Do bad writers know they're bad?
Crimso
books as well as authors of original fiction know that they're awful. Or
do they think they're good and wonder at the "jealousy" of all those who
denigrate them?
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
David Kennedy
> The thread about Trek novels got me wondering whether the authors of such
> books as well as authors of original fiction know that they're awful. Or
> do they think they're good and wonder at the "jealousy" of all those who
> denigrate them?
Not sure what you meant to say above.
If you mean, "Do authors of Trek books, and any other books generally
acknowledged to be bad, know that they're awful?" then I'm prepared
to answer. As this is Usenet I'll generalise from a single case; Piers
Anthony thinks he's a great writer, and he's not, so the answer you
seek is, "No". I base this on his weird end-notes. I read a few of them
in my teen days of trying to read everything in the local library.
(I can honestly say the only one I remember with any sort of enjoyment
was "Macroscope".)
In general I suspect that a lot of authors simply don't make it,
and it's unfair to assume that all who don't are bad. The problem
with a successful author with a tin ear, and let's face it, sharecropped
fiction does offer a path to sales for unknown authors, is that
they're successful - once books are selling do you (a) change things? or
(b) do what you're doing? They're buying it so it must be good right?
A few more sales and even decent authors suffer the dreaded curse
of no editing - see the later careers of several authors, even those
who produced some very good earlier work.
--
David Kennedy
Crimso
>
> Not sure what you meant to say above.
> If you mean, "Do authors of Trek books, and any other books generally
> acknowledged to be bad, know that they're awful?" then I'm prepared
> to answer.
Yes, that's what I meant to write and your example of Piers Anthony is one
sort of person I'm talking about. He thinks he's great even though a
rather large group of critics and readers think he's terrible.
I'm wondering if the sort of person exists who is aware enough to say,
"Yeah, I'm a terrible writer but the stuff sells. Go figure".
Steve Taylor
> I'm wondering if the sort of person exists who is aware enough to say,
> "Yeah, I'm a terrible writer but the stuff sells. Go figure".
Oddly enough, I think Piers Anthony is still an example. I remember an
old interview with him where he effectively said (on the topic of
differences between his earlier and later work) "I know, I know! But
people didn't buy the good ones" - so there is some degree of
consciousness there. Or was.
Steve
Dorothy J Heydt
Crimso <crimsonking*@nycmail.com> wrote:
>The thread about Trek novels got me wondering whether the authors of such
>books as well as authors of original fiction know that they're awful. Or
>do they think they're good and wonder at the "jealousy" of all those who
>denigrate them?
Yes, not infrequently that's what they do. We get
people on r.a.sf.composition from time to time who ask
for 'criticism' but what they really want is praise, and
when they get constructive criticism they burst into
flame. I won't name any names because they tend to
google for their own names.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Anncrispin
colleges. In my experience, the writers who are the most arrogant and think
they're great (and often get furious when critiqued) tend to be the worst
writers in the class.
Go figure.
-Ann C. Crispin
James Nicoll
David Kennedy <kenn...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
snip
>Not sure what you meant to say above.
>If you mean, "Do authors of Trek books, and any other books generally
>acknowledged to be bad, know that they're awful?" then I'm prepared
>to answer. As this is Usenet I'll generalise from a single case; Piers
>Anthony thinks he's a great writer, and he's not, so the answer you
>seek is, "No". I base this on his weird end-notes. I read a few of them
>in my teen days of trying to read everything in the local library.
>(I can honestly say the only one I remember with any sort of enjoyment
>was "Macroscope".)
Which has to my eye the enourmous advantage that it draws from
what is now an obscure source in SF: Stapledon.
Mike Schilling
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
Lois Tilton
> I'm wondering if the sort of person exists who is aware enough to say,
> "Yeah, I'm a terrible writer but the stuff sells. Go figure".
I can think of some authors who have said sortof similar things, why,
even around here.
--
LT
Sproles52
>colleges.
After a college degree in a science field, where would you suggest a beginning
writer start with writing couse work? I spend most of my day looking through a
microscope at cancer and pre-cancerous cells and hardly write except for stream
of consciousness journal entries. Do you have to go back for an English major
or can you build on skills that you may already have? (and if these sentences
are grammatically uncorrect, please correct me).
Thank you for your time,
JudyAnne
To reply by e-mail, take the pipe out.
Andrew Maizels
This phenomenon has recently given rise to some fascinating (and very
funny) research papers:
"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many
social and intellectual domains ... this overestimation occurs, in
part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual
burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make
unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the
metacognitive ability to realize it."
-- "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's
Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments," by Justin Kruger
and David Dunning Department of Psychology Cornell University, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6,
1121-1134.
Quoted from http://skepdic.com/selfdeception.html
The full paper is available at
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
Andrew.
--
Google fthagn! Google fthagn! Ia Google! Ia! Ia!
r.r...@thevine.net
>The thread about Trek novels got me wondering whether the authors of such
>books as well as authors of original fiction know that they're awful. Or
>do they think they're good and wonder at the "jealousy" of all those who
>denigrate them?
Well, in the defense of "bad" artists of any stripe, many times in
history artists aren't appreciated in their own time. For example,
the entire Impressionist movement was considered trash by the critics
at the time. And there is a difference between "great literature" and
books that are servicable. For example, the Trek novels may not be
Shakespeare, but if they give Trek fans written matter which fulfills
the requirements of the Trek universe, can you actually say that they
are "bad"? They are giving the readers what they want, and not
everything has to be high art.
Rebecca
Dirk van den Boom
Crimso schrieb:
> The thread about Trek novels got me wondering whether the authors of such
> books as well as authors of original fiction know that they're awful. Or
> do they think they're good and wonder at the "jealousy" of all those who
> denigrate them?
First of all, from what I've heard about Trek books so far - at least those
published over here in Germany - they are not all in the same league in
regard to quality and style. I think even in a series like this you can have
a good author who makes something out of this stuff and someone who just
writes it down as a working routine.
Second, I'm myself a writer who publishes in small press in Germany from time
to time and I found it very difficult to judge about the quality of my
writings myself. I have met authors who have been very clear about themselves
and their abilities, both on a critical side as well as on a positive note. I
think there is a problem of "objectivity" here: What is for one reader a good
novel, is a bad one for another. The fact that I as a writer like and dislike
things I've written doesn't seem to mean anything.
I guess as long as you are paid for it and the publishers don't summarily
ignore your submissions, the questions do not arise so often. Finally, it is
the market and its needs and deeds that determines in a quite neutral way if
you are "good" or "awful". And, to be honest, even if I dislike writings of
some authors because I think they are rubbish, at no point would I say that
they should stop writing as long as someones likes to buy their stuff.
I don't have to read it, anyway.
Dan Goodman
news:20020717105908...@mb-mo.aol.com:
>>I teach writers workshops fairly regularly, at conventions and also at
>>colleges.
> Ms. Crispin,
>
> After a college degree in a science field, where would you suggest a
> beginning writer start with writing couse work?
You don't have to take ANY. At all. None. Fred Pohl didn't finish high
school, and has been quite successful as a writer and editor.
I spend most of my day
> looking through a microscope at cancer and pre-cancerous cells and
> hardly write except for stream of consciousness journal entries.
> Do
> you have to go back for an English major
Jack Williamson got his degree in English _after_ he'd been a successful
writer for a few decades.
Pamela Dean's degree in English probably helped her get a job as a legal
secretary. If you want to know whether it helped her as a writer, I suggest
asking on rec.arts.sf.composition.
Newsgroup devoted to writing speculative fiction: rec.arts.sf.composition.
Writing in general: misc.writing.moderated.
Websites with critique groups, and information:
http://www.critters.org
http://hollylisle.com
http://www.hatrack.com
Brenda W. Clough
>>I teach writers workshops fairly regularly, at conventions and also at
>>colleges.
>>
>Ms. Crispin,
>
>After a college degree in a science field, where would you suggest a beginning
>writer start with writing couse work? I spend most of my day looking through a
>microscope at cancer and pre-cancerous cells and hardly write except for stream
>of consciousness journal entries. Do you have to go back for an English major
>or can you build on skills that you may already have?
>
It depends on what you want. Do you want to become a professor of
creative writing at a college or university? If so, you have to
accumulate the academic credentials, the Ph.D in Creative Writing and so
forth. Or do you want to write stories and books and have them
commercially published? In that case you need fulfil no prerequisites.
I'd dive right on in and begin writing. Once you've written a bit, you
have enough material to workshop or critique. You could sign on with an
online group like Critters, or you could workshop it in real life at a
number of venues. I work with one, the Writers Center in Bethesda MD,
but you will want one in your area.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
Read my novella "May Be Some Time"
Complete at http://www.analogsf.com/0202/maybesometime.html
My web page is at http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Elf Sternberg
kenn...@nortelnetworks.com (David Kennedy) writes:
>Crimso <crimsonking*@nycmail.com> wrote in message news:<ah30ub$o53$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>> The thread about Trek novels got me wondering whether the authors of such
>> books as well as authors of original fiction know that they're awful. Or
>> do they think they're good and wonder at the "jealousy" of all those who
>> denigrate them?
>Not sure what you meant to say above. If you mean, "Do authors of Trek
>books, and any other books generally acknowledged to be bad, know that
>they're awful?" then I'm prepared to answer. As this is Usenet I'll
>generalise from a single case; Piers Anthony thinks he's a great
>writer, and he's not, so the answer you seek is, "No".
While I agree with you completely with regard to Anthony, I
think I'll disagree on the universals. I think most authors know where
they reside on the continua of authorial quality. Some, like James
White (a favorite of mine), know that they'll never be Shakespeare or
Phillip Roth, so they don't try to be: instead, they try to give the
reader an interesting story with the best of all formulas: crisis,
rising tension, attempts at resolution that put the protagonist
seemingly further behind, final crisis and resolution. White keeps it
interesting with lots of weird aliens and creative medical mysteries.
It's the authors who want to "leave a voice" that bother me.
Banks and DeLillo, for example. Banks tweaks the authorial formula,
leaving the reader disappointed. I can't be the only one who thought
"Inversions" a complete hack, and the false leads in "Look to Windward"
pointless. I've only read one DeLillo, "Underworld," but after reading
five chapters and finding absolutely no common thread between them, I
gave up wondering if he was actually going to tell a story. Anthony
doesn't seem to have a clue what he's trying to do other thna make
money.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg
Disproportionately Popular Among Homosexuals.
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/ (under construction)
David Dyer-Bennet
> Crimso <crimsonking*@nycmail.com> wrote in message news:<ah30ub$o53$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> > The thread about Trek novels got me wondering whether the authors of such
> > books as well as authors of original fiction know that they're awful. Or
> > do they think they're good and wonder at the "jealousy" of all those who
> > denigrate them?
>
> Not sure what you meant to say above.
> If you mean, "Do authors of Trek books, and any other books generally
> acknowledged to be bad, know that they're awful?" then I'm prepared
> to answer. As this is Usenet I'll generalise from a single case; Piers
> Anthony thinks he's a great writer, and he's not, so the answer you
> seek is, "No". I base this on his weird end-notes. I read a few of them
> in my teen days of trying to read everything in the local library.
> (I can honestly say the only one I remember with any sort of enjoyment
> was "Macroscope".)
I'm not so sure he's good evidence for the "no" side. If you read
what he had to say around the time he stopped writing somewhat
interesting SF and started writing endlessly extended fantasy series,
it seems pretty clear that he made a conscious decision to be come a
less good writer, for the purpose of making more money.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / New TMDA anti-spam in test
John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info
David Dyer-Bennet
I'm not particularly interested in "high art" in general anyway. I'm
interested in stuff with enough levels to maintain interest, though.
Gnimelf Cire
news:1026924977.740912@yasure...
>
> It's the authors who want to "leave a voice" that bother me.
> Banks and DeLillo, for example. Banks tweaks the authorial formula,
> leaving the reader disappointed. I can't be the only one who thought
> "Inversions" a complete hack, and the false leads in "Look to Windward"
> pointless. I've only read one DeLillo, "Underworld," but after reading
> five chapters and finding absolutely no common thread between them, I
> gave up wondering if he was actually going to tell a story. Anthony
> doesn't seem to have a clue what he's trying to do other thna make
> money.
>
By "leave a voice" you mean develop a personal style? Why, specifically,
does this bother you? Is your objection theoretical or do you just not like
the product of such authors?
I haven't read Underworld, but I have read White Noise and Mao II. Mao II
is great, White Noise is incredible. And there is nothing wrong with not
telling a story. Arthur Clarke always seemed to write pretty weak stories,
but that didn't diminish my enjoyment of his work one bit.
--
Eric Fleming
Word of the Week: omphalos
Quote of the Week:
But I am no poet. I am only a very conscientious recorder.
-Vladimir Nabokov
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> It's the authors who want to "leave a voice" that bother me.
> Banks and DeLillo, for example. Banks tweaks the authorial formula,
> leaving the reader disappointed. I can't be the only one who thought
> "Inversions" a complete hack, and the false leads in "Look to Windward"
> pointless.
I have to say that very seldom Banks has disappointed me. And even when
he has, I've never known him to be pointless.
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
homepage: http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
English blog: http://annafdd.blogspot.com/
Blog in italiano: http://fulminiesaette.blogspot.com
Andrew Plotkin
>> It's the authors who want to "leave a voice" that bother me.
>> Banks and DeLillo, for example. Banks tweaks the authorial formula,
>> leaving the reader disappointed. I can't be the only one who thought
>> "Inversions" a complete hack, and the false leads in "Look to Windward"
>> pointless.
> I have to say that very seldom Banks has disappointed me. And even when
> he has, I've never known him to be pointless.
That daisy-counting short story in the _State of the Art_ collection,
that was both pointless and disappointing.
Of his novels, however, I agree with Anna. (I've read all the with-M
novels, plus _The Bridge_ and _The Wasp Factory_.)
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
David Bilek
>kenn...@nortelnetworks.com (David Kennedy) writes:
>
>> Crimso <crimsonking*@nycmail.com> wrote in message news:<ah30ub$o53$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>> > The thread about Trek novels got me wondering whether the authors of such
>> > books as well as authors of original fiction know that they're awful. Or
>> > do they think they're good and wonder at the "jealousy" of all those who
>> > denigrate them?
>>
>> Not sure what you meant to say above.
>> If you mean, "Do authors of Trek books, and any other books generally
>> acknowledged to be bad, know that they're awful?" then I'm prepared
>> to answer. As this is Usenet I'll generalise from a single case; Piers
>> Anthony thinks he's a great writer, and he's not, so the answer you
>> seek is, "No". I base this on his weird end-notes. I read a few of them
>> in my teen days of trying to read everything in the local library.
>> (I can honestly say the only one I remember with any sort of enjoyment
>> was "Macroscope".)
>
>I'm not so sure he's good evidence for the "no" side. If you read
>what he had to say around the time he stopped writing somewhat
>interesting SF and started writing endlessly extended fantasy series,
>it seems pretty clear that he made a conscious decision to be come a
>less good writer, for the purpose of making more money.
But that's a stupid choice. You don't have to write crap to make
something accessible.
I'm sure that $$$ weighed rather heavily in George Martin's decision
to write a big doorstop fantasy epic, but he's at least trying (and I
think succeeding, though others may disagree) to maintain the quality
of his writing while doing so. Anthony could have done the same.
Ok, so Martin writes rings around Anthony even in his _Macroscope_
days, but still.
-David
Dorothy J Heydt
David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
>David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
[P. Anthony]
>>I'm not so sure he's good evidence for the "no" side. If you read
>>what he had to say around the time he stopped writing somewhat
>>interesting SF and started writing endlessly extended fantasy series,
>>it seems pretty clear that he made a conscious decision to be come a
>>less good writer, for the purpose of making more money.
>
>But that's a stupid choice. You don't have to write crap to make
>something accessible.
No, but sometimes you have to write crap to sell.
I don't remember who it was said, on some group several
years ago, "Stephen King writes for middlebrows, he
*thinks* like a middlebrow, and you can't *fake* that."
Nor do I remember who it was who interviewed Roger
Zelazny once, and up and asked him why he had switched
from his good early work to endless packets of Extruded
Amber Product. In reply, Zelazny pointed out the window
to his children, playing outside.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> Here, Anna Feruglio Dal Dan <ada...@despammed.com> wrote:
> > Elf Sternberg <e...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
> >> It's the authors who want to "leave a voice" that bother me.
> >> Banks and DeLillo, for example. Banks tweaks the authorial formula,
> >> leaving the reader disappointed. I can't be the only one who thought
> >> "Inversions" a complete hack, and the false leads in "Look to Windward"
> >> pointless.
>
> > I have to say that very seldom Banks has disappointed me. And even when
> > he has, I've never known him to be pointless.
>
> That daisy-counting short story in the _State of the Art_ collection,
> that was both pointless and disappointing.
Well, it was a bad pun, but I thought it quite cute, in its cringing
way. I translated it not once but twice.
> Of his novels, however, I agree with Anna. (I've read all the with-M
> novels, plus _The Bridge_ and _The Wasp Factory_.)
I really didn't care for Song of Stone and Whit. But they weren't
@hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
wrote:
> While I agree with you completely with regard to Anthony, I
>think I'll disagree on the universals. I think most authors know where
>they reside on the continua of authorial quality.
*snicker* Read any of Johnny Ringo's "If it sells, it's not crap"
screeds?
Dorothy J Heydt
Whereas I would almost go to the opposite extreme and
say "If it sells, it's got to be crap," but happily there
are a few exceptions.
Eric San Juan
news:GzEr1...@kithrup.com...
> In article <1cgbjugrk09p3nmms...@4ax.com>,
> David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >
> >>what he had to say around the time he stopped writing somewhat
> >>interesting SF and started writing endlessly extended fantasy
series,
> >>it seems pretty clear that he made a conscious decision to be come a
> >>less good writer, for the purpose of making more money.
> >
> >But that's a stupid choice. You don't have to write crap to make
> >something accessible.
>
> No, but sometimes you have to write crap to sell.
>
> Nor do I remember who it was who interviewed Roger
> Zelazny once, and up and asked him why he had switched
> from his good early work to endless packets of Extruded
> Amber Product. In reply, Zelazny pointed out the window
> to his children, playing outside.
And really, there are few better reasons than that.
Eric San Juan
>
> It's the authors who want to "leave a voice" that bother me.
> Banks and DeLillo, for example.
> I've only read one DeLillo, "Underworld," but after reading
> five chapters and finding absolutely no common thread between them, I
> gave up wondering if he was actually going to tell a story.
Well, I'm not sure DeLillo is necessarily about telling an A-to-B story.
In fact, I'm sure of it. I don't think that at all takes away from his
skills and his remarkable ability to say quite a lot with very little.
Does writing like DeLillo's bother you because you don't enjoy it, or
does it bother you because other people think it's good? Just curious.
I thought "White Noise," incidentally, was simply fantastic. Not much
story to speak of, either.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
> On 17 Jul 2002 05:56:27 GMT, Crimso <crimsonking*@nycmail.com> wrote:
>>The thread about Trek novels got me wondering whether the authors of such
>>books as well as authors of original fiction know that they're awful. Or
>>do they think they're good and wonder at the "jealousy" of all those who
>>denigrate them?
> Well, in the defense of "bad" artists of any stripe, many times in
> history artists aren't appreciated in their own time.
Egads. I just had this nightmare vision of a future where Extruded
Star Trek Product is considered the classic literature of the time.
It's probably part of the same future as seen in _Demolition Man_, where
they sing along to "mini-tunes" (aka commercials).
For every misunderstood genius, there are a thousand well-understood
idiots. I know where my money is on the ST novels...
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"No one is safe. We will print no letters to the editor. We will give no
space to opposing points of view. They are wrong. The Underground Grammarian
is at war and will give the enemy nothing but battle." -TUG, v1n1
Heather Garvey
>
>I'm not so sure he's good evidence for the "no" side. If you read
>what he had to say around the time he stopped writing somewhat
>interesting SF and started writing endlessly extended fantasy series,
>it seems pretty clear that he made a conscious decision to be come a
>less good writer, for the purpose of making more money.
Unless that was before 1974, he still owes me the part of
my soul that was damaged by the crap that is "Rings of Ice". Oh, god,
was that bad. I - I still hurt....
--
Heather Garvey "The school has lost its funding for textbooks, so
ra...@xnet.com you've all been given wildlife survival manuals.
Today you'll be quizzed on how to skin a moose."
-- Miss Bitters, _Invader ZIM_
Elf Sternberg
>Does writing like DeLillo's bother you because you don't enjoy it, or
>does it bother you because other people think it's good? Just curious.
I think it bothers me because it's presented critically as
wonderful or whatever, and while I can see and appreciate the art and
effort that goes into it, I'm simply not impressed with it to any great
degree precisely because it's presented as "great fiction" but it's
terrible storytelling. He has this wonderful talent to wring meaning
out of every last scene, but the overall feel of his work is, to me,
disjointed and in disarray. Maybe in "Underworld" that was what he was
trying to convey about the characters, but I feel that sort of technique
should be left to scriptwriters: it's hard to sustain those kinds of
feelings about literary characters for so long.
Eric Lee Green
> The thread about Trek novels got me wondering whether the authors of such
> books as well as authors of original fiction know that they're awful. Or
> do they think they're good and wonder at the "jealousy" of all those who
> denigrate them?
Piers Anthony, in particular, has no idea just how bad he really is.
He spent a large portion of his "Bio of an Ogre" ranting about his
treatment by critics and basically ranting "If I'm so bad, how come I'm
selling so much?!".
A very bitter, unhappy man. A perfect proof of the notion, "money does
not buy happiness"... he was unhappy when he was poor, and seems just
as unhappy now that he's rich. (Of course, his "autobiography" was
written over 10 years ago, so he may have learned serenity since then...
somehow, though, I doubt it).
--
Eric Lee Green EMAIL: mailto:er...@badtux.org WEB: http://badtux.org
There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.
- Mark Twain
Lee Ann Rucker
<jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> >(I can honestly say the only one I remember with any sort of enjoyment
> >was "Macroscope".)
>
> Which has to my eye the enourmous advantage that it draws from
> what is now an obscure source in SF: Stapledon.
Any book in particular?
Eric Lee Green
> I don't remember who it was said, on some group several
> years ago, "Stephen King writes for middlebrows, he
> *thinks* like a middlebrow, and you can't *fake* that."
I would not say that Steven King is a bad writer though. Certainly he
has had some less successful works, but his best is quite good indeed
at doing what it sets out to do -- plumb the nightmares of the human
soul. He will never be confused with Shakespeare. But that is not what
he set out to do, and he would never say that Shakespeare is what he
set out to do. I suspect he has a firm grasp of the limits of his
abilities, and certainly wouldn't be a good example of a "bad writer who
doesn't know he's bad."
If you want to know about his writing abilities, read his nonfiction
where he talks about the experience of coaching his son's Little League
baseball team. Someone who can make LITTLE LEAGUE exciting is NOT
a "bad" writer.
how...@brazee.net
On 17-Jul-2002, Steve Taylor <sm...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> Oddly enough, I think Piers Anthony is still an example. I remember an
> old interview with him where he effectively said (on the topic of
> differences between his earlier and later work) "I know, I know! But
> people didn't buy the good ones" - so there is some degree of
> consciousness there. Or was.
Except he believes "the good ones" are good. I don't.
There authors who no they aren't very good though.
Dorothy J Heydt
Eric Lee Green <er...@badtux.org> wrote:
>In article <GzEr1...@kithrup.com>, Dorothy J Heydt ruminated:
>> I don't remember who it was said, on some group several
>> years ago, "Stephen King writes for middlebrows, he
>> *thinks* like a middlebrow, and you can't *fake* that."
>
>I would not say that Steven King is a bad writer though.
No, not bad. But not any definition of "good" (that
amorphous word) that maps to "I could stand to read it."
>If you want to know about his writing abilities, read his nonfiction
>where he talks about the experience of coaching his son's Little League
>baseball team. Someone who can make LITTLE LEAGUE exciting is NOT
>a "bad" writer.
I don't think Shakespeare, C. J. Cherryh, or anyone else
you care to name could make any form of baseball less
than a deadly bore to me.
@hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
'Kamikaze' Hughes) wrote:
>Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:53:34 GMT, r.r...@thevine.net <r.r...@thevine.net> spake:
>> On 17 Jul 2002 05:56:27 GMT, Crimso <crimsonking*@nycmail.com> wrote:
>>>The thread about Trek novels got me wondering whether the authors of such
>>>books as well as authors of original fiction know that they're awful. Or
>>>do they think they're good and wonder at the "jealousy" of all those who
>>>denigrate them?
>> Well, in the defense of "bad" artists of any stripe, many times in
>> history artists aren't appreciated in their own time.
>
> Egads. I just had this nightmare vision of a future where Extruded
>Star Trek Product is considered the classic literature of the time.
>It's probably part of the same future as seen in _Demolition Man_, where
>they sing along to "mini-tunes" (aka commercials).
ObStarTrekIV: "Harold Robbins? Ah, the classics!"
Andrea Leistra
Crimso <crimsonking*@nycmail.com> wrote:
>kenn...@nortelnetworks.com (David Kennedy) wrote on 17 Jul 2002:
>
>>
>> Not sure what you meant to say above.
>> If you mean, "Do authors of Trek books, and any other books generally
>> acknowledged to be bad, know that they're awful?" then I'm prepared
>> to answer.
>
>sort of person I'm talking about. He thinks he's great even though a
>rather large group of critics and readers think he's terrible.
>
>I'm wondering if the sort of person exists who is aware enough to say,
>"Yeah, I'm a terrible writer but the stuff sells. Go figure".
There have been people posting to rasfw who have said similar things.
Their take on it, however, has been that sales are a direct indicator
of quality, such that while they may not write well-crafted prose or
rounded characters, the sales of their material indicate that they are
somehow "better" than the poorer-selling authors who include such
elements.
(Oh, and that anyone who values prose and characterization is
obviously a Literary Snob and in a tiny minority, and whose tastes
can therefore be discounted or even mocked.)
--
Andrea Leistra
Ross TenEyck
>I would not say that Steven King is a bad writer though. Certainly he
>has had some less successful works, but his best is quite good indeed
>at doing what it sets out to do -- plumb the nightmares of the human
>soul.
King is very good at some things, but I wouldn't say that "plumbing
the nightmares of the human soul" is one of them.
What he really excels at is characterization, and most especially
characterization in small-town American settings. Some of his best
works are essentially character studies -- "The Body," "Rita Hayworth
and the Shawshank Redemptions," and others in that vein.
On the other hand, his horror tends to strike me as... well, bland.
Usually it comes down to "something with nasty sharp pointy teeth"
that kills you in unpleasant ways. While I'm not particularly eager
to be killed by, for instance, a mummy with razor blade teeth, it
doesn't really frighten or horrify me.
The good parts of King books are usually the bits going on around
the horror.
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
Dorothy J Heydt
Andrea Leistra <alei...@ptah.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
>There have been people posting to rasfw who have said similar things.
>Their take on it, however, has been that sales are a direct indicator
>of quality, such that while they may not write well-crafted prose or
>rounded characters, the sales of their material indicate that they are
>somehow "better" than the poorer-selling authors who include such
>elements.
>
>(Oh, and that anyone who values prose and characterization is
>obviously a Literary Snob and in a tiny minority, and whose tastes
>can therefore be discounted or even mocked.)
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that. But if
literary quality is unable to put bread on the table,
and the lack of it succeeds in doing so....
Eric San Juan
> In article <G%kZ8.151088$Bt1.8...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
> "Eric San Juan" <shoeg...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >Does writing like DeLillo's bother you because you don't enjoy it, or
> >does it bother you because other people think it's good? Just
curious.
>
> I think it bothers me because it's presented critically as
> wonderful or whatever, and while I can see and appreciate the art and
> effort that goes into it, I'm simply not impressed with it to any
great
> degree precisely because it's presented as "great fiction" but it's
> terrible storytelling.
That's a pretty fair assessment. The first time I read DeLillo I was
always teetering on the "okay, nice, but where's the story" reaction,
but the little things in the way he puts his words together kept me
going. I quite like his work, but I can fully understand where you are
coming from. A craftsman of stories he is not.
In truth, I feel somewhat the same way about James Joyce. The man has
his moments, but by and large I just Don't Get It. But hey, maybe that's
a literary failing on my part. DeLillo, however, I am impressed with.
> He has this wonderful talent to wring meaning
> out of every last scene, but the overall feel of his work is, to me,
> disjointed and in disarray. Maybe in "Underworld" that was what he
was
> trying to convey about the characters, but I feel that sort of
technique
> should be left to scriptwriters: it's hard to sustain those kinds of
> feelings about literary characters for so long.
That feel is not unique to "Underworld," and in fact is prevalent in
most, if not all, of his work. Some works have more story than others -
say, "Mao II" - while others play briefly with story - the middle and
latter portions of "White Noise" - but by and large his novels are a
collection of interwoven scenes that don't necessarily lead anywhere as
much as toss out a series of cynical, ironic, sarcastic, and any other
"ic" you can think of, observations on human relations and the modern
world.
Certainly one thing is for sure: In most DeLillo books, you're not going
to be introduced to a problem or plot device, see the characters work
against that problem or with that plot device, and see a resolution at
the end. Doesn't happen. And I can see why that would turn some folks
off.
Luke Webber
> I don't think Shakespeare, C. J. Cherryh, or anyone else
> you care to name could make any form of baseball less
> than a deadly bore to me.
An effect which John Irving actually used to his advantage in _A Prayer for
Owen Meany_.
SPOILERS for _A Prayer for Owen Meany_.
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Even the kids were bored playing Little League when the smallest and weakest
of them hit a foul ball which killed his best friend's mother. A bit of a
waker-upper, that. <g>
Luke
Maureen O'Brien
>Dorothy J Heydt said:
> > Nor do I remember who it was who interviewed Roger
> > Zelazny once, and up and asked him why he had switched
> > from his good early work to endless packets of Extruded
> > Amber Product. In reply, Zelazny pointed out the window
> > to his children, playing outside.
>
> And really, there are few better reasons than that.
Yes, but. There's a considerable difference between "workmanlike but
not great" and "crap". What about all of us kids who didn't eat lunch
or buy milk so we could buy Extruded Amber Product or Extruded Trek
Product being marketed as The Good Stuff?
Yeah, that's right. I'm still bitter. And when the current Star Trek
editor said that was okay because professional writers have to feed
their kids, I say professional writers shouldn't live by ripping off
kids' lunch money.
Maureen, who ain't ever gettin' those quarters back.
Steve Coltrin
[Piers Xanthony]
> A very bitter, unhappy man. A perfect proof of the notion, "money does
> not buy happiness"... he was unhappy when he was poor, and seems just
> as unhappy now that he's rich. (Of course, his "autobiography" was
> written over 10 years ago, so he may have learned serenity since then...
> somehow, though, I doubt it).
He's written a second volume. It may answer that question, but I won't
be finding out soon; reading it is just below shoving a red-hot poker up
my ass on my things-to-do list.
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org
When doing business with a religious son of a bitch, GET IT IN WRITING.
His word isn't worth shit, not with the good Lord telling him how to
fuck you on the deal. - William S. Burroughs
Eric San Juan
news:3D360F3C...@dnaco.net...
> Eric San Juan wrote:
> >Dorothy J Heydt said:
> > > Nor do I remember who it was who interviewed Roger
> > > Zelazny once, and up and asked him why he had switched
> > > from his good early work to endless packets of Extruded
> > > Amber Product. In reply, Zelazny pointed out the window
> > > to his children, playing outside.
> >
> > And really, there are few better reasons than that.
>
> Yes, but. There's a considerable difference between "workmanlike but
> not great" and "crap". What about all of us kids who didn't eat lunch
> or buy milk so we could buy Extruded Amber Product or Extruded Trek
> Product being marketed as The Good Stuff?
A lesson all should learn early in life is that marketing is just
another word for lies. *Of course* the publishers are going to claim the
books they sell are good, trying to seel books is what they do. They
should say, "Our books are crap, but they have Spock so please buy
them?" Naturally not.
I'm not really understanding where you are coming from with the whole
"kids who didn't eat lunch" thing. There is no guarantee that you will
enjoy the book you buy. ANY book you buy. Kids, save your lunch and milk
money and use the library if the cost is an issue.
> Yeah, that's right. I'm still bitter. And when the current Star Trek
> editor said that was okay because professional writers have to feed
> their kids, I say professional writers shouldn't live by ripping off
> kids' lunch money.
"Ripping off kids' lunch money?" Please. I sympathize with anybody who
has trudged through a book they hated - I've done it many times, though
thankfully no Trek as I dislike Trek - but discovering a book you
thought you'd like was actually pretty bad is not being ripped off, it's
being disappointed. You know, I have a collection of Xanth books I
bought when I was a young teen. Pretty bad stuff and I cringe thinking
back on it. What I don't do is complain that the author did me wrong by
writing a bad book.
And again, if Roger Zelazny or any other writer can better support their
family by mimicking his own work time and time again, more power to him
and his family. I won't be buying the books, but plenty of people will.
And more power to them and their bad book choice.
Dorothy J Heydt
Maureen O'Brien <mob...@dnaco.net> wrote:
>
>Yes, but. There's a considerable difference between "workmanlike but
>not great" and "crap". What about all of us kids who didn't eat lunch
>or buy milk so we could buy Extruded Amber Product or Extruded Trek
>Product being marketed as The Good Stuff?
But surely it was your choice to buy it.
The fact that you have now recognized it as E*P means
your tastes have matured, and now you can buy genuinely
good stuff.
Maureen O'Brien
>Andrea Leistra <alei...@ptah.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>There have been people posting to rasfw who have said similar things.
>>Their take on it, however, has been that sales are a direct indicator
>>of quality, such that while they may not write well-crafted prose or
>>rounded characters, the sales of their material indicate that they
>>are somehow "better" than the poorer-selling authors who include such
>>elements.
>>
>>(Oh, and that anyone who values prose and characterization is
>>obviously a Literary Snob and in a tiny minority, and whose tastes
>>can therefore be discounted or even mocked.)
>
>Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that. But if
>literary quality is unable to put bread on the table,
>and the lack of it succeeds in doing so....
Okay, let's all calm down and consider a different axis from "quality/
non-quality", or even "absorbing/not absorbing". Or "appealing voice/
not appealing voice". I shall call it, for lack of any better term,
"magic/normal".
Some books and stories are, literarily speaking, crap. And yet, they
have a quality which draws you in and keeps you in the universe. You
aren't reading the actual book in front of you; you are dwelling in
its platonic ideal. When you are older and have different psychological
needs, that spell may break. Meanwhile, it will hold you even if you
know that what you're reading is qualitatively crappy.
Bujold, frex, has literary quality, sensawunder, _and_ magic. She
rather humbly realizes that, as good as she is, it's not all her.
David Weber has wargamer cred, technowunder, and storytelling and
literary quality that has recently decreased from 'gamer novel' to
'gamer novel needing editing bad'. But he's tapped into both the
Hornblower bildungsroman magic and the warrior woman with telepathic
pet kind. It's the magic that carries him onward, not the literary
stuff. I'm not sure whether he recognizes this or not.
Ringo has formidable powers of storytelling to sweep you along as
well as combatporn magic. He needs an editor and a proofreader, and I
would say he's trapped by his production contract and his own
prolificness and magic.
Myself, I'd say that the previous two novels written by Dorothy J.
Heydt had quite a decent amount of magic -- but apparently it wasn't
working on the editors or marketing directors in quite the same way as
her happy readers. (Frex, I would have had a cover for one that showed
both the housewife and the princess. And my prose blurb for Honor
would have been _tons_ more quest-oriented. But that's me.)
Magic is both a gift and a problem. Yes, magic sells and sells big, to
those most in need of it. But magic fades unexpectedly, too. There are
an awful lot of authors out there who used to be magic, living off
their fans who keep hoping the magic will come again.
Maureen, who thinks "psychologically appealing or manipulative" is
way too wordy.
Christopher Henrich
> kenn...@nortelnetworks.com (David Kennedy) wrote on 17 Jul 2002:
>
> >
> > Not sure what you meant to say above.
> > If you mean, "Do authors of Trek books, and any other books generally
> > acknowledged to be bad, know that they're awful?" then I'm prepared
> > to answer.
>
> Yes, that's what I meant to write and your example of Piers Anthony is one
> sort of person I'm talking about. He thinks he's great even though a
> rather large group of critics and readers think he's terrible.
>
> I'm wondering if the sort of person exists who is aware enough to say,
> "Yeah, I'm a terrible writer but the stuff sells. Go figure".
I think that many a writer would be content to say, "Hey - my name is
Murgatroyd, it isn't Tolstoy... I tried to spin a good yarn, and some
people liked it."
Of course...
Identify the source of this quote: "These stories were written to
please, and sold to buy groceries."
--
Chris Henrich
Lois Tilton
> Some books and stories are, literarily speaking, crap. And yet, they
> have a quality which draws you in and keeps you in the universe. You
> aren't reading the actual book in front of you; you are dwelling in
> its platonic ideal. When you are older and have different psychological
> needs, that spell may break. Meanwhile, it will hold you even if you
> know that what you're reading is qualitatively crappy.
I think this description would apply in the case of Salvatore, whose stuff
had a thread here last week.
Salvatore's prose stumbles rather than sings, but his particular flavor of
fantasy product charmed a large set of readers into following him through
his subworld.
Should a writer in this situation try to change the way he's been working,
when in terms of sales and readership, it does work? What if t he change
turns out to break the spell? Is the risk worth it?
--
LT
Dorothy J Heydt
Maureen O'Brien <mob...@dnaco.net> wrote:
[good stuff, which I have saved to disk]
>Myself, I'd say that the previous two novels written by Dorothy J.
>Heydt had quite a decent amount of magic...
Why, thank you. Now if I could only figure out what the
quality was that makes things sell, and go on a quest to
get some.
(Frex, I would have had a cover for one that showed
>both the housewife and the princess.
The cover I would have liked would have shown on the
front--that is, on the right-hand-side of the
painting--Amalia riding through the Darklands, her dark
hood and cloak silhouetted against the dimly-lit fields,
the soft lights clustering about her. And then on the
back color, the left-hand side of the painting,
completely dark against the fields, Ulf following her.
>Magic is both a gift and a problem. Yes, magic sells and sells big..
sometimes.
Christopher Henrich
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> In article <eafbju85janjkenr6...@4ax.com>,
> Eric D. Berge <eric_berge @ hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:56:18 -0000, e...@drizzle.com (Elf Sternberg)
> >wrote:
> >
> >> While I agree with you completely with regard to Anthony, I
> >>think I'll disagree on the universals. I think most authors know where
> >>they reside on the continua of authorial quality.
> >
> >*snicker* Read any of Johnny Ringo's "If it sells, it's not crap"
> >screeds?
>
> Whereas I would almost go to the opposite extreme and
> say "If it sells, it's got to be crap," but happily there
> are a few exceptions.
>
We all know the feeling, but ... Consider Tolkien - a runaway best
seller (to the astonishment of everyone), and among the best authors of
the century.
For that matter, wasn't Shakespare pretty successful in his time?
--
Chris Henrich
Andrew Wheeler
>
> In article <G%kZ8.151088$Bt1.8...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
> "Eric San Juan" <shoeg...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >Does writing like DeLillo's bother you because you don't enjoy it,
> >or does it bother you because other people think it's good? Just
> >curious.
>
> I think it bothers me because it's presented critically as
> wonderful or whatever, and while I can see and appreciate the art and
> effort that goes into it, I'm simply not impressed with it to any
> great degree precisely because it's presented as "great fiction" but
> it's terrible storytelling. He has this wonderful talent to wring
> meaning out of every last scene, but the overall feel of his work is,
> to me, disjointed and in disarray. Maybe in "Underworld" that was
> what he was trying to convey about the characters, but I feel that
> sort of technique should be left to scriptwriters: it's hard to
> sustain those kinds of feelings about literary characters for so
> long.
I don't know if this will help any, but I'm a big DeLillo fan and I have
major problems with _Underworld_. (Basically, I think it was structured
in reverse chronological order to hide the fact that there really
wasn't, as you say, any story there.) I enjoyed reading it, because
DeLillo writes masterful prose, and if there's one thing I want after
spending most of my work reading time on plot-oriented writing that
often tends to the clunky, it's good prose. He also writes fantastic
scenes, as you note. I do think _Underworld_ got its kudos primarily
because of its heft and its density -- critics were willing to give it
the benefit of the doubt due to all of the energy and thought that went
into it. (Unkind comments about gullible critics can be inserted here.)
If you liked the prose in _Underworld_, and would like to see that power
put to use in a story, I'd suggest trying _Libra_ (the story of Lee
Harvey Oswald), _White Noise_ (which is some kind of non-genre SF) or
possibly _Ratner's Star (a much earlier novel about science, and
possibly a influence on Stephenson's _Cryptonomicon_).
--
Andrew Wheeler
--
"The world is quiet here."
-V.F.D.
Luke Webber
news:GzF6o...@kithrup.com...
> In article <3D360F3C...@dnaco.net>,
> Maureen O'Brien <mob...@dnaco.net> wrote:
> >
> >Yes, but. There's a considerable difference between "workmanlike but
> >not great" and "crap". What about all of us kids who didn't eat lunch
> >or buy milk so we could buy Extruded Amber Product or Extruded Trek
> >Product being marketed as The Good Stuff?
>
> But surely it was your choice to buy it.
>
> The fact that you have now recognized it as E*P means
> your tastes have matured, and now you can buy genuinely
> good stuff.
All very true. I wonder if Maureen actually believed she was reading the
classics? I never imagined so back when I was reading Norton and Heinlein
juveniles. Not even when I was reading Wyndham, for that matter.
If we all read only what our parents and teachers recommended, it'd be a
pretty boring world, and it's in the nature of the young to read the
current, trendy crud. It's up to us parents to encourage reading of (almost)
any kind in order to entrench the reading habit. We can hope that our kids
learn later in life that there are better things to read, but it's the
reading itself that really counts. I guess my kids are lucky that they
aren't forced to forego lunch in order to get all the books they need.
In short, Maureen's quarters weren't entirely wasted. She got her
entertainment, and she finally figured out what was good. A great result,
IMO.
Now, does anybody want to buy a bunch on Animorphs books, cheap? <g>
Luke
Luke Webber
news:170720022138307932%chen...@monmouth.com...
> We all know the feeling, but ... Consider Tolkien - a runaway best
> seller (to the astonishment of everyone), and among the best authors of
> the century.
>
> For that matter, wasn't Shakespare pretty successful in his time?
Well yes, but it's interesting to note that his work was popular with the
common folk. It wasn't considered to be High Art at the time of writing.
Ironic, isn't it?
Luke
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >
> >I'm not so sure he's good evidence for the "no" side. If you read
> >what he had to say around the time he stopped writing somewhat
> >interesting SF and started writing endlessly extended fantasy series,
> >it seems pretty clear that he made a conscious decision to be come a
> >less good writer, for the purpose of making more money.
>
> Unless that was before 1974, he still owes me the part of
> my soul that was damaged by the crap that is "Rings of Ice". Oh, god,
> was that bad. I - I still hurt....
I'd put it as happening between 1977 (first Xanth book) and when the
last Cluster book came out (around 1983), so I guess he still owes
you. I haven't read that one; I guess I won't go searching for it.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / New TMDA anti-spam in test
John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info
Wavemaker
"Dorothy J Heydt" wrote:
>
> No, but sometimes you have to write crap to sell.
>
> I don't remember who it was said, on some group several
> years ago, "Stephen King writes for middlebrows, he
> *thinks* like a middlebrow, and you can't *fake* that."
> Zelazny once, and up and asked him why he had switched
> from his good early work to endless packets of Extruded
> Amber Product. In reply, Zelazny pointed out the window
> to his children, playing outside.
Is it a question of have to write a large quantity of books in order to make
enough money to put food on the table? In other words, all things being
equal, a sci-fi/fantasy author who produces two books a year is going to
make more than one who produces a book every three or so years (not
necessarily true, of course, but stick with me). Therefore, to make more
money, you have to write more. For any artist, there is point of
diminishing returns where their output exceeds the resources of their
imagination. From then on, they are pretty much relying on formula and
clichés. But then the artist may think this is a price worth paying because
they have to pay the bills after all. And somehow the stuff does sell, which
leads me to ask...
Is it also a question of having to write books that have certain elements in
them that are known to sell in order make money? The formulas and clichés we
have seen in sci-fi/fantasy are known to appeal to a large number of
readers, so including them in a book may increase the likelihood that it
will sell.
I'm really just thinking out loud here, not making a case or anything. But
if the answer to both questions are yes, then it seems to me that there is a
vicious circle here. A writer has to write a large quantity in order to
increase the likelihood he or she will make money, which leads them to rely
on formulas and clichés. These formulas and clichés are a safe bet because
they sell books, so the author is encouraged to use them, which leads them
to write more books, which... you get the idea.
David Tate
> > the entire Impressionist movement was considered trash by the critics
> > at the time. And there is a difference between "great literature" and
> > books that are servicable. For example, the Trek novels may not be
> > Shakespeare, but if they give Trek fans written matter which fulfills
> > the requirements of the Trek universe, can you actually say that they
> > are "bad"?
Well, yes.
If they can't write grammatical sentences, or plausible dialogue, or
smooth transitions, or cohesive paragraphs -- if they can't give
characters identifiable voices, or believable motivations -- if they
can't avoid repeating certain catch-phrases over and over throughout
the work -- then yes, they are "bad".
And I see all of those failings in many commercially successful works.
> > They are giving the readers what they want, and not
> > everything has to be high art.
But it *does* have to be competent craft, at least for me.
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message news:<m2fzyiz...@gw.dd-b.net>...
> I'm not particularly interested in "high art" in general anyway. I'm
> interested in stuff with enough levels to maintain interest, though.
Hear, hear. And enough competent wordcraft to avoid distracting the
reader.
Just as a cubist or surrealist really should be able to draw a cow
that looks like a cow, if necessary, so too any writer should be able
to write basic exposition, basic dialogue, and basic grammatical
sentences, before moving on to either 'art' or 'commerce'.
David Tate
Mark Reichert
> Whereas I would almost go to the opposite extreme and
> say "If it sells, it's got to be crap," but happily there
> are a few exceptions.
Is there anyway to get a real good handle on what is actually selling best?
Dan Goodman
news:99e65015.02071...@posting.google.com:
USA Today's bestseller list is _one_ list. Hardcovers, paperbacks; fiction,
nonfiction -- it's all on the same list, all competing against each other.
The top fifty portion of the list is published in the Life section on
Thursdays. The website (http://usatoday.com) has the top three hundred.
Eric Lee Green
> Eric Lee Green <er...@badtux.org> writes:
>>I would not say that Steven King is a bad writer though. Certainly he
>>has had some less successful works, but his best is quite good indeed
>>at doing what it sets out to do -- plumb the nightmares of the human
>>soul.
>
> King is very good at some things, but I wouldn't say that "plumbing
> the nightmares of the human soul" is one of them.
>
> What he really excels at is characterization, and most especially
> characterization in small-town American settings. Some of his best
> works are essentially character studies -- "The Body," "Rita Hayworth
> and the Shawshank Redemptions," and others in that vein.
_Pet Sematary_ to this day stands as the only book that I could not
finish because it was too good at what it was trying to do. I quit
reading at the part where the father starts daydreaming about digging
up his dead child... I knew what was going to happen next, and King
had done such a good job of setting and characterization that I knew
it was going to destroy this man, and I couldn't go on.
If a child dying is not a nightmare that every father has, what is?
Granted, he has written a lot of merely adequate fiction, as well as a
couple of bookstops (the expanded version of _The Stand_ being one
such), but he seems to me to be someone who knows exactly the limits
of his ability, who tries to do the best he can do but is quite aware
he's not writing Shakespeare. His last few books are probably his
strongest for exactly that reason -- he sticks to what he can do, and
does it well.
--
Eric Lee Green EMAIL: mailto:er...@badtux.org WEB: http://badtux.org
There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.
- Mark Twain
Eric Lee Green
> Of course...
>
> Identify the source of this quote: "These stories were written to
> please, and sold to buy groceries."
It was not the same person who said "I write for Joe's beer money, and
Joe likes his beer", I take it.
James Nicoll
Lee Ann Rucker <lru...@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <ah3ung$l2b$1...@panix2.panix.com>, James Nicoll
><jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> >(I can honestly say the only one I remember with any sort of enjoyment
>> >was "Macroscope".)
>>
>> Which has to my eye the enourmous advantage that it draws from
>> what is now an obscure source in SF: Stapledon.
>
>Any book in particular?
_Star Maker_.
Dorothy J Heydt
Go to the supermarket and/or the drugstore and see what
they're pushing.
r.r...@thevine.net
>Just as a cubist or surrealist really should be able to draw a cow
>that looks like a cow, if necessary, so too any writer should be able
>to write basic exposition, basic dialogue, and basic grammatical
>sentences, before moving on to either 'art' or 'commerce'.
>
>David Tate
Is the person who says that Trek books are bad basing it on those
elements, though? I mean, any book without those basics is bad, in my
book. I just can't see that every single Trek book is that way. If
they were, I really can't see people reading them. But somehow I get
the impression that many people classify things like the Trek books as
bad because they aren't "literature". Which is a different situation
than what you describe.
Personally, I dislike art for art's sake. To use another media as an
analogy, when I saw Pulp Fiction, I quite admired the artistic quality
of it. I thought it was an interesting break from normal movies, and
a very bold statement. I just wish that they had used that gift to
tell a story that I wanted to watch! Memento, on the other hand, used
some of the same artistic elements, and actually had a worthwhile
story to go with it. That is part of my problem with describing
something as good or bad. I never know what to say about something
like this, and normally fall back on something like "It's artistic,
but I didn't like it."
Rebecca
Lee Ann Rucker
<jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <170720021546191493%lru...@mac.com>,
> Lee Ann Rucker <lru...@mac.com> wrote:
> >In article <ah3ung$l2b$1...@panix2.panix.com>, James Nicoll
> ><jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >(I can honestly say the only one I remember with any sort of enjoyment
> >> >was "Macroscope".)
> >>
> >> Which has to my eye the enourmous advantage that it draws from
> >> what is now an obscure source in SF: Stapledon.
> >
> >Any book in particular?
>
> _Star Maker_.
Thanks. The library has it, and Stapledon's been on my "check out"
list for a while now.
Dan Goodman
news:ah5eb9$cou$1...@panix1.panix.com:
And George Turner's _Brain Child_ draws heavily on _Odd John_.
Dan Goodman
> On 17 Jul 2002 20:01:17 -0700, dt...@ida.org (David Tate) wrote:
>
>>Just as a cubist or surrealist really should be able to draw a cow
>>that looks like a cow, if necessary, so too any writer should be able
>>to write basic exposition, basic dialogue, and basic grammatical
>>sentences, before moving on to either 'art' or 'commerce'.
>>
>>David Tate
>
> Is the person who says that Trek books are bad basing it on those
> elements, though? I mean, any book without those basics is bad, in my
> book. I just can't see that every single Trek book is that way. If
> they were, I really can't see people reading them.
Sex novels mostly _are_ that way, and it doesn't stop people from reading
them. Enough to keep several publishing companies in business.
DAA
>> Eric Lee Green <er...@badtux.org> writes:
>> What he really excels at is characterization, and most especially
>> characterization in small-town American settings. Some of his best
>> works are essentially character studies -- "The Body," "Rita Hayworth
>> and the Shawshank Redemptions," and others in that vein.
>
> _Pet Sematary_ to this day stands as the only book that I could not
> finish because it was too good at what it was trying to do.
> Granted, he has written a lot of merely adequate fiction, as well as a
> couple of bookstops (the expanded version of _The Stand_ being one
> such), but he seems to me to be someone who knows exactly the limits
> of his ability, who tries to do the best he can do but is quite aware
> he's not writing Shakespeare. His last few books are probably his
> strongest for exactly that reason -- he sticks to what he can do, and
> does it well.
>
I've read very little of Kings work. But by strange coincidence "Rita
Hayworth ...", "Pet Sematary" and "The Stand" are among the few I have read
and I agree with all of the above statements concerning these books. I'm of
the (probably unique) opinion that King's best stories minimize the
supernatural elements. The last King story my sister talked me into reading,
"The Girl Who Loved Tom Morgan"? was diminished IMHO by the introduction
unnecessary supernatural elements.
Dave AA
Luke Webber
news:c7464efe.02071...@posting.google.com...
> Not sure what you meant to say above.
> If you mean, "Do authors of Trek books, and any other books generally
> acknowledged to be bad, know that they're awful?" then I'm prepared
> Anthony thinks he's a great writer, and he's not, so the answer you
> seek is, "No". I base this on his weird end-notes. I read a few of them
> in my teen days of trying to read everything in the local library.
> (I can honestly say the only one I remember with any sort of enjoyment
> was "Macroscope".)
Agreed, though even Macroscope turns to shit on rereading. Some interesting
ideas, but it falls apart fairly quickly. And the dialogue, and even the
internal monologue is, as usual, stilted, wooden and incredible.
Luke
Jeff Walther
> Well, in the defense of "bad" artists of any stripe, many times in
> history artists aren't appreciated in their own time. For example,
> the entire Impressionist movement was considered trash by the critics
> at the time.
And people of discernment still consider it trash. :-)
--
A friend will help you move. A real friend will help you move a body.
Steve Taylor
> Except he believes "the good ones" are good. I don't.
I have old memories of _Macroscope_ being pretty interesting - but I
haven't read it for decades. Possibly if I reread it now I'd be
embarassed at having said that.
Steve
Jeff Walther
spro...@aol.compipe (Sproles52) wrote:
> >I teach writers workshops fairly regularly, at conventions and also at
> >colleges.
> Ms. Crispin,
>
> After a college degree in a science field, where would you suggest a beginning
> writer start with writing couse work? I spend most of my day looking through a
> microscope at cancer and pre-cancerous cells and hardly write except for
stream
> of consciousness journal entries. Do you have to go back for an English major
> or can you build on skills that you may already have? (and if these sentences
> are grammatically uncorrect, please correct me).
I would check at your local schools and see if there are any intense
writing and editing classes available. E.g. at UT at Austin, John
Trimble teaches a couple of writing classes in which the students each
write a paper every week, but every student in the class edits the papers
of every other student in the class every week. I think one of the
classes is Advanced Expository Writing in case you want to hunt for an
on-line catalog to read. Start at http://www.utexas.edu .
Both the experience of seeing 10 - 16 different peoples' edits and the
experience of editing other's writings is a real eye opener and develops
great writing and editing skills. Plus, just writing that many pieces
helps.
Jeff Walther
> soul. He will never be confused with Shakespeare. But that is not what
> he set out to do, and he would never say that Shakespeare is what he
> set out to do.
Well, Shakespeare didn't set out to be Shakespear either, but look where
it got him...
Niall McAuley
> It's the authors who want to "leave a voice" that bother me.
> Banks and DeLillo, for example. Banks tweaks the authorial formula,
> leaving the reader disappointed.
I can see how you might think Banks is trying too hard, but I like it.
--
Niall [real address ends in se, not es.invalid]
Niall McAuley
> _Pet Sematary_ to this day stands as the only book that I could not
> finish because it was too good at what it was trying to do.
Wow, I thought it was a standard trot through a bunch of
Hollywood clichés, and I haven't read any King since.
Allan Griffith
>We all know the feeling, but ... Consider Tolkien - a runaway best
>seller (to the astonishment of everyone), and among the best authors of
>the century.
You're serious, aren't you?
Al
Allan Griffith
>> Well, in the defense of "bad" artists of any stripe, many times in
>> history artists aren't appreciated in their own time. For example,
>> the entire Impressionist movement was considered trash by the critics
>> at the time.
>
>And people of discernment still consider it trash. :-)
Yep.
Al
Luke Webber
news:00xZ8.460017$o66.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I can't comprehend how Renoir, Monet, Degas and Turner could be called
"trash".
Luke
Peter Meilinger
>I've read very little of Kings work. But by strange coincidence "Rita
>Hayworth ...", "Pet Sematary" and "The Stand" are among the few I have read
>and I agree with all of the above statements concerning these books. I'm of
>the (probably unique) opinion that King's best stories minimize the
>supernatural elements. The last King story my sister talked me into reading,
>"The Girl Who Loved Tom Morgan"? was diminished IMHO by the introduction
>unnecessary supernatural elements.
Tom Gordon, I think, not Morgan. I know what you mean about the
supernatural bit, but I don't think its mere presence was a bad
thing. A little girl lost in the woods is likely to start believing
there's really a monster out there, especially after she's gone
awhile without eating. I do think King went too far with the
"Is it supernatural or isn't it?" question, though. Overall it
was a good book, if only because it confirmed that I'm not the
only one who gets that damned "1-800-54-GIANT" jingle stuck
in my head.
I think King's short stories are his best work. My favorites
of his work, at least. And I can agree with you that the ones
with less of the overtly supernatural are better. The ones I
really like are the stories that have only one supernatural
element to them that is the focus of the story - Word Processor
Of The Gods, Mrs. Todd's Shortcut, and others like that. Something
like Salem's Lot, where there are vampires all over the damned
place, doesn't do it for me as much.
Pete
Dorothy J Heydt
It all gets down to defining "good" (and its
superlative, "best") again. I, too, consider Tolkien
one of the best authors of the 20th century, maybe the
best. Whom would you nominate?
Allan Griffith
>It all gets down to defining "good" (and its
>superlative, "best") again. I, too, consider Tolkien
>one of the best authors of the 20th century, maybe the
>best. Whom would you nominate?
I'd be surprised if many people outside the SF/fantasy ghetto would
seriously put forward Tolkien's name as one of the great writers of
the past century. I imagine they'd be laughed at if they did.
Al
Allan Griffith
>>>We all know the feeling, but ... Consider Tolkien - a runaway best
>>>seller (to the astonishment of everyone), and among the best authors of
>>>the century.
>>
>>You're serious, aren't you?
>
>It all gets down to defining "good" (and its
>superlative, "best") again. I, too, consider Tolkien
>one of the best authors of the 20th century, maybe the
>best. Whom would you nominate?
A few of the names that would have leapt into my mind before Tolkien's
if you'd asked me to name the greatest novelists of the 20th century
Joseph Conrad, Ernest Hemingway, William Faulkner, Italo Calvino,
Jorge Luis Borges, Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, Angela Carter, John
Fowles, Lawrence Durrell, Virginia Woolf, George Bernard Shaw, George
Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Graham Greene, William Golding, Gunter Grass,
Andre Gide, Marcel Proust, Samuel Becket, Mervyn Peake.
There's a few others who might not be quite in the front rank, but
would certainly rate ahead of Tolkien, like Christopher Isherwood,
Doris Lessing, Umberto Eco.
Al
Michael S. Schiffer
So your basis for disagreeing with Dorothy is that unspecified
"people outside the SF/fantasy ghetto" would laugh at the idea?
Argument from authority, especially when you're not naming your
authorities (let alone their criteria for literary merit), doesn't
really establish much. (Is there any candidate for best author that
no one would laugh at?)
But as Dorothy said, it all depends on how you're defining "good".
Good at what? Good for what? Tolkien, for example, has no equal at
creating a deep, fully-realized secondary world. But that's not a
goal that most writers share. *Is* there a goal that most writers do
share, to allow the determination of a single "best" (or at least a
single set of contenders for best)?
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Sea Wasp
>
> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
> >It all gets down to defining "good" (and its
> >superlative, "best") again. I, too, consider Tolkien
> >one of the best authors of the 20th century, maybe the
> >best. Whom would you nominate?
>
> I'd be surprised if many people outside the SF/fantasy ghetto would
> seriously put forward Tolkien's name as one of the great writers of
> the past century.
You'd imagine wrong. The NYT had Tolkien topping the list of the best
of the century, IIRC. There are several other wide-spectrum
surveys/lists, and ALL of them included Tolkien.
JRRT escapes the ghetto for a number of reasons, not the least of which
being the fact that he was a linguistic scholar of great repute, and
therefore the material he wrote carried at least some of the weight of
his reputation.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Allan Griffith
> You'd imagine wrong. The NYT had Tolkien topping the list of the best
>of the century, IIRC. There are several other wide-spectrum
>surveys/lists, and ALL of them included Tolkien.
The decline of literacy must have advanced much further than I'd
thought.
Al
Allan Griffith
>You'd imagine wrong. The NYT had Tolkien topping the list of the best
>of the century, IIRC. There are several other wide-spectrum
>surveys/lists, and ALL of them included Tolkien.
Surveys? Surveys of whom? Are these surveys/lists just popularity
contests or reader polls? Can you point me to some respected literary
critics who'd name Tolkien as one of the greats?
One of the reasons we SF fans don't get taken seriously is because we
make obviously silly claims like Tolkien as one of the giants of 20th
century literature.
Al
Steve Mowbray
Allan Griffith <agri...@bigpond.net.au> writes:
>
> I'd be surprised if many people outside the SF/fantasy ghetto would
> seriously put forward Tolkien's name as one of the great writers of
> the past century. I imagine they'd be laughed at if they did.
>
Then you'd be wrong. From www.waterstones.co.uk:
In January 1997 Waterstone's announced the results of its Books of the
Century poll, conducted in association with Channel 4, to find out
what the public considered to be the hundred greatest books of the
twentieth century. Over 25 000 people took part in the poll and the
Book of the Century was revealed as JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.
Steve
Allan Griffith
>Then you'd be wrong. From www.waterstones.co.uk:
>
>In January 1997 Waterstone's announced the results of its Books of the
>Century poll, conducted in association with Channel 4, to find out
>what the public considered to be the hundred greatest books of the
>twentieth century. Over 25 000 people took part in the poll and the
>Book of the Century was revealed as JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.
You're talking about a popularity contest for God's sake. You can't
seriously believe that proves anything?
Al
William T. Hyde
> In article <3D360F3C...@dnaco.net>,
> Maureen O'Brien <mob...@dnaco.net> wrote:
> >
> >Yes, but. There's a considerable difference between "workmanlike but
> >not great" and "crap". What about all of us kids who didn't eat lunch
> >or buy milk so we could buy Extruded Amber Product or Extruded Trek
> >Product being marketed as The Good Stuff?
>
> But surely it was your choice to buy it.
Yes and no. It's a case of false advertising/branding.
When an author who has consistently written
good work at the top of his/her abilities decides
instead to publish crap there is a definite element
of deception. The high quality of the writer's
previous work will cause the reader to buy at least
the next book, published effectively under false pretenses.
It once was not unknown for a writer to adopt a pen
name for books written in a different style from
those which made him/her famous (back when writers
could have two styles) so as not to deceive the
readers. How much more important to do so when
deliberately writing down? But clearly the cachet
of the name is used to sell a product that effectively
no longer exists (a phenomenon well known elsewhere,
e.g. the supermarket).
Zelazny was good enough, though, that even when he
wasn't trying - as in all but the first book of the
first Amber series - I found him worth a read. (But
then, in those days my summer job earned me, as
I calculated at the time, two or three paperbacks an
hour, so there was never any question of spending
my lunch money.)
I have less sympathy for people who bought any
Trek book. Given the generally weak quality
of writing on the show(s), I suspect that on
average they delivered what they promised. In
fact I think the Blish Trek books were the first
SF works I simply decided not to buy.
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Ian A. York
Allan Griffith <agri...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>Surveys? Surveys of whom? Are these surveys/lists just popularity
>contests or reader polls? Can you point me to some respected literary
>critics who'd name Tolkien as one of the greats?
If you haven't heard about this, then it suggests you don't read much
outside your particular ghettos. Many literary critics do in fact name
Tolkien as one of the greats, and those who don't, still tend to take him
seriously. You are one of the very few people who consider the notion
absurd. Look into Shippey's book, look into the recent articles in New
Yorker or Village Voice or Times Literary Supplement. These critics don't
necessarily agree that it's the greatest book, but they do, as I say, take
it very seriously, pointing to its strong points as well as its flaws.
Hell, Harold Bloom, das ubercritic, has edited two books of Tolkien
criticism. (He disagrees that Tolkien is the greatest, doubts that he is
one of the greats, but considers it a reasonable question.)
>One of the reasons we SF fans don't get taken seriously is because we
>make obviously silly claims like Tolkien as one of the giants of 20th
>century literature.
One of the reasons SF fans don't get taken seriously is that they remain
resolutely ignorant of the wider world of fiction. Try reading a
little.
Ian
--
Ian York (iay...@panix.com) <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
"-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England
Peter Meilinger
>Sea Wasp wrote:
>>You'd imagine wrong. The NYT had Tolkien topping the list of the best
>>of the century, IIRC. There are several other wide-spectrum
>>surveys/lists, and ALL of them included Tolkien.
>Surveys? Surveys of whom? Are these surveys/lists just popularity
>contests or reader polls? Can you point me to some respected literary
>critics who'd name Tolkien as one of the greats?
Am I the only one who imagines that the way literary critics
gain respect is by making sure they say the same thing as all
the other literary critics?
>One of the reasons we SF fans don't get taken seriously is because we
>make obviously silly claims like Tolkien as one of the giants of 20th
>century literature.
To turn your question from above back on you, can you name
some respected literary critics who say Tolkien shouldn't be
considered a great writer?
For that matter, can you define what "respected literary critic"
means?
Pete
Sea Wasp
You're welcome to your (uninformed and pompous) opinion. Obviously the
editors of the Times disagreed with you.
You're welcome, of course, to state some actual CRITERIA on which you
feel Tolkien's work shouldn't qualify as a proper literary achievement
-- but these had better be ones that clearly allow whatever YOU consider
"literature" to remain in that category. Otherwise you're just
exhibiting your own prejudices.
Sea Wasp
Um... yes.
Over the period of a century, some books will be nominated, some will
not, some will survive, some will not.
Those which don't survive won't be counted great. The ones that survive
will be those which are popular, for the most part, and that RETAIN
popularity outside of their initial timeslot. I.e., being a bestseller
when you're first released doesn't say much. Being a popular seller 30
years after release DOES say something. Being a popular seller 60 years
afterwards says a great deal indeed, and being a good seller more than
100 years afterwards pretty much seals it. Shakespeare, as is often
pointed out, was not trying to create Immortal Prose. He succeeded in
doing so, however, and part of the demonstration of that was the fact
that his plays remained popular after many of his contemporaries' works
vanished from sight.
Michael S. Schiffer
If it's so obvious, then you'll have no trouble making the argument
directly instead of trying to get people to be embarrassed about how
they must look. (Nice use of the passive voice, btw. It thoroughly
obscures the issue of by whom SF fans "don't get taken seriously", or
why they-- or anyone-- should wish to be taken seriously by said
unnamed judge(s).)
"Other people disagree with you" isn't an argument, it's an
assertion, and a trivially obvious one. (I doubt there are any
claims about literary merit that some people *don't* disagree
with, and precious few undisputed claims period.) "Other people
think you're silly" is even worse-- it's an appeal to fear. The
thrust isn't to change someone's mind, but to make them abandon their
claim for fear of how they'll look. And it neatly avoids the central
question: What are the criteria for literary greatness you're using,
and in what ways does Tolkien fall short?
IMHO, the idea of a linear scale in which we can decide if, e.g.,
Jane Austen is a better writer than James Joyce, or if Kafka is
superior or inferior to Chaucer, strikes me as unlikely on its face.
Even restricting the question to twentieth century literature written
in English, you have writers with vastly different goals and styles.
(Were Joyce and Hemingway trying to do the same thing, so that we can
say that one was better at it than the other?)
Until we agree on what we're saying a given writer is supposed to be
best *at*, of course we're not going to have even a chance of
agreeing on which is the best. And no amount of lamenting declining
standards and "obviously silly claims" will communicate what you
think constitutes literary greatness, let alone why those standards
should be universally accepted.
Allan Griffith
>One of the reasons SF fans don't get taken seriously is that they remain
>resolutely ignorant of the wider world of fiction. Try reading a
>little.
One of the reasons SF fans don't get taken seriously is that they
often resort to personal abuse when their favourite authors are
criticised.
Al
Sea Wasp
Pfui. You're the one who came in here and decided to dismiss the very
concept that Tolkien could possibly be considered a literary giant.
Without, we should note, you presenting any actual ARGUMENT, just a few
hoity-toity "literary taste has declined" comments.
In other words, you're either a pompous ass or a troll. Possibly both.
If *our* opinion matters to you so much that you must comment on it, try
adding a bit o' substance to your vaporings.
Dorothy J Heydt
>....Shakespeare, as is often
>pointed out, was not trying to create Immortal Prose. He succeeded in
>doing so, however, and part of the demonstration of that was the fact
>that his plays remained popular after many of his contemporaries' works
>vanished from sight.
Though, mind you, one of the factors in that equation is
that Shakespeare himself was apparently a really nice
guy. They called him "Sweet Will." And after he died,
his friends got together and gathered all his
manuscripts and got them published so that he wouldn't
be forgotten. They even, so I'm told, saved some that
weren't really worth saving, "Pericles" e.g.
An analogy: there was a Russian painter who died young,
leaving a wife and child and no money. His friends got
together and put on an exhibition of his surviving
paintings, to raise some money for his family. One of
the friends, Modeste Mussorgsky, wrote a series of piano
pieces based on the paintings, called it "Pictures at an
Exhibition." Maurice Ravel later orchestrated it. We
hear it quite a lot to this day. I don't remember the
name of the painter; one difference from Shakespeare's case.
James Nicoll
Lee Ann Rucker <lru...@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <ah5eb9$cou$1...@panix1.panix.com>, James Nicoll
><jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <170720021546191493%lru...@mac.com>,
>> Lee Ann Rucker <lru...@mac.com> wrote:
>> >In article <ah3ung$l2b$1...@panix2.panix.com>, James Nicoll
>> ><jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >(I can honestly say the only one I remember with any sort of enjoyment
>> >> >was "Macroscope".)
>> >>
>> >> Which has to my eye the enourmous advantage that it draws from
>> >> what is now an obscure source in SF: Stapledon.
>> >
>> >Any book in particular?
>>
>> _Star Maker_.
>
>Thanks. The library has it, and Stapledon's been on my "check out"
>list for a while now.
Have I mentioned I am a big Stapledon fan? The Novels of thread
inspired me to reread him and I think his material still has merit. Like
all fiction his is very much of the period it was written in but by gum he
had ambition. Sure, modern authors try to do things of the same scale as
Stapledon's history of all humanities*, or all the universe or the problem
of being superhuman in a human world, Stapledon was there before them and
in most cases did it better and with more imagination. And he's influential,
first hand on people like Clarke and also secondarily through that generation
of writers on modern ones (Although I'd put money on Stephen Baxter having
read _Star Maker_ and probably the others as well).
I wish Laumer were alive so I could ask him if he ever read
_Odd John_ or _Sirius_.
James Nicoll
* I'm about 2/3rds of the way through a modern example of that sort of
thing (prehominid and hominid history told as a series of just-so stories).
While I wouldn't say it's an awful book especially compared to others by the
same author, sections give me the impression I've read about the last 65
million years in realtime.
Ross TenEyck
>I've read very little of Kings work. But by strange coincidence "Rita
>Hayworth ...", "Pet Sematary" and "The Stand" are among the few I have read
>and I agree with all of the above statements concerning these books. I'm of
>the (probably unique) opinion that King's best stories minimize the
>supernatural elements. The last King story my sister talked me into reading,
>"The Girl Who Loved Tom Morgan"? was diminished IMHO by the introduction
>unnecessary supernatural elements.
You might like _Delores Clairborne,_ then. It's primarily a
character study; the only supernatural elements in it are very
minor and largely irrelevant.
(I never saw the movie; did anyone? Was it any good?)
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
Allan Griffith
>Pfui. You're the one who came in here and decided to dismiss the very
>concept that Tolkien could possibly be considered a literary giant.
I was SURPRISED by the assertion. I thought of Tolkien more as a
writer of children's books. That's how he strikes me, anyway. Not a
lot of emotional depth, somewhat stereotyped characters, and a very
black-and-white view of morality. And exceptionally dull. It's years
since I've read him, though.
Al