?
> Thanks
> Barbara
>
Well you don't HAVE to read them all...
but you'll want to.
--
--New .sig under construction--Please be Patient
l...@col.hp.com Laura Johnson, software engineer
Hewlett Packard, Network Test Division
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Bronis Vidugiris
)Sorry, this is pure crap.
)We are able to define standards of excellence. Period.
)One such test, is the test of time.
)Let me know who is reading beach bunnies of Gor in 200 years will you?
)
)Roy :)
'Test of time' is a reasonable standard, but obviously only directly applicable
to older works. 200 years seems a bit excessive, BTW - if you insist on it,
no recent work can be tested by this standard, which is a bit of a problem
with it.
Anyway, though it is certainly possible to define standards of excellence, it
is very helpful to mention *which one* one is using, especially on the net.
Reviews consisting only of 'XXX is crap' or 'YYY is great' are not
generally very informative.
This can be realistically omitted if the other person already knows beforehand what
standard you tend to use, but this is rarely the case on the net. And if you
ever use more than one standard (quite likely) it is helpful to be more explicit
in any event (IMO).
Christopher Lee Cavender
[ just a ton of stuff be gone ]
>
>But when someone simply says "The best book of all time is _The
>Belgariad_ by David Eddings," I think we can feel somewhat justified
>in guessing that this person is some 18-year-old computer science
>student who hasn't read a hell of a lot, and until he or she does and
>can argue the point, that his or her opinion doesn't have much weight.
>This is not "Hey, get out of here with your David Eddings and don't
>come back till you've read Dostoyevsky"--but who can take
>him/her/it/them seriously? And when the only counterargument is the
>skeptical "My opinion is worth as much as yours because it's all
>subjective anyway," since this is only a reassertion of what we
>already know (you like the book) and tells us nothing of value about
>either you or the book, there's no reason to accord it any more
>seriousness.
>
>I'd be happy to read a real argument to the effect that Eddings is
>good, as long as it's not along the lines that "I like it and that's
>that" or "it's mind candy and sometimes you need mind candy." Maybe
>so, but it's not gonna convince the doubters. But if someone wants to
>argue that there's more to Eddings than he's given credit for, or that
>we're reading him in an inapproriate way and judged by the right
>standards he's good--great. Let's hear it. *No one* I've ever seen
>on the net has tried to make such arguments--they always just say
>"It's good cuz I like it and you're lit'ry snobs if you disagree."
>
Just what are the standards? I might try to take a stab at this, just
because even the Devil needs an advocate, but What makes Dostoevsky good?
This (oft repeated) discussion has not yet said what makes a book GOOD.
And for extra credit, don't use examples.
>--
>* Rod Johnson
>* r...@umich.edu
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good evening London. Its nine | "Repent Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman |
o'clock and this is The Voice |------------------------------------------|
of Fate" V for Vendetta | Hello |
Bret Jolly
> And some read Nabokov and Kafka and Shakespeare and tons of other
>classics, and still see something worthwhile in Shannara.
Yeah? Who? If you're putting yourself forward as
an example, prepare to be grilled, because I don't
believe it. And reading the Cliff's notes for Nabokov,
Kafka, Shakespeare, et al., doesn't count.
R o d Johnson
>I've had 'going to sleep' problems with some of Heinleins later books, but
>Friday wasn't one of them. I actually got through "Number of the Beast and
>Time Enough for Love" somehow
Yeah, that was a long one. I've often felt it should have been split
into two books. . .
;)
Sea Wasp
>In article <14...@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sea...@vm2.cis.pitt.edu
>(Sea Wasp) writes:
>> And some read Nabokov and Kafka and Shakespeare and tons of other
>>classics, and still see something worthwhile in Shannara.
> Yeah? Who?
Myself, for one.
If you're putting yourself forward as
>an example, prepare to be grilled,
Odd. I don't think I volunteered to be grilled. Flamed, perhaps,
but not grilled.
because I don't
>believe it.
I see. And what would make you believe it? That, after reading such
works, I would have the same feelings and interpretations about them that
you do, and yet adhere to my opinions viz. Shannara? Or would I be allowed
to differ with you? And to what extent?
And reading the Cliff's notes for Nabokov,
>Kafka, Shakespeare, et al., doesn't count.
I haven't read a Cliff Note in my life. A rather silly, and cheap,
attempt at a dig.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
graham.j.wills
>>There are ways to talk about what opinion is most
>>valid in discussing books. Because, just like in
>>science and math, knowledge does make a difference.
>>And so does smarts. So, some folks start out reading,
>>say, Eddings. They love it. Then they become better,
> It's a matter of opinion... and so is your opinion that there's
>a difference. Not everyone ascribes to it. I don't.
> And no, even if true, it doesn't give me pause. I consider my taste
>to be infinitely superior to anyone elses -- FOR ME. And since *I* am the
>one doing the reading, in this case, I cannot help but be perfectly, and
>infallibly, correct about which book is better...
At this stage in the debate, we are back to the usual position:
1) Some people feel that goodness does not directly equate with enjoyment.
2) Some people say that it does.
3) Some people say it's all relative.
However, if it's all relative we lose out on the fun of debating relative
merits of books (as there are none) and it makes it very difficult to draw
up a list of books for classes, etc.
Since opinions on good books are as strongly divided as opinions on good
presidents, maybe a simple vote is the way to go.
But although everyone experiences each candidate (ad nauseum) the same is
not true of books. How can I say which is better of Anna Karenin and
La Recherche de Temps Perdue when I've only read the former?
A better method might be a weighted vote, whereby a set of candidates
for the title, "Best book", are voted upon by anyone with sufficient
interest and more weight given to people who have read more of them.
This method would depend on (1) getting a good list and (2) expecting
people to be truthful in saying which books they've read.
The first could be achieved reasonably well by a pre-vote, to set the field,
whereas the second must be left to the integrity of the rabble.
Any thoughts? Workable? I'm a statistician so the mechanics would present
little difficulty.
-Graham Wills
Matthew Newman
> In article <1993Jun22.1...@leland.Stanford.EDU> jba...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joel Kent Baxter) writes:
>
> >I'm a bit puzzled by this thread. The only possible reason I can see for
> >someone saying that one book is better than another, even though they "enjoyed"
> >the latter book more, is an admission by that person that they have poor
> >tastes in literature, and an acknowledgement that more qualified people would
> >have a different opinion.
> I don't see how this follows. I enjoy loafing around more than I enjoy
> an aerobic workout on the Stairmaster, but there's not much doubt in my
> mind that the latter is better for me. Or for almost anyone.
Yes, but the crux of this is in how you define 'better.'
For example, in your statement, (I assume) you mean that the
Stairmaster is 'better' because it will improve your cardiovascular
health. However, if I define 'better' to mean reducing my risk of
injury, then perhaps it is better to loaf. Or if 'better' means
enjoying myself, then loafing may again be better for me, but not
for someone who hates to do nothing.
This is the problem with your argument: not only must we select who
decides which books (or any works of art) are better, but we must also
select who decides the criteria for 'betterness.' It is only when
these criteria can be agreed upon in advance that a discussion of
better even makes any sense.
Matt Newman
m...@noaacrd.colorado.edu
Gharlane of Eddore
> In <1993Jun21.2...@walter.bellcore.com>
> t...@danny.bellcore.com (Ted Ko) writes:
>
> > In direct answer to your question, though, I say yes, if I'd rather
> > read Beach Bunnies of Gor than Wuthering Heights than my opinion is
> > that BBoG is a better book and that opinion is as valid as yours.
> > A definition of better is relative to the standards of the reader
> > so why try to define an absolute "better" scale?
>
> AAAAAAAAaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Run! Run! It's starting again! STOP ME
> BEFORE I FLAME AGAIN! :)
> Seriously, Ted, the arguments have all boiled down to the following:
> 1) "Better is purely subjective, thus what I like is better."
> 2) "There really are objective standards of 'better', and on
> those standards, X, Y, and Z fail to be better than *****."
>
> I haven't seen anyone be CONVERTED from one basic point of view
> to another. Those who hold opinion (1) think that the (2)s are
> pompous elitist windbags and those who hold opinion (2) think that
> the (1)s are uneducated barbarian louts.
>
>
> Me? I think that "better" is purely subjective when it comes to
> writing. Otherwise I can't imagine why there would be people who would
> rate "Childhood's End" as better than "Moon is a Harsh Mistress".
>
> Sea Wasp
> /^\
> ;;;
"CHILDHOOD'S END" and "THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS" are both good
books about entirely different things. I believe that TMIAHM
represents better work on the basis of the factual material dealt
with, and the study and preparation that had to go into its creation;
it is altogether a more splendid piece of work.
But "CHILDHOOD'S END" had an entirely different message and goal,
and in terms of economy, simplicity, and sheer wonder, *it* might
be said to be a better book.
In short, they're both good books. Go read both of them.
Now. Where can I find a copy of "BEACH BUNNIES OF GOR," preferably
in hardback? I'll want to get it autographed, of course, and
keep it forever and ever.
Bronis Vidugiris
)Don't try to judge the _books_ - it's a fool's errand. Judge
)the _people who read them_! You need to be an expert to judge
)books, but any fool can judge people and few shirk at the
)chance.
An interesting idea. It took a little thought for me to realize that I don't
think it works very well - I don't think one can judge a person by the books he reads very
well, alas, more information is generally needed.
Dani Zweig
>Now. Where can I find a copy of "BEACH BUNNIES OF GOR," preferably
>in hardback? I'll want to get it autographed, of course, and
>keep it forever and ever.
Oh, did I say "Beach Bunnies of Gor"? I'm so sorry! The book I meant
to refer to was "Dust Bunnies Galore". There was noise on the line.
-----
Dani Zweig
da...@netcom.com
The surface of the strange, forbidden planet was roughly textured and green,
much like cottage cheese gets way after the date on the lid says it is all
right to buy it.--Scott Jones
R o d Johnson
>In article <1993Jun23.1...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> djd...@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
>>There are
>>objective ways to determine whether someone has understood what they've
>>read -- at the grade school level they're called "comprehension tests."
>>Remember those?
> Yes, and I remember clearly that those tests were so much bull.
He's right, you know.
As someone who used to make his living writing and administering such
tests, I can testify that (1) they're *damn* hard to construct--you
throw out fifty times as many attempts as you use because there's just
way too much room for interpretation, (2) you only get predictable
results on the most trivial passages, and (3) the problem of
validating them is a real bear. what they test, if they test
anything, is the test-taker's ability to match the judgments of the
test-writer, or the test-taker's ability to weed out obviously absurd
alternatives. Neither one has much obvious to do with "comprehension"
or "literal meaning".
R o d Johnson
>Shakespeare Did write heroic fantasy, mayhap not alot, but he wrote it. How
>would you describe Hamlet?
"Neurotic fantasy."
Seriously, what's heroic about "Hamlet"?
R o d Johnson
OK, I'll bite.
I read Nabokov, Kafka and Shakespeare (in fact, I'm just rereading
"Pale Fire" right now). I've never read Shannara but I'm sure I've
read things you'd consider equally trashy. I just read "Domes of
Fire" by David Eddings, and while I didn't think it was great
literature, I hereby state that I saw "something worthwhile" in it.
Grill away, big shot.
R o d Johnson
< (About distinction of motion pictures into two categories,
<"Films" and "Movies", with the latter category including "Star Wars"
<and "Gone With the Wind")
<<This distinction was initially intuitive to me, but I've tried
<<to think about it seriously since.
< It certainly isn't intuitive to ME. Where do you put "Casablanca"
<in that list? Is it a Film or a Movie?
Definitely a Movie.
I can still remember when "Casablanca" was widely seen as the trashy,
entertaining cornball romance it is, before Woody Allen repopularized
it and whole gobs of moviegoers learned to mouth the words to all of
Bogie's speeches along with him. Now a who generation of people who
wouldn't know Howard Hawks or John Ford if they rose from the grave
and sank their choppers into their butts think "Casablanca" is "a
great Film." Gih.
Oops, sorry, pet peeve. Wrong newsgroup.
R o d Johnson
>ghar...@nextnet.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore):
>>Now. Where can I find a copy of "BEACH BUNNIES OF GOR," preferably
>>in hardback? I'll want to get it autographed, of course, and
>>keep it forever and ever.
>Oh, did I say "Beach Bunnies of Gor"? I'm so sorry! The book I meant
>to refer to was "Dust Bunnies Galore". There was noise on the line.
Hey, that's "*The* Dust Bunnies Galore", PAL. Your credibility is
*just* about shot around here anyway after that "The Bridge of Birds"
gaffe. Thanks god we have vigilant rogue-article spotters around to
keep people like you from ruining everything by letting content creep
into these threads.
"God, I love these literary discussions."
Curtis Yarvin
>
>An interesting idea. It took a little thought for me to realize that
>I don't think it works very well - I don't think one can judge a
>person by the books he reads very well, alas, more information is
>generally needed.
No! No! You have it absolutely bass-ackwards.
You don't judge the person by the books he reads -
you judge the book by the people who read it.
This only pushes off the subjective/objective debate, of course, but
it makes it a lot more fun. An argument over literary merits will
drive snails underground. An argument over personal merits is much
more interesting and often provides excellent spectator opportunities
despite today's repressive dueling regulations.
c
Nancy Lebovitz
>>BEFORE I FLAME AGAIN! :)
>>writing. Otherwise I can't imagine why there would be people who would
>>rate "Childhood's End" as better than "Moon is a Harsh Mistress".
>
>We are able to define standards of excellence. Period.
>
I wonder about "the test of time"--aside from it being useless for new
books, I also wonder if there are books which are wonderful for people
in one decade and then lose their savor because people's interests
have changed.....Books like that (and people who write them) might
still be worthy of respect, even if the books would only be reread
for historical reasons.
--
Nancy Lebovitz calligraphic button catalogue available by email (170K)
na...@genie.slhs.udel.edu
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>In article <1993Jun23.1...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> djd...@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
>>Well, no, it isn't. There are clear objective criteria -- does the book's
>>style convey whateverinhell it's trying to convey? Is it reasonably coherent?
>...tell me how one can "objectively" determine, in a way that
>leaves no room for disgareement:
> a. what a book's style *is*;
By pointing to the book. How it's written is its style.
> b. what that style conveys (to whom? when?) (can a style "convey"?);
By reading the book. That tells you what that style conveys to you, at that
time. I grant, however, that I'm using a technical meaning of the word "style"
which pretty much negates (I was going to say "deconstructs," but I don't want
to re-open *THAT* can of worms) the style/content distinction, to wit:
Style is the words and punctuation and what-all else that make up a text --
or, rather, the patterns in which they are used.
Content isn't in a book at all, it's the product of the reading process in the
mind of a reader.
> c. what the (book? style? author?) is "trying" to convey;
Bad terminology on my part. Books don't try to do anything; they just are. The
author may have intended to convey something, but isn't there to explain it to
you. This phrase, more technically put, is "what a reading of the text might
be reasonably expected to produce."
> d. whether b. and c. match;
b. is what happens to a specific reader; c. is a critical construct concerning
a mythical ideal reader.
> e. what the criteria for coherence are
Oh, you know. Things like "grammar" and "continuity," unless there's a good
sound reason for their violation. In nontechnical terminology, that a books
details are in harmony with its overall plan; the technical (deintentionalized)
way of saying this would be far more complex. In fact, I'm going to use the
simpler terminology from here out unless there's a good reason to make the
distinction.
>These are all extremely non-trivial questions. But they also contain
>all sorts of assumptions about the point of writing and reading that
>are extremely questionable, to wit:
>
> f. that the goal of books is to "convey" something
Even if it's "only" a story, *something* must be "conveyed" effectively for
the text to succeed.
> g. that style is the crucial vehicle for this "conveying"
Style (the patterning of words, punctuation, etc.) is the *only* vehicle for
"conveying" *anything* in a text.
> h. that what the [book|style|author]'s is trying to "convey" is the
> ultimate criterion for interpretation.
That presumption is not present in my previous article. Reverting to technical
terminology for a moment: the "ultimate" criterion for evaluation, because it
is the *only* available criterion for evaluating a text, is the product of the
reading process. This exists only in specific readerly minds; the critical job
is to explore and evaluate the space of products a given text may reasonably be
expected to produce when read by various readers.
>In my field (linguistics) we have a situation where people can't even
>"objectively" agree on the correct representation for sentences, and
>you wave your hands and tell us that it's possible to do it more the
>vastly more complex, and even more underdetermined question of
>literary meaning, and *then* extrapolate from that into normative
>questions like literary worth? Yer nuts!
No offense, but I've been through linguistics and out the back end and I think
modern linguistics attacks the problem from the wrong end: to wit, the problem
of generation. Why worry about "representing" a sentence at all? Language in
human brains isn't "represented"; it's generated and interpreted.
Literary meaning isn't underdetermined. If anything, it's *overdetermined*, in
that almost *any* text generates contradictory meanings when read, meanings
which the readers who generated them find compelling, and which cannot be
reconciled short of acknowledging the presence of contradictory "currents" of
interpretable matter in the text.
(Jeez. If I really believe that, how can I hope to communicate? Real easy.
I'm not a linguist, I'm a writer, and I have faith in the minds of my readers.)
>>This is a fundamental test. Even a "fuckwit," to use your delightfully
>>descriptive term, can usually apply it.
>
>OK, go ahead, show us (oops, I hope that doesn't sound like I'm
>backhandedly implying you're a "fuckwit"), if it's so easy to apply.
>Don't forget, this has to be "objective".
Fine. Give me a text to apply it to. The problem is, the application is
so bloody *trivial* that you won't see much.
I mean, I can take a text like Robert Frost's "Stopping by Woods. . ." and
look it over and say, "Yup, it's coherent, it's grammatical." What have you
or I gained?
Give me a text like AE Van Vogt's SLAN or NULL-A, and I can go through it in
detail and show why it *isn't* coherent, though it is grammatical. There's a
bit more to be gained here, but Damon Knight already did it. Ditto for any
other SF text which is incoherent on this level.
Interpretation *starts* being interesting when you have a text which passes
these gross-level tests.
>>Other criteria are more complex. They require education and experience to
>>apply, and sometimes even to understand. The general idea of such criteria
>>is to determine what the book is attempting to accomplish, and to determine
>>how well it accomplishes it.
AAARGH! My own terminology again. "The general idea of such criteria," I
should have written in a more technical mode, "is to determine the space of
expectations readers might reasonably be expected to generate when reading a
text, and to determine whether, in the course of reading, these expectations
might reasonably be fulfilled." Note that the fulfilment of expectations is
itself a part of the reader's performance in reading: the text is a guide for
that performance. Thus, the second part decomposes further to "whether the
reader, in following the text through the reading process, might reasonably
be expected to fulfill the expectations s/he has generated along the way."
These expectation can be on the level of plot, or character, or "deeper"
levels of meaning.
>Or else, the basic purpose of all that education is to develop tastes
>that are in sync with other people of education, in which case, as Ryk
>says, you're talking about groupthink, not "objective" standards.
I disagree. If one accepts that there is an objective thing to be studied,
then objective study thereof is not "groupthink" but realism. Physicists
agree on the rules for behavior of gross bodies. Is this groupthink? Anyone
who claims that Newton's laws don't apply to gross bodies in non-relativistic
frames is considered *wrong*. Is this failure to respect the opinions of the
individual?
Laissez les bontemps roulez. Please, for all our
sakes. Laissez les bontemps roulez.
-- Alan Moore
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, Net.Roach
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>>3) Nabokov, Kafka, and Shakespeare don't write heroic fantasy. One can be
>>an "educated" reader in one genre and not in another. (One occasionally spots
>>this in the "slumming" professor of literature who *prefers* trashy SF *for*
>>its trashiness.) Reading Wolfe or Russ requires a breadth of taste and
>>knowledge as complex as those required for Nabokov et al -- but *NOT* the
>>same.
>>
>Shakespeare Did write heroic fantasy, mayhap not alot, but he wrote it. How
>would you describe Hamlet?
A play, and a psychological drama. You'd have done better to mention A
MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM, or THE TEMPEST. But even these are not "heroic
fantasies." Both are plays. One is a romantic comedy, the other is a
romance pure and simple. Both are also fantastic, but are not particularly
heroic.
>Now, the question becomes, just *what was* the book getting at? And Don't tell
>me it's obvious.
I won't. Instead, I'll refer you to my previous discussion of this, in a note
I posted a few moments ago addressed to R O D.
>Why is it always readers of "Quality" books who try to convince readers of
>"trash" books? Is it a deep seated need for approval? An honest urge to
>raise up those worse off than yourselves? What is it that causes prosetylization
>in otherwise inoffensive people?
Probably the same thing that makes non-smokers try to get their smoking friends
to cut down.
Caring about other people's wellbeing, you know.
>>I suppose it all depends on what you mean by "better." If you refuse to
>>accept the idea that facts are important, then by all means you can live
>>in whatever subjective fantasy land you choose.
>Click. Minor flaw in understanding encountered. Better is by definition
>a subjective term, a purely OPINION statement. Wherein do facts show up?
Is it?
I have two hammers, one a claw and one a sledge. If I want to pound a nail, the
claw hammer is objectively *BETTER*.
I might *prefer* the sledgehammer because I look so bitchen wielding it -- but
"good" can have objective meanings outside any personal preference; and "better"
is merely the comparative form of "good."
>>This last brings us perilously close to the realm of Godwin's Law of Nazi
>>Analogies. I, of course, am not calling you or anyone else a Nazi, but
>>surely it is inevitable that someone will think I am, and the end of the
>>discussion is near.
>Never heard of this, what is it?
Oh. Mike Godwin has proposed that when someone calls someone else a Nazi, or
uses Nazism as an analogy for their opponent's viewpoint, an argument has pretty
well used up its real content. I tend to agree.
>>Three cheers for an elitism that values fact over opinion!
>Fact is an illusion, go watch a good magician. EVERYTHING is an opinion. But
>that is more of a philosophical discussion than a book argument.
Fine, sir. The Holocaust never happened, and the Earth is flat. These are
opinions and as legitimate as their contraries.
Likewise, it is my perfectly legitimate opinion that anyone who thinks that
all opinions are of equal value and facts don't exist is a bonehead.
>> Laissez les bontemps roulez. Please, for all our
>> sakes. Laissez les bontemps roulez.
>> -- Alan Moore
>What's this say?
"Laissez les bontemps roulez" is Cajun French for "Let the good times roll."
Alan Moore is one of the finest writers of comics alive today.
Joseph M Green-1
>"Neurotic fantasy."
V,II,342: The dash in "O, I could tell you -- But let it be." Hamlet --
had he but time -- could have explained what was really going on --
whether he was fat, why he took notes when his father's ghost appeared, etc.
-- but chose not to and thereby hanged a tale that, if it were told,
would have denied sustenance to perhaps thousands of professors of
English literature.
Sea Wasp
>I disagree. If one accepts that there is an objective thing to be studied,
>then objective study thereof is not "groupthink" but realism. Physicists
>agree on the rules for behavior of gross bodies. Is this groupthink? Anyone
>who claims that Newton's laws don't apply to gross bodies in non-relativistic
>frames is considered *wrong*. Is this failure to respect the opinions of the
>individual?
The difference is that you can demonstrate, beyond any possibility
of argument, that the basic principles of Newton apply -- that object
in motion will run you over, reguardless of your belief in it. (Or, to
use my favorite example for the "reality relatavists", "Anyone who believes
in the relative nature of reality is invited to debate the matter with
an oncoming bullet. The bullet's answer will be swift, decisive, and utterly
final.")
One can also demonstrate these laws to people without respect for
their cultural upbringing or even to some extent for their education (at
least demonstrate the basic principles thereof, though whether they learn
to apply these laws in their daily lives is another question entirely).
If this literary phenomenon IS objective, you should first be
able to prove its objectivity; I don't think you can.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
graham.j.wills
>>Now. Where can I find a copy of "BEACH BUNNIES OF GOR," preferably
>>in hardback? I'll want to get it autographed, of course, and
>>keep it forever and ever.
>
>Oh, did I say "Beach Bunnies of Gor"? I'm so sorry! The book I meant
>to refer to was "Dust Bunnies Galore". There was noise on the line.
>
I thought you were referring to the book "Busts, Buns and More!" by
Playmate books inc. Looks like the long-prophesised end to the net
may be arriving ...
-Graham Wills
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>Just what are the standards? I might try to take a stab at this, just
>because even the Devil needs an advocate, but What makes Dostoevsky good?
>This (oft repeated) discussion has not yet said what makes a book GOOD.
>And for extra credit, don't use examples.
Hah. Very well, I won't, just to be contrary.
There is no single thing that makes a book "good." There are a number of
factors -- dimensions of evaluation, if you will -- which contribute to an
overall judgement. A book can rate extremely well on some of these "dimensions"
and yet be quite bad on a number of others.
For each of the dimensions, there are various levels of evaluation, which I am
dubbing "simple" "intermediate" and "complex." A "good read" should meet at
least the "simple" criteria for most of these dimensions.
Note that this is an off-the-top-of-the-head list. I don't claim that it's
complete, or that I've defined/described my dimensions well. I don't even
claim that I wouldn't change my mind about some of them if I had more time to
work this out. I *do* claim that this is a first hack at some standards by
which fiction may be evaluated.
Are they "objective?" Only to this extent: a group of readers with common
backgrounds should be able to come to near-consensus on them concerning a
given text.
Note, that rating a given text highly in these dimensions doesn't mean that
the person doing the rating *likes* the text; but rather that the person doing
the rating recognizes that the text deserves a degree of *respect* for its
accomplishment of certain things. Example: I personally don't like Henry
James' novels. But I have in all honesty to rate them highly on most of these
dimensions.
What this means is that there are standards for "goodness" which I acknowledge
to be outside my personal taste, while at the same time acknowledging the
freedom of personal taste to like or dislike something.
To analogize: Food can be good for me or bad for me, and I can like it or
dislike it, but these two do not go together:
-------------------------------------------
| LIKE: | DISLIKE: |
-------------------------------------------
GOOD FOR ME: | Whole-grain cereals | Broccoli |
-------------------------------------------
BAD FOR ME: | McDonalds' Big Mac | Pork Cracklings |
-------------------------------------------
Likewise, to say a book is good or bad is a rating of its more objective
qualities -- and *NOT* of whether any given person likes it, or even whether
they *should* like it.
It is greatly tempting to many of us say that people "should" like the more
complex works, that a taste for these is "better." It is not. The *works*
may be better, but that does not imply any special virtue inherent to a person
who prefers them.
Some of these dimensions that might be used are:
Style (simple): Does the language communicate? Or is the reader forced to
struggle unnecessarily with it to understand what a more competent writer might
have said more straightforwardly? Note that this does *not* mean that all
writing should be simple/straightforward; it *does* mean that syntax/grammar/
semantics should not be tangled without a solid artistic reason, which a reader
can determine for him/her self from the context of the book.
Style (intermediate): Is the language euphonous? Or does it clatter on the
(mental) ear? Not to say that every writer should be a poet, but a poetic
beauty of language is a definite plus -- and, provided the previous rubric is
properly observed, will not interfere with the enjoyment of the reader deaf to
such considerations. Excellent examples are Tolkien, Sturgeon, and Shirley
Jackson.
Style (complex): Does the language itself, by its rhythms, word choices, and
patterns add to the meaning a reader may extract from a story?
Imagery (simple): Does the text produce clear, unambiguous pictures of whatever
the story's "actions" and "scenes" are, in the reader's mind?
Imagery (intermediate): Do the images please?
Imagery (complex): Do the images add meaning beyond their surface? (Sometimes
called symbolism, but that is an abuse of this word.)
Character (simple): Do the characters in a story have clear, well-defined
motivations? Are their actions consistent with these motivations?
Character (intermediate): Do the characters have "being" beyond the immediacy
of the story? Can the reader imagine what they did before the story began, and
what they will be doing after it ends? (A story which meets this criterion
fully will rarely have a true "villain," but only an antagonist, because the
"villain," to be truly villainous, is almost always limited in scope.)
Characters (complex): Do the characters represent something universal in/about
humankind? Can we not merely identify but *empathize* with them?
Drama/plot (simple): Does the story "hang together?" Does it answer the
questions it seems to have raised? Is there a sense of a beginning and an
ending?
Drama/plot (intermediate): Does the story surprise, and do these surprises
arise logically from what has gone before?
Drama/plot (complex): Do the various plot threads complement/contrast with
each other to produce an organic whole?
********************************************************************************
There are several other dimensions, but, hell, I'm not getting paid for this,
am I?
Fiona Webster
> I don't see how this follows. I enjoy loafing around more than I enjoy
> an aerobic workout on the Stairmaster, but there's not much doubt in my
> mind that the latter is better for me. Or for almost anyone.
I've heard some strange things from the mouth of Godwin, but this one
takes the prize. This is rec.arts.books after all, not misc.fitness.
Physical "loafing around," for most of us here, almost always includes
a vigorous mental workout with the book-o'-the-moment. How can one
compare the long-term benefits of half an hour on the Stairmaster to
half an hour of reading? And we haven't even talked about the *rest*
of the day yet: if you do your half hour on the Stairmaster, it it still
not as "good" to spend the rest of the day "loafing" and reading? Or is
Godwin seriously suggesting that in an ideal world, he would spend his
entire waking life on the Stairmaster?
I want to hear an elaboration on the word "better." If cardiovascular
fitness and longevity are being invoked as the criteria for what's "good"
for you, Mike, then...well, I'm stunned, quite frankly.
--Fiona
Sea Wasp
>>And for extra credit, don't use examples.
>Hah. Very well, I won't, just to be contrary.
But you DO. In a passage I shall quote in a moment...
>There is no single thing that makes a book "good." There are a number of
>factors -- dimensions of evaluation, if you will -- which contribute to an
>overall judgement.
[crush kill destroy delete...]
>Are they "objective?" Only to this extent: a group of readers with common
>backgrounds should be able to come to near-consensus on them concerning a
>given text.
I dunno about this. Unless you're going to vary your "background"
criteria as needed, I know a LOT of people whom *I* would evaluate as
having "similar backgrounds" to myself, who would disagree strongly with
me and others on some of your criteria. I'm not going to go through
the whole list... It's late... but I'll give two examples:
[... remove more text ... ]
>Some of these dimensions that might be used are:
>Style (simple): Does the language communicate? Or is the reader forced to
>struggle unnecessarily with it to understand what a more competent writer might
>have said more straightforwardly? Note that this does *not* mean that all
>writing should be simple/straightforward; it *does* mean that syntax/grammar/
>semantics should not be tangled without a solid artistic reason, which a reader
>can determine for him/her self from the context of the book.
Primary examples of contradictions to this thesis (i.e., examples
indicating that whether a style is good at communicating, whether it
is in need of a "more competent writer", is dependent on personal opinion):
Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, A.E. Van Vogt, Stephen Donaldson, Tolkien.
I happen to like all of the above. So do many people with whom I
am acquainted, and who share at least some of my background. On the other
hand, a similar proportion of similarly-backgrounded people (hmm. Backgrounded.
Is that a word?) find them all too verbose in the wrong places, impenetrable
in their jungles of description -- and usually unnecessary description.
Since I and my "pro" friends apparently find clear and useful (if not
necessary) what my "con" friends find obscure and irrelevant, with no
clear difference of background to separate the two groups, I challenge
this particular standard.
>Style (intermediate): Is the language euphonous? Or does it clatter on the
>(mental) ear?
Oh, PLEASE!
>such considerations. Excellent examples are Tolkien, Sturgeon, and Shirley
>Jackson.
Above you use examples....
In any case, how you could type the above with a straight face is
utterly beyond me. One person's "euphonous" is another person's "clattering" --
in writing style as well as in music. I find Van Vogt's style evocative ,
almost poetic in spots. Other people find him clanky, hopelessly clumsy in
his wording. The same applies to Tolkien or virtually any other author
you care to name, from Heinlein to Card to Brooks to Cook.
>Imagery (simple): Does the text produce clear, unambiguous pictures of whatever
>the story's "actions" and "scenes" are, in the reader's mind?
Again, it's a matter of opinion whether this is even a DESIRABLE
quality to HAVE in a book, let alone whether you can judge this quality
in an even vaguely objective fashion. Some people consider anything but
the sparsest description to be a waste of space. If you can't even agree
that the quality is wanted, you certainly can't begin to define it as
a quality on which the "goodness" of a book is to be judged.
That's enough for now, but I'd HOPE this makes the point clear.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Christopher Lee Cavender
really interested just in which book is better, I think I better thing to
try and collect would be a list of books, that Enhanced other books you had
read or read after them. Wether the book itself was good is immaterial, that
it effected your futher reading in a benefical way is what I am after. A
book that was so bad that from then on you had something to compare all trash
to ranks as important as one that was so good, all had to compete with it.
I feel collecting these sort of books would be much more usefull, especially
for class reading lists, which is the only reason for such debates outside of
personal amusment since most if not all of the contibutars will not be swayed
from their positions.
Chris
Christopher Lee Cavender
>In article <1993Jun23.2...@njitgw.njit.edu> cxc...@hertz.njit.edu (Christopher Lee Cavender) writes:
>
>
>>>3) Nabokov, Kafka, and Shakespeare don't write heroic fantasy. One can be
>>>an "educated" reader in one genre and not in another. (One occasionally spots
>>>this in the "slumming" professor of literature who *prefers* trashy SF *for*
>>>its trashiness.) Reading Wolfe or Russ requires a breadth of taste and
>>>knowledge as complex as those required for Nabokov et al -- but *NOT* the
>>>same.
>>>
>>would you describe Hamlet?
>
>MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM, or THE TEMPEST. But even these are not "heroic
>fantasies." Both are plays. One is a romantic comedy, the other is a
>romance pure and simple. Both are also fantastic, but are not particularly
>heroic.
>
a main character (Hero) who fought a major character (Villian) with various
other stuff occuring. Generaly it had at least one major fight.
>
>>Why is it always readers of "Quality" books who try to convince readers of
>>"trash" books? Is it a deep seated need for approval? An honest urge to
>>raise up those worse off than yourselves? What is it that causes prosetylization
>>in otherwise inoffensive people?
>
>Probably the same thing that makes non-smokers try to get their smoking friends
>to cut down.
This bugs me too, BTW.
>
>Caring about other people's wellbeing, you know.
I know it causes cancer, and will probably kill me. Joy. I also know that
SOMETHING is GOING to kill me, be it cancer, heart attack or Large Truck. I
would prefer to enjoy myself while I can. I also oversalt my food. ;)
>
>
>>>I suppose it all depends on what you mean by "better." If you refuse to
>>>accept the idea that facts are important, then by all means you can live
>>>in whatever subjective fantasy land you choose.
>
>>Click. Minor flaw in understanding encountered. Better is by definition
>>a subjective term, a purely OPINION statement. Wherein do facts show up?
>
>Is it?
>
>I have two hammers, one a claw and one a sledge. If I want to pound a nail, the
>claw hammer is objectively *BETTER*.
>
>I might *prefer* the sledgehammer because I look so bitchen wielding it -- but
>"good" can have objective meanings outside any personal preference; and "better"
>is merely the comparative form of "good."
>
But what if you are pounding nails to impress women?
>
>>>This last brings us perilously close to the realm of Godwin's Law of Nazi
>>>Analogies. I, of course, am not calling you or anyone else a Nazi, but
>>>surely it is inevitable that someone will think I am, and the end of the
>>>discussion is near.
>
>>Never heard of this, what is it?
>
>Oh. Mike Godwin has proposed that when someone calls someone else a Nazi, or
>uses Nazism as an analogy for their opponent's viewpoint, an argument has pretty
>well used up its real content. I tend to agree.
>
I'll buy it. Seems reasonable.
>
>>>Three cheers for an elitism that values fact over opinion!
>
>>Fact is an illusion, go watch a good magician. EVERYTHING is an opinion. But
>>that is more of a philosophical discussion than a book argument.
>
>Fine, sir. The Holocaust never happened, and the Earth is flat. These are
>opinions and as legitimate as their contraries.
>
>Likewise, it is my perfectly legitimate opinion that anyone who thinks that
>all opinions are of equal value and facts don't exist is a bonehead.
>
Boy I love a good hopeless argument sometimes. Actually only my opinions is
of value as all reality is in actualty a shifting veil of Illusion, Mara, a
realm that my perception shapes into being around me. Therefore the earth may
be flat, I haven't seen it yet.
But this meglomanical raving was not my origanel point. Facts are
perefectly legitamet, but they are still indivualed belived. When I was younger
I didn't beleive that light and heavy objects fell at the same rate. One was
heavier, it HAD to fall faster. This had to be proven to me many times to
convince me. The FACT existed, but my OPINION as to the ACCURACY of those
claiming the fact changed. All facts are the same, but who can tell Fact from
Theory? Long ago it was Fact that the Earth was the center of the universe.
(BTW, toss a single smily in the philosaphy, I don't REALLY think I'm Dot)
(Well, only on the fith friday of the month)
>
>>> Laissez les bontemps roulez. Please, for all our
>>> sakes. Laissez les bontemps roulez.
>>> -- Alan Moore
>>What's this say?
>
>"Laissez les bontemps roulez" is Cajun French for "Let the good times roll."
>
>Alan Moore is one of the finest writers of comics alive today.
>
I agree, witness my new .sig.
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>In article <1993Jun25.1...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> djd...@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
>>>And for extra credit, don't use examples.
>>Hah. Very well, I won't, just to be contrary.
> But you DO. In a passage I shall quote in a moment...
O, well, there goes my extra credit. (Forgot about this part, I got so
involved in what I was saying:*))
>>Are they "objective?" Only to this extent: a group of readers with common
>>backgrounds should be able to come to near-consensus on them concerning a
>>given text.
> I dunno about this. Unless you're going to vary your "background"
>criteria as needed, I know a LOT of people whom *I* would evaluate as
>having "similar backgrounds" to myself, who would disagree strongly with
>me and others on some of your criteria. I'm not going to go through
>the whole list... It's late... but I'll give two examples:
The phrase "near-consensus" was deliberate. It was to allow for the fact
that there's a sport in every gene pool, a clown in every tragedy, in short
someone who just goes out of their way not to fit in :*) :*) or at any rate
*doesn't* -- with their so-called peer group -- which I gather you pretty
much are.
One of the points in this set of criteria is that it not only allows for
personal taste, it demands it. The "objectivity" that arises from it is
not one of concrete fact but stochastic/statistical tendency.
>>Style (simple): Does the language communicate? Or is the reader forced to
>>struggle unnecessarily with it to understand what a more competent writer might
>>have said more straightforwardly?...
> Primary examples of contradictions to this thesis (i.e., examples
>indicating that whether a style is good at communicating, whether it
>is in need of a "more competent writer", is dependent on personal opinion):
>
> Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, A.E. Van Vogt, Stephen Donaldson, Tolkien.
>
> I happen to like all of the above. So do many people with whom I
>am acquainted, and who share at least some of my background. On the other
>hand, a similar proportion of similarly-backgrounded people (hmm. Backgrounded.
>Is that a word?) find them all too verbose in the wrong places, impenetrable
>in their jungles of description -- and usually unnecessary description.
>Since I and my "pro" friends apparently find clear and useful (if not
>necessary) what my "con" friends find obscure and irrelevant, with no
>clear difference of background to separate the two groups, I challenge
>this particular standard.
Actually, the problem is that you're trying to apply it on too local a scale.
All of these but Donaldson were raised with different expectations about what
constitutes readable writing, from the expectations today's best-seller-oriented
styles have produced in today's best-seller-oriented readers.
When reading fiction more than a few years old, or that imitates older styles,
a reader who can't put himself into the headset of the period for which that
fiction was written is at a clear disadvantage and probably *not* a competent
judge.
For what it's worth, I agree with your friends about Van Vogt and Verne and
with you about the others. . .
>>Style (intermediate): Is the language euphonous? Or does it clatter on the
>>(mental) ear?
>
> Oh, PLEASE!
Frankly, I'm not surprised this one gave you trouble. . . your own writing
(at least on the Net) shows almost no consideration for the sound of words.
> In any case, how you could type the above with a straight face is
>utterly beyond me. One person's "euphonous" is another person's "clattering" --
>in writing style as well as in music. I find Van Vogt's style evocative ,
>almost poetic in spots.
It is.
In spots.
It's rather like Mark Twain's description of Wagner -- his music has "marvellous
moments, and dreadful half hours."
I honestly suspect, though, that most people who are fascinated by Van Vogt's
"evocative, almost poetic" prose are reacting more to his images than to the
sounds of the words.
>>Imagery (simple): Does the text produce clear, unambiguous pictures of whatever
>>the story's "actions" and "scenes" are, in the reader's mind?
>
> Again, it's a matter of opinion whether this is even a DESIRABLE
>quality to HAVE in a book
At this point I think you've entirely misunderstood the purpose of these
categories, and of what the purpose was in dividing them into simple etc.
No given category is an absolute requirement. No given judgement is an
absolute. These are lists of the kinds of things that can combine to make
a "good" book. Even if a given book managed well in all these categories,
it might *not* be a good book if the parts didn't work together. (Delightful,
delectable, euphonious prose that lolls along with massive Latinate
polysyllables and loads of long vowels combine with a taut action-adventure plot
to produce. . . well, you know.)
And the "levels" of the categories were not intended as a description of the
author's achievement, but the simple/intermediate/complex expectations of
various readers. Indeed, it's possible that a given book may succeed on the
"complex" level of one of these categories without succeeding on the "simple"
level -- James Joyce comes to mind, for some reason. . .
> That's enough for now, but I'd HOPE this makes the point clear.
The only point it makes clear is that you want desparately to believe that
everything is relative so you don't have to do the work of learning.
Laissez les bontemps roulez. Please, for all our
sakes. Laissez les bontemps roulez.
-- Alan Moore
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, Net.Roach
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>>Dan'l Wrote
(etc. as needed)
>>>>3) Nabokov, Kafka, and Shakespeare don't write heroic fantasy...
>>>Shakespeare Did write heroic fantasy...How would you describe Hamlet?
>>A play, and a psychological drama.
>So what is Herioc Fantasy? I (apparently Niavly) assumed it meant there was
>a main character (Hero) who fought a major character (Villian) with various
>other stuff occuring. Generaly it had at least one major fight.
Well, these bits of description are generally true but insufficient. Heroic
fantasy is a particular combination of plot, setting, character, and -- to some
extent -- style.
The story takes place in a world removed from the author's real world, though
perhaps only slightly, and perhaps only by gulfs of time. Examples of worlds
in which heroic fantasy takes place might include Tolkien's Middle-earth,
Le Guin's Earthsea, Leiber's Nehwon, Bradley's Darkover, and Howard's
Hyperborean Age. Note that the Tolkien's and Howard's take place in a mythical
past of our world, Darkover takes place on a hypothetical planet somewhere in
space, and Leiber's and Le Guin's take place in a venue not related to our world
at all.
Generally, "magic" "works" in these worlds. Usually in some way well-defined,
if only in the author's mind, though some writers allow magic to let anything
happen at any time if it seems conducive to what they want to happen in the plot
at that time -- Piers Anthony's "Xanth" and L. Frank Baum's "Oz" books are
examples of this. It can be done well, but that's *very* rare. Magic with
rules/restrictions generally makes for a tauter, more interesting story.
The characters are usually (though not invariably) larger than life. The
protagonist may range from the good-and-pure Lancelot type, to the merely-
human Frodo Baggins type (never mind his species, we're talking about his
personality here), to the flawed-but-likeable Fafhrd-and-the-Grey-Mouser,
to the sullen, unlikeable Thomas Covenant.
Generally, they are on a quest of some sort. There may or may not be a
specific villain as such, but there are inevitably great odds to overcome.
In the purest form, of course, there is a villain, usually the lord of some
castle or land, whose entire army of evil is arrayed against the protagonist
and his/her allies. The quest may be to get some thing or to accomplish some
deed.
As for style, I suggest you look up Ursula K. Le Guin's essay "From Elfland
to Poughkeepsie."
>>Probably the same thing that makes non-smokers try to get their smoking friends
>>to cut down.
>
>This bugs me too, BTW.
Not surprising. . .
>>Caring about other people's wellbeing, you know.
>
>I know it causes cancer, and will probably kill me. Joy. I also know that
>SOMETHING is GOING to kill me, be it cancer, heart attack or Large Truck. I
>would prefer to enjoy myself while I can. I also oversalt my food. ;)
Well, it's like this.
A large truck squishes your head and your dead.
You get emphysema and you live on in pain for *years*.
Maybe the people who wish you would quit/cut down aren't pretending that you'll
live forever -- just that you'll actually enjoy however much life you get more
if you don't spend years of it in chemotherapy.
Maybe the people who try to get others to read "better" books aren't pretending
that there's any ultimate moral value in it -- but they honestly believe, from
their own experience, that the pleasure to be received from these books, is so
much greater that it's worth the initial effort to learn how to read them well.
>>I have two hammers, one a claw and one a sledge. If I want to pound a nail,
>>the claw hammer is objectively *BETTER*. . .
>But what if you are pounding nails to impress women?
*What* planet did you say you came from?
>>>Fact is an illusion, go watch a good magician. EVERYTHING is an opinion. But
>>>that is more of a philosophical discussion than a book argument.
>>
>>Fine, sir. The Holocaust never happened, and the Earth is flat. These are
>>opinions and as legitimate as their contraries.
>>
>>Likewise, it is my perfectly legitimate opinion that anyone who thinks that
>>all opinions are of equal value and facts don't exist is a bonehead.
>Boy I love a good hopeless argument sometimes.
Obviously.
> But this meglomanical raving was not my origanel point. Facts are
>perefectly legitamet, but they are still indivualed belived. When I was younger
>I didn't beleive that light and heavy objects fell at the same rate. One was
>heavier, it HAD to fall faster. This had to be proven to me many times to
>convince me. The FACT existed, but my OPINION as to the ACCURACY of those
>claiming the fact changed. All facts are the same, but who can tell Fact from
>Theory? Long ago it was Fact that the Earth was the center of the universe.
No, it wasn't. It was believed by many. It was not a fact.
Nor did the fact change when you learned that objects accelerate equally
(allowing for air resistance) due to gravity. You were wrong, plain and simple.
Opinions based upon ignorance are almost always wrong. Oddly enough. . .
>>>What's this say?
>>
>>"Laissez les bontemps roulez" is Cajun French for "Let the good times roll."
>>
>>Alan Moore is one of the finest writers of comics alive today.
>>
>I agree, witness my new .sig.
Hai.
Well, you see, the connection between the Cajun phrase and Alan Moore is that
the quote was the final lines Moore wrote at the end of the last issue of his
long run on DC Comics' SWAMP THING series. In context, it's an absolutely
beautiful climax to a long story; out of context, I think it's an excellent
piece of advice to the world at large.
Sea Wasp
>In article <15...@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sea...@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>>In article <1993Jun25.1...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> djd...@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
[I write]
>> I dunno about this. Unless you're going to vary your "background"
>>criteria as needed, I know a LOT of people whom *I* would evaluate as
>>having "similar backgrounds" to myself, who would disagree strongly with
>>me and others on some of your criteria. I'm not going to go through
>The phrase "near-consensus" was deliberate. It was to allow for the fact
>that there's a sport in every gene pool, a clown in every tragedy, in short
>someone who just goes out of their way not to fit in :*) :*) or at any rate
>*doesn't* -- with their so-called peer group -- which I gather you pretty
>much are.
I must confess to being singularly touched by this. You inserted
an entire phrase in order to disallow people like me. Of course, if I'm
such a sport and irrelevant to your "objective" criteria, why do you even
dignify my arguments by replying to them? Seems like it's a waste of
your time.
>One of the points in this set of criteria is that it not only allows for
>personal taste, it demands it. The "objectivity" that arises from it is
>not one of concrete fact but stochastic/statistical tendency.
"Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics." Statistics may show a tendency,
but it's damned hard to *prove* anything with them. Basing your claim to
"objective" standards on something as subject to interpretation and bias
as statistics is NOT helping your case.
>For what it's worth, I agree with your friends about Van Vogt and Verne and
>with you about the others. . .
But you're ignoring the point I was trying to make. Take a group
of people, of similar background to myself. Now, if your comment about my
being the joker in the pack is valid, my opinions should clash with
virtually all, if not all, of this group of people. The "time-of-writing"
effect shouldn't discriminate WITHIN this category of people; that is,
for the most part these people of similar background should like, or dislike,
these "older styles", and I (being the radical and contrary sort that I am)
should be nearly the only one in favor of them.
This does not happen. The split is very close to 50/50, showing
no clear tendency either way, and this is NOT what your "similar background/
statistical" theory would predict.
Or, I suppose, my entire GROUP could all be "jokers" by your
definition, but even granting self-selection on my part it would seem to
me that this indicates there are a LOT more jokers out there than you could
comfortably dismiss with your statistics.
>>>Style (intermediate): Is the language euphonous? Or does it clatter on the
>>>(mental) ear?
>> Oh, PLEASE!
>Frankly, I'm not surprised this one gave you trouble. . . your own writing
>(at least on the Net) shows almost no consideration for the sound of words.
A touch! A definite touch, I do confess it! Sir, you cut me to the
quick!
Really.
I write these things without worrying about style in that sense.
I'm not submitting this for publication. I write essentially the way I
speak, minus an occasional hesitation and/or "ummm".
These are conversations -- albeit conversations stretched out and
with a bit of extra time alloted to each word, but nonetheless conversations;
communications of a sporadic and evanescent nature, rarely if ever preserved
for posterity or even reference. Material I intend to have read and re-read
many times (and especially material I want to be paid for) I write in
a somewhat different manner.
>> That's enough for now, but I'd HOPE this makes the point clear.
>The only point it makes clear is that you want desparately to believe that
>everything is relative so you don't have to do the work of learning.
Come, come, Dan'l. That is either a very cheap shot (if untrue) or
a demonstration that your motives are, at best, confused (if the above
statement is true).
Consider: If what you say is true, your other commentary seems to
indicate you've held this opinion for some time; thus you deliberately
waste a great deal of time and effort arguing with someone who is
(in your view) bullheadedly determined to NEVER agree with you, under
any circumstances.
If I'm that much of a dunderhead, you are spending your time
dynamiting fish in a barrel -- certainly you're hitting your target,
but the fish doesn't have the ability to appreciate your questionable
skill.
If, in turn, the "spectators" agree with you that I am such
a reactionary twit (Mike Godwin obviously does), you're doing the
verbal equivalent of All-Star Wrestling, delivering apparent knockout
blows to an opponent that no one took seriously anyway.
On the other hand, if the "spectators" think I have a point,
cheap comments like the above only serve to weaken your real points.
I think you make some good arguments, but I don't accept that
you can reach *real* objectivity. I especially argue it in the "style"
category. The sound of words -- the *pleasing* sound of words -- is
directly analagous to the sound of music (Hey, get the Von Trapps
out of here!). I have heard "serious music" running the gamut from
the almost mathematical elegance of Bach to the atonal grunting of
some of the 1950+'s composers. Popular music goes from old-style jazz
to the Beatles to Elton John to Hank Williams, Queensryche, Iron Maiden,
Michael Jackson, and MC Hammer.
The same thing is true of styles of writing, and in neither case
do I think you can make a strong case for an OBJECTIVE standard
of "pleasing".
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Fiona Webster
much sf (maybe 1 book, couple of short stories a year), but I'd like
to become better educated about the field. One option, of course, would
be to shell out $75- for the new _Science_Fiction_Encyclopedia_, but
for the time being, I'll keep a rein on my plastic, and read some postings
here.
I've been trying to follow this thread in particular, because its
content--objective vs. subjective assessments of books--has cross-genre
interest. However, I'm havin' trouble with the fact that so many of
y'all refer to authors only by their last names. When the names are
both famous and distinctive (e.g., Heinlein, Asimov) this isn't a problem,
but many of them aren't. So I'd appreciate it if you could enlighten me
as to who these folks are. Just telling me their first names will
probably be sufficient to link them up with some locus of dim knowledge
in my brain.
Donaldson (one of those mega-series writers?)
Brooks (something of Shannara?)
Wolfe (Thomas, Tom, Gene, or someone else?)
Russ (Joanna?)
I did notice that Alan Moore, at least, got *his* full name. Is there an
insider-knowledge reason for that?
--slipping back behind the arras,
Fiona Webster
Christopher Lee Cavender
The upshot of all this, is that it never takes place Right here/Right Now.
All the others you have as conditional's. There fore I reiterate, Shakespeare
wrote Herioc Fiction.
>
>As for style, I suggest you look up Ursula K. Le Guin's essay "From Elfland
>to Poughkeepsie."
>
O.k., gimmie a while for the liberray to order it...
>>>I have two hammers, one a claw and one a sledge. If I want to pound a nail,
>>>the claw hammer is objectively *BETTER*. . .
>
>>But what if you are pounding nails to impress women?
>
>*What* planet did you say you came from?
>
Classified.
>
>
>>>>Fact is an illusion, go watch a good magician. EVERYTHING is an opinion. But
>>>>that is more of a philosophical discussion than a book argument.
>>>
>>>Fine, sir. The Holocaust never happened, and the Earth is flat. These are
>>>opinions and as legitimate as their contraries.
>>>
>>>Likewise, it is my perfectly legitimate opinion that anyone who thinks that
>>>all opinions are of equal value and facts don't exist is a bonehead.
>
>>Boy I love a good hopeless argument sometimes.
>
>Obviously.
>
>
>> But this meglomanical raving was not my origanel point. Facts are
>>perefectly legitamet, but they are still indivualed belived. When I was younger
>>I didn't beleive that light and heavy objects fell at the same rate. One was
>>heavier, it HAD to fall faster. This had to be proven to me many times to
>>convince me. The FACT existed, but my OPINION as to the ACCURACY of those
>>claiming the fact changed. All facts are the same, but who can tell Fact from
>>Theory? Long ago it was Fact that the Earth was the center of the universe.
>
>No, it wasn't. It was believed by many. It was not a fact.
>
>Nor did the fact change when you learned that objects accelerate equally
>(allowing for air resistance) due to gravity. You were wrong, plain and simple.
>
>Opinions based upon ignorance are almost always wrong. Oddly enough. . .
>
>
There is no such thing as an objectivaly observed fact. "An observer affects
the process which he observes" Or something like that. All things, are a matter
of faith. Reality is series of assumptions. The earth is round because I belive
it to be round. If I belived it to be flat, and NOTHING could change my mind
then to me, the flattness of the earth would be a fact. A fact is anything you
beleive to be one. A fact is something that has a 100% probabitly of bieng
true. Our observational processes have at least a .5% error factor. Therefore
nothing is an actual fact, there are almost facts. Like every time a rock is
dropped it will fall, but there is no way of knowing until a rock has been
dropped an infite number of times.
Chris
I really have to sit down and reason out all this stuff, before I post on it;
I am getting disjointed. :(
Mike Godwin
>Yes, but the crux of this is in how you define 'better.'
>For example, in your statement, (I assume) you mean that the
>Stairmaster is 'better' because it will improve your cardiovascular
>health.
And for many other reasons.
> However, if I define 'better' to mean reducing my risk of
>injury, then perhaps it is better to loaf.
Actually, moderate exercise is more likely to reduce your risk of
injury. And Stairmasters are not notably dangerous.
> Or if 'better' means
>enjoying myself, then loafing may again be better for me, but not
>for someone who hates to do nothing.
Fit people generally testify that they enjoy themselves more now than
they did when they were unfit.
>This is the problem with your argument: not only must we select who
>decides which books (or any works of art) are better, but we must also
>select who decides the criteria for 'betterness.'
I don't think we need to select an authority for "betterness" in the
long run. But we need to listen to knowledgeable people before we
can properly become our own authorities and select our own criteria.
> It is only when
>these criteria can be agreed upon in advance that a discussion of
>better even makes any sense.
Lewis Carroll's wonderful dialogue between Achilles and the Tortoise
applies here. The stubborn arguer will simply refuse to accept
premises in order to derail the argument, even when the refusal gets
increasingly ridiculous.
--Mike
Mike Godwin
>I've heard some strange things from the mouth of Godwin, but this one
>takes the prize. This is rec.arts.books after all, not misc.fitness.
>Physical "loafing around," for most of us here, almost always includes
>a vigorous mental workout with the book-o'-the-moment.
I don't include reading as loafing.
>And we haven't even talked about the *rest*
>of the day yet: if you do your half hour on the Stairmaster, it it still
>not as "good" to spend the rest of the day "loafing" and reading? O
Moderate exercise improves one's attention in general, which helps
one read better.
--Mike
Ed Dambik
Have I seen you post to alt.horror?
In article <C9Dt7...@grebyn.com>, f...@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster) writes:
> I feel like a bit of an interloper here, because I don't read very
> much sf (maybe 1 book, couple of short stories a year), but I'd like
> to become better educated about the field. One option, of course, would
> be to shell out $75- for the new _Science_Fiction_Encyclopedia_, but
> for the time being, I'll keep a rein on my plastic, and read some postings
> here.
Try your local library before shelling out the bucks. Librarians
are also very good at tracking down this sort of information for
you...
> I've been trying to follow this thread in particular, because its
> content--objective vs. subjective assessments of books--has cross-genre
> interest. However, I'm havin' trouble with the fact that so many of
> y'all refer to authors only by their last names. When the names are
> both famous and distinctive (e.g., Heinlein, Asimov) this isn't a problem,
> but many of them aren't. So I'd appreciate it if you could enlighten me
> as to who these folks are. Just telling me their first names will
> probably be sufficient to link them up with some locus of dim knowledge
> in my brain.
>
> Donaldson (one of those mega-series writers?)
> Brooks (something of Shannara?)
Terry?
> Wolfe (Thomas, Tom, Gene, or someone else?)
Gene Wolfe is, in my opinion, one of the best writers
in SF or any genre for that matter. Give him a try!
> Russ (Joanna?)
Joanna Russ came out of the New Wave. She generally
writes metaphoric fiction with a feminist edge. She's
very good!
>
> I did notice that Alan Moore, at least, got *his* full name. Is there an
> insider-knowledge reason for that?
>
> --slipping back behind the arras,
>
> Fiona Webster
Hope that helps.
Michael Milligan
Steven Donaldson-Thomas Covanent, Mordant's Need, Gap series, Daughter of
Regals (have I missed anything?)
Terry Brooks-Shannara and Landover books
The reason Alan Moore probably got his full name is that there
are other authors with the same last name and you need to make
the distinction. I can't think of any other Donaldson or Brooks
out there at the moment, but they may exist.
Mike Milligan
These opinions are mine, mine alone. You can't have them and
I'm not going to share.
ISVAX 7750 BULIAVAC 23882
snip, snip
>
>> I've been trying to follow this thread in particular, because its
>> content--objective vs. subjective assessments of books--has cross-genre
>> interest. However, I'm havin' trouble with the fact that so many of
>> y'all refer to authors only by their last names. When the names are
>> both famous and distinctive (e.g., Heinlein, Asimov) this isn't a problem,
>> but many of them aren't. So I'd appreciate it if you could enlighten me
>> as to who these folks are. Just telling me their first names will
>> probably be sufficient to link them up with some locus of dim knowledge
>> in my brain.
>>
>> Donaldson (one of those mega-series writers?)
Stephen R. Donaldson, author of the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant,
among other things.
snip, snip
------------------------------------------------------
Greg Buliavac
buli...@isvax.lmsc.lockheed.com
Nothing is impossible. Some things just haven't been
done yet.
Mike Godwin
>Oh. Mike Godwin has proposed that when someone calls someone else a Nazi, or
>uses Nazism as an analogy for their opponent's viewpoint, an argument has pretty
>well used up its real content. I tend to agree.
Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the
probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Gordon's Restatement of Newman's Corollary to Godwin's Law:
Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is *the*
primordial netnews discussion topic. Anytime the debate shifts
somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source.
Morgan's Corrollary to Godwin's Law:
As soon as such a comparison occurs, someone will start a
Nazi-discussion spinoff thread on alt.censorship.
Sircar's Corollary: If the USENET discussion touches on homosexuality
or Heinlein, Nazis or Hitler are mentioned within three days.
--Mike
Curtis Yarvin
|
|This, O Wasp, is so much poopy-kaka. Sorry, but you're simply wrong and
|apparently too damn proud of your own invincible ignorance. There are
|objective ways to determine whether someone has understood what they've
|read -- at the grade school level they're called "comprehension tests."
|Remember those?
|
|One can do similarly with Dostoevsky or any other more complex writer: one
|makes a list of a few subtleties and implications that are important for an
|understanding of what the book "is getting at," and asks the reader questions
|which elicit information as to whether or not s/he has grasped these subtleties
|and implications. This is fairly objective and doesn't require any Catch-22
|of the sort you are looking for.
|
|Now, I reiterate the claim of the previous writer: If you find, by this test,
|that a given reader has "understood" (say) WAR AND PEACE, this reader will
|not turn around and claim that Terry Brooks is the better writer and ELFSTONES
|OF SHANANA the greater masterpiece.
|
|I further claim that you can have someone who *does* love ELFSTONES devise a
|similar test for "understanding" it, and that *any* reader who "passes" both
|tests will prefer the Dostoevsky.
|
|Now, how much more objective can you fucking get?
Ware ye the Emperor of China's nose.
c
Curtis Yarvin
>
>How can I say which is better of Anna Karenin and
"It takes a tough man to remember a tender chicken."
c
Nancy Lebovitz
books with alarm, and it occurs to me that the middle of the bell curve
with always be there--most people are not going to have the more extreme
sorts of taste, even if that taste is for complexity or intelligence or
something else that you think is wonderful.
You can view with alarm if you want to, and enjoy it as well, but if
I'm right, the middle of the bell curve won't go away, even if you
nag it.
Ed Dambik
> I've been seeing a lot of people viewing the popularity of second-rate
> books with alarm, and it occurs to me that the middle of the bell curve
> with always be there--most people are not going to have the more extreme
> sorts of taste, even if that taste is for complexity or intelligence or
> something else that you think is wonderful.
>
> You can view with alarm if you want to, and enjoy it as well, but if
> I'm right, the middle of the bell curve won't go away, even if you
> nag it.
>
But the entire curve can be moved in one direction or another!
Joanne Eglash
I posted recently asking for recommendations for sci-fi
books that a non-scifi fan (me) would like... Thank you all
for your responses! I browsed through the public libraries
and used book stores, sampling and debating the numerous
suggestions.
My favorites so far:
Kate Wilhelm
Ursula LeGuin
Robert Heinlein
Ray Bradbury
Larry Niven
Isaac Asimov
Thanks again for sharing your enthusiasm!
Joanne