Well-written Books from Baen
Lois Tilton
may be deficient in the literary virtues. One method of countering
this claim, aside from ad hominem assaults upon the critics, might be
to list works from Baen which may be considered to be well-written.
My candidate is a book by Chico Kidd: =The Printer's Devil=.
It is well-studded with Latin quotations, what more can one ask?
--
LT
Fae Bard
news:rh4j5vkihre05h1kj...@4ax.com...
> It has been suggested by some that the works published by Baen Books
> may be deficient in the literary virtues. One method of countering
> this claim, aside from ad hominem assaults upon the critics, might be
> to list works from Baen which may be considered to be well-written.
>
Although I have run into more Baen books I didn't like than ones I did...
Mercedes Lackey's _Free Bards_ had me up waaay past my bedtime several
nights running.
Meghan
--
***
author of _From the Ashes_
an urban fantasy novel set at Pendragon Renaissance Faire.
For more info, visit http://www.faire-folk.com
To receive _From the Ashes_ FREE daily in your inbox, send an email to
Faire-Folk_Ashes-...@yahoogroups.com
Lois Tilton
wrote:
>Although I have run into more Baen books I didn't like than ones I did...
>Mercedes Lackey's _Free Bards_ had me up waaay past my bedtime several
>nights running.
But how is the prose?
--
LT
Fae Bard
It's been ~4 years, but... maybe a 6 to 7 on a 10-point scale?
I wouldn't say it's the best thing I've ever read, but that it kept me up at
all says something. Poorly written books tend to wind up decorating the
shelves of the local used book store, not my nightstand. No matter how
incredible the plot, if the prose is bad it gets put down.
Bobby D. Bryant
> It has been suggested by some that the works published by Baen Books may
> be deficient in the literary virtues. One method of countering this
> claim, aside from ad hominem assaults upon the critics, might be to list
> works from Baen which may be considered to be well-written.
I would give high marks to David Drake's _Birds of Prey_ and _Vettius and
his Friends_ ... though certainly not to the majority of his books.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>It has been suggested by some that the works published by Baen Books
>may be deficient in the literary virtues. One method of countering
>this claim, aside from ad hominem assaults upon the critics, might be
>to list works from Baen which may be considered to be well-written.
Nice use of the passive voice, there, Lois.
--
Pete McCutchen
Lois Tilton
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Nice use of the passive voice, there, Lois.
I've got a great subjunctive, too.
--
LT
Richard Shewmaker
Well, this might be a little convoluted, but the books listed below
are published by Baen and I enjoyed them. If the writing in them was
noticeably deficient, it's unlikely I would have liked them. They
represent a range of authors, some on the schlocky end and some on the
respectable end.
Aldiss: Hothouse
Drake: Lt. Leary Commanding; Men Hunting Things; With the Lightnings
Laumer: eight Retief books
Morrow: The Continent of Lies
Scott: The Empress of Earth; Silence in Solitude
Shea: The A'Rak; The Mines of Behemoth
Vance: Cugel's Saga; Rhialto the Marvellous
Vinge: Marooned in Realtime
--
My mother used to laugh and say that the only thing my father wouldn't
do for Axel Kern was promise him his only child. Of course, she was
wrong about that.
-- Elizabeth Hand, "Black Light"
David Bilek
I'll bet... (wolf whistle).
Ok, sorry.
-David
Lois Tilton
<notint...@nospamforme.moc> wrote:
>Aldiss: Hothouse
>Drake: Lt. Leary Commanding; Men Hunting Things; With the Lightnings
>Laumer: eight Retief books
>Morrow: The Continent of Lies
>Scott: The Empress of Earth; Silence in Solitude
>Shea: The A'Rak; The Mines of Behemoth
>Vance: Cugel's Saga; Rhialto the Marvellous
>Vinge: Marooned in Realtime
I would have a hard time supposing Morrow, Shea (if it is Michael) and
Vance would have produced a badly-written book, certainly.
--
LT
Randy Money
It is. Those are Nifft stories, I believe.
Randy M.
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
wrote:
>"Lois Tilton" <lti...@rcn.com> wrote in message
>news:rh4j5vkihre05h1kj...@4ax.com...
>> It has been suggested by some that the works published by Baen Books
>> may be deficient in the literary virtues. One method of countering
>> this claim, aside from ad hominem assaults upon the critics, might be
>> to list works from Baen which may be considered to be well-written.
>>
>
>Although I have run into more Baen books I didn't like than ones I did...
>Mercedes Lackey's _Free Bards_ had me up waaay past my bedtime several
>nights running.
I've read _Lark & Wren_ and thought it was competently written book
about growing up. Even interesting. Until the heroine gets in with the
Free Bards.
vlatko
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
Simon van Dongen
One might ask for English sentences worth quoting...
Simon van Dongen
--
Simon van Dongen <sg...@xs4all.nl> Rotterdam, The Netherlands
'Bear courteous greetings to the accomplished musician outside our
gate, [...] and convince him - by means of a heavily-weighted club
if necessary - that the situation he has taken up is quite unworthy
of his incomparable efforts.' -Bramah, 'Kai Lung's Golden Hours'
Richard Shewmaker
Hi, sorry, yes, Michael Shea. And the Scott is Melissa Scott.
Now I had to go see who published the one book I can think of which I
remember to this date as the most stupendously wretched thing I've
ever mistakenly purchased (probably rushing to get on a plane). It
wasn't Baen; it was Roc. No, I don't want to say whose it is. I kept
it as a reminder of past mistakes and to use as a threat for myself if
I ever can't otherwise find the motivation to do something (you don't
want to do that, that's fine: then read THAT book instead).
The only book I've read which was worse than it was a self-published
one (I no longer remember the title or author) I picked up for cheap.
It was so awful I actually read it through because I had to see if
there was any point to it or interesting idea in it at all. There
wasn't. It was like a fairytale invented by a very young child (a
non-Einsteinian one), but done as science fiction (well ...), and what
wouldn't have held up in a few pages had been spread across enough
paper to make it novel-length. I was so mortified I couldn't bring
myself to throw it out and convinced a used bookstore to buy it from
me (no, really, you *want* this -- see, it's unique, I'll bet there
aren't many of these lying around!).
In any event, it doesn't seem everything that comes out of Baen is
kindling only.
John M. Gamble
Richard Shewmaker <notint...@nospamforme.moc> wrote:
>Lois Tilton wrote:
>> It has been suggested by some that the works published by Baen Books
>> may be deficient in the literary virtues. One method of countering
>> this claim, aside from ad hominem assaults upon the critics, might be
>> to list works from Baen which may be considered to be well-written.
>>
>> My candidate is a book by Chico Kidd: =The Printer's Devil=.
>>
>> It is well-studded with Latin quotations, what more can one ask?
>
>Well, this might be a little convoluted, but the books listed below
>are published by Baen and I enjoyed them. If the writing in them was
>noticeably deficient, it's unlikely I would have liked them. They
>represent a range of authors, some on the schlocky end and some on the
>respectable end.
>
>Aldiss: Hothouse
>Drake: Lt. Leary Commanding; Men Hunting Things; With the Lightnings
>Laumer: eight Retief books
>Morrow: The Continent of Lies
>Scott: The Empress of Earth; Silence in Solitude
>Shea: The A'Rak; The Mines of Behemoth
>Vance: Cugel's Saga; Rhialto the Marvellous
>Vinge: Marooned in Realtime
>
Okay, i *really* don't want to pour more gasoline on the fire, but
pedantic honesty requires me to ask: How many of these actually
came from the editor via the writer, as opposed to books that have
sold well under other publishers, and were bought by Baen books to
be re-issued?
Is Hothouse a.k.a. The Long Afternood of Earth? In that case, it
predates Baen Books by almost two decades. For example.
--
-john
February 28 1997: Last day libraries could order catalogue cards
from the Library of Congress.
Steve Taylor
> It has been suggested by some that the works published by Baen Books
> may be deficient in the literary virtues. One method of countering
> this claim, aside from ad hominem assaults upon the critics, might be
> to list works from Baen which may be considered to be well-written.
Bujold is the great exception. After that, I'm not so sure.
> LT
Steve
Brandon Ray
"John M. Gamble" wrote:
>
> Okay, i *really* don't want to pour more gasoline on the fire, but
> pedantic honesty requires me to ask: How many of these actually
> came from the editor via the writer, as opposed to books that have
> sold well under other publishers, and were bought by Baen books to
> be re-issued?
>
> Is Hothouse a.k.a. The Long Afternood of Earth? In that case, it
> predates Baen Books by almost two decades. For example.
I'm not sure how important a distinction that is. Some editor still picked
those particular books as being worthy of being reissued, out of all the
thousands (tens of thousands?) that were out of print and presumably
available.
--
In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics! -- Homer Simpson
Richard Shewmaker
Poop! I don't know. I can tell you what the book says.
Copyright 1962 Brian Aldiss
Abridged version published in 1962 as "The Long Afternoon of Earth"
Intro copyright 1976 by G.K. Hall & Co.
Particularly for Charles and Timmy Parr (whatever *that* means)
First Baen Printing, December 1984
ISBN: 0-671-55930-3
Cover art by Susan Collins
Distributed by Simon & Schuster
I don't think the rest is important.
Now I'm curious, what's the big deal @ Baen anyway? Why do people want
to discredit them as junk publishers, if that's the case?
Fae Bard
news:3E5B20FF...@nospamforme.moc...
>
> Now I'm curious, what's the big deal @ Baen anyway? Why do people want
> to discredit them as junk publishers, if that's the case?
I admit that I have not read a vast quatnity of Baen books... although
somewhere along the way (not sure exactly where) there was a book I'd gotten
a quarter of the way through and couldn't finish... and, upon seeing Baen's
imprint on the spine, thought "Oh, that figures." Now, this was before I'd
hit rec.arts.sf.written, so I can honestly say it came without outside
influence.
_The Cage_ is the immediate example of "that figures" that springs to mind.
I couldn't tell you who wrote it, but I don't think I made it even 50 pages
in. It was a huge case of the author trying to show off all the obscure
terms she'd created for her incredibly complicated world. Granted, there
was a glossary at the back of the book... but looking up one term tended to
require looking up five, and by that point I was just utterly confused.
It might've gotten better if I'd been able to stick with it, but I have
little patience for authors who can't be bothered to relate their worlds in
a way the reader can semi-easily grasp.
There have been a few Baen books I did like... mostly by Mercedes Lackey...
but in all of those I've noticed large formatting errors that you'd think
the publisher would have caught. Didn't decrease my enjoyment of the story,
though it knocked Baen down a notch or two in my mental respect roster.
Haven't read Bujold yet -- but from what I understand she tends to be on the
sci-fi end of things, and I prefer fantasy (epic or modern, not picky).
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
wrote:
>Haven't read Bujold yet -- but from what I understand she tends to be on the
>sci-fi end of things, and I prefer fantasy (epic or modern, not picky).
_Spirit Ring_ and _Curse of Chalion_.
wth...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu
> In article <3E5A57F5...@nospamforme.moc>,
> Richard Shewmaker <notint...@nospamforme.moc> wrote:
> >Aldiss: Hothouse
> >Drake: Lt. Leary Commanding; Men Hunting Things; With the Lightnings
> >Laumer: eight Retief books
> >Morrow: The Continent of Lies
> >Scott: The Empress of Earth; Silence in Solitude
> >Shea: The A'Rak; The Mines of Behemoth
> >Vance: Cugel's Saga; Rhialto the Marvellous
> >Vinge: Marooned in Realtime
> >
>
> Okay, i *really* don't want to pour more gasoline on the fire, but
> pedantic honesty requires me to ask: How many of these actually
> came from the editor via the writer, as opposed to books that have
> sold well under other publishers, and were bought by Baen books to
> be re-issued?
Well, I was *very* happy to see the Baen re-issue of
the Nifft books, as my own copy of "Nifft the lean"
vanished decades ago. How much longer would I have had
to wait without Baen? And I had never seen a copy
of "The Mines of Behemoth". "The A'Rak" is new.
> Is Hothouse a.k.a. The Long Afternood of Earth? In that case, it
> predates Baen Books by almost two decades. For example.
Won a Hugo in 1962.
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Richard Shewmaker
> jga...@ripco.com (John M. Gamble) writes:
>
>>In article <3E5A57F5...@nospamforme.moc>,
>>Richard Shewmaker <notint...@nospamforme.moc> wrote:
>
>>>Aldiss: Hothouse
>>>Drake: Lt. Leary Commanding; Men Hunting Things; With the Lightnings
>>>Laumer: eight Retief books
>>>Morrow: The Continent of Lies
>>>Scott: The Empress of Earth; Silence in Solitude
>>>Shea: The A'Rak; The Mines of Behemoth
>>>Vance: Cugel's Saga; Rhialto the Marvellous
>>>Vinge: Marooned in Realtime
>>>
>>Okay, i *really* don't want to pour more gasoline on the fire, but
>>pedantic honesty requires me to ask: How many of these actually
>>came from the editor via the writer, as opposed to books that have
>>sold well under other publishers, and were bought by Baen books to
>>be re-issued?
>
> Well, I was *very* happy to see the Baen re-issue of
> the Nifft books, as my own copy of "Nifft the lean"
> vanished decades ago. How much longer would I have had
> to wait without Baen? And I had never seen a copy
> of "The Mines of Behemoth". "The A'Rak" is new.
I was also. When I came across Mines I was thrilled, and somehow I
knew in advance about A'Rak, so it was less of a surprise, but no less
appreciated. To be honest, I never noticed they were published by
Baen. The only way I knew which books I have are done via them was
thanks to having the books all in a database.
The only time I pay attention to the publisher is when it's one of the
few which I've had consistently tremendous books from and I see a book
I don't know anything about which is published by one of those few.
>>Is Hothouse a.k.a. The Long Afternood of Earth? In that case, it
>>predates Baen Books by almost two decades. For example.
>
> Won a Hugo in 1962.
Sure, but it might have been the first US edition. I was surprised it
wasn't British because I thought the cover art wasn't very American.
> William Hyde
> EOS Department
> Duke University
--
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:42:29 GMT, "Fae Bard" <ry...@acmemail.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Haven't read Bujold yet -- but from what I understand she tends to be on the
> >sci-fi end of things, and I prefer fantasy (epic or modern, not picky).
>
> _Spirit Ring_ and _Curse of Chalion_.
Not, however, from Baen :-).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info
Robert A. Woodward
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:42:29 GMT, "Fae Bard" <ry...@acmemail.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Haven't read Bujold yet -- but from what I understand she tends to be on
> > >the
> > >sci-fi end of things, and I prefer fantasy (epic or modern, not picky).
> >
> > _Spirit Ring_ and _Curse of Chalion_.
>
> Not, however, from Baen :-).
_Spirit Ring_ was published by Baen (it was her first hardcover as
well). And Jim Baen did bid on _Curse of Chalion_.
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <m2znojd...@gw.dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> > Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> writes:
> >
> > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:42:29 GMT, "Fae Bard" <ry...@acmemail.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Haven't read Bujold yet -- but from what I understand she tends to be on
> > > >the
> > > >sci-fi end of things, and I prefer fantasy (epic or modern, not picky).
> > >
> > > _Spirit Ring_ and _Curse of Chalion_.
> >
> > Not, however, from Baen :-).
>
>
> _Spirit Ring_ was published by Baen (it was her first hardcover as
> well). And Jim Baen did bid on _Curse of Chalion_.
Oops, you're right about _Spirit Ring_, of course.
Lois Tilton
wrote:
>>My candidate is a book by Chico Kidd: =The Printer's Devil=.
>>
>>It is well-studded with Latin quotations, what more can one ask?
>>
>One might ask for English sentences worth quoting...
I may have to back off and downgrade this one. While I still find it
an interesting read, I admit I could not find a paragraph in the text
that I would want to quote as an example of really exemplary writing.
--
LT
tweell
> may be deficient in the literary virtues. One method of countering
> this claim, aside from ad hominem assaults upon the critics, might be
> to list works from Baen which may be considered to be well-written.
>
>
>
> It is well-studded with Latin quotations, what more can one ask?
I remember reading an essay by Heinlein where he stated that he was
competing for beer money, and considered it an honor that people
bought his books, since he personally would have gone for the beer
most of the time. (Yes, I know that I'm paraphrasing from memory.) I
looked at my bookshelf, and a surprising amount of my books purchased
in the last few years were published by Baen. I would note that Baen
seems to have cornered the market on military science-fiction, with
more authors that primarily write in that sub-category than much
larger publishing houses, and that I tend to buy more of those books.
As far as literary virtues go, I buy books that interest and entertain
me. I am not looking for a future =Atlas Shrugged=. If you are trying
to malign authors that are published by Baen Books, I suspect that
they are laughing all the way to the bank (and that RAH would be
laughing as well, if possible).
tweell
Dan Grass
> It has been suggested by some that the works published by Baen Books
> may be deficient in the literary virtues. One method of countering
> this claim, aside from ad hominem assaults upon the critics, might be
> to list works from Baen which may be considered to be well-written.
>
>
> My candidate is a book by Chico Kidd: =The Printer's Devil=.
>
> It is well-studded with Latin quotations, what more can one ask?
I have yet to find a BAEN book that I do not like.
When I am looking for new books I tend to look for BAEN books first
because Jim Baen seems to be able to find authors that I like.
I have especially liked the following.
David Weber Honor Harrington Novels.
John Ringo March series
Eric Flint 1632
All of David Drakes books.
Rick Boatright
> It has been suggested by some that the works published by Baen Books
> may be deficient in the literary virtues. One method of countering
> this claim, aside from ad hominem assaults upon the critics, might be
> to list works from Baen which may be considered to be well-written.
>
>
> My candidate is a book by Chico Kidd: =The Printer's Devil=.
>
> It is well-studded with Latin quotations, what more can one ask?
Gee Lois, it would depend on what you mean by well written wouldn't it?
Do you consider Christepher Morley's novels "well written?" I can think
of nothing in any of them I would particlarly want to _quote_ as an
example of fine writing, but certainly Kathleen, "Where the Blue
Begins", "Parnassus on Wheels" and "The Haunted Bookshop" appear to have
stood the test. As long time editor of the Saterday Evening Post, he
certainly KNEW what "fine writing" was, and yet, served as I recall, for
many years as the president of the Baker Street Irregulars.
Similarly I can think of very little in RAH's writing that I would quote
(except perhaps The Green Hills of Earth, but that's a short story, not
a novel -- nothing in his novel length works.) as an example of fine
writing.
I would argue by analogy that MANY of Baen's books, certainly the HH
series of Weber's, parts of Flint, much of Lackey, and much of Bujold is
"well written" in the same sense that much of Morley's work, or much of
Heinlein's was. They're good stories that grab your attention and will
stand up to a re-read after an appropirate interval.
That's not to say that every "ripping yarn" is fully supplied with
literary virtues. But then, MUCH that is studded with literary virtues
is IMPOSSIBLE to read for enjoyment. (CF much of Hemmingway, all of
Joyce.) Well written to me is a book that I want to read baddly enough
that I could not wait to buy it in hardcover. Baen succeeds at that
admirably.
Rick Boatright
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
<Boat...@cjnetworks.com> wrote:
>MUCH that is studded with literary virtues
>is IMPOSSIBLE to read for enjoyment. (CF much of Hemmingway, all of
>Joyce.)
Define "enjoyment".
I remember reading both _Portrait_ and _Ulysses_ as well as quite a
lot of Hemingway for enjoyment of reading. Although, since I haven't
re-read them for a long time, it's not really an argument.
vlatko
--
http://www.niribanimeso.org/eng/
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
Rachel Brown
> > may be deficient in the literary virtues. One method of countering
> > this claim, aside from ad hominem assaults upon the critics, might be
> > to list works from Baen which may be considered to be well-written.
Like Lois Bujold's novels, C. J. Cherryh's are read for reasons other
than prose. But she's certainly not a bad prose writer, just one with
a peculiar style, and Baen published her fab martial arts novel _The
Paladin_.
Katharine Blake (aka Dorothy Heydt) wrote _The Interior Life_ for
Baen, which graced it with a bizarrely ill-concieved cover guaranteed
to turn off anyone who might like it, and attract those who probably
would not. But like the authors I list above, it's a book with many
virtues of which the prose style is the most minor.
Jack Vance, on the other hand, is a genuine stylist.
By the by, in all the kerfluffle over the unreadable prose style of
the Honor Harrington books (and I mean that literally-- I thought I'd
enjoy them, and tried hard to get through a single chapter of the
first one, and failed.) has anyone posted a paragraph or two from a
public excerpt here for critique and defense? One cannot discuss prose
without reference to examples of it.
Richard Horton
<Boat...@cjnetworks.com> wrote:
>But then, MUCH that is studded with literary virtues
>is IMPOSSIBLE to read for enjoyment. (CF much of Hemmingway, all of
>Joyce.)
I have no idea what you consider enjoyment, but I have read boatloads
of Hemingway with immense enjoyment, and some Joyce.
Indeed, Hemingway is in no sense a "difficult" writer. He reads quite
smoothly, to my taste. Joyce is different, at least late Joyce. I
don't know how many people can claim to "enjoy" _Finnegans Wake_,
though I'll bet there are some. But earlier Joyce ("The Dead" and
indeed most of _Dubliners_, much of _Portrait_, and I'm guessing
probably _Ulysses_ (which I have not read) is often very enjoyable.
Moreover, I think there are qualitative differences in Heinlein's
prose vs. Weber's, that mostly come down to rhythm and imaginative
content. Heinlein wins, hands down. (And I'm surprised anyone would
argue.) (Though here I must confess that my experience with Weber is
very limited.)
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Mike Schilling
"Richard Horton" <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:WCw7a.2636$NL4...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:50:08 -0600, Rick Boatright
> <Boat...@cjnetworks.com> wrote:
>
> >But then, MUCH that is studded with literary virtues
> >is IMPOSSIBLE to read for enjoyment. (CF much of Hemmingway, all of
> >Joyce.)
>
> I have no idea what you consider enjoyment, but I have read boatloads
> of Hemingway with immense enjoyment, and some Joyce.
>
> Indeed, Hemingway is in no sense a "difficult" writer. He reads quite
> smoothly, to my taste. Joyce is different, at least late Joyce. I
> don't know how many people can claim to "enjoy" _Finnegans Wake_,
> though I'll bet there are some. But earlier Joyce ("The Dead" and
> indeed most of _Dubliners_, much of _Portrait_, and I'm guessing
> probably _Ulysses_ (which I have not read) is often very enjoyable.
>
_Portait_, which is pretty grim.
Eric Flint
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Opz7a.67$zn6...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
That's my reaction, too. Of all Joyce's writings, ULYSSES is far and away
my favorite. The chapter depicting Leopold Bloom's argument with a drunk
in a pub, told in the form of a Biblical parody, is worth the price of
admission alone.
Eric
Louann Miller
wrote:
>> More than enjoyable; much of _Ulysses_ is actively fun, far more so than
>> _Portait_, which is pretty grim.
>
>That's my reaction, too. Of all Joyce's writings, ULYSSES is far and away
>my favorite. The chapter depicting Leopold Bloom's argument with a drunk
>in a pub, told in the form of a Biblical parody, is worth the price of
>admission alone.
You nearly persuade me to take a crack at the thing. It sounds weird
when you tell it, but so does the wisdom-teeth scene or the
dividing-grandma's-furniture scene in "Cryptonomicon" and I found
those freaking hilarious.
Louann
Rick Boatright
<<SNIPO>>> Moreover, I think there are qualitative differences in Heinlein's
> prose vs. Weber's, that mostly come down to rhythm and imaginative
> content. Heinlein wins, hands down. (And I'm surprised anyone would
> argue.) (Though here I must confess that my experience with Weber is
> very limited.)
Richard, I'm certainly not going to argue that Weber is the author that
RAH was. oh crud. Let me try again.
Why did Lois ask the question that she did? Why tar baen with this
broad brush of "publisher of works without literary quality" which she
did, even if by implication. (Her original post was so tounge-in-cheek
I'm surprized she was able to breath.)
What possible function does such a question serve. Jim has been _very_
clear about what he publishes. He makes exactly no bones about it. He
publishes pulps in a variety of guises. Military SF, Space operate, Alt
History, Romance, Fantasy, but all pulps. Ripping Yarns. Grab you
stories that run full-tilt across the page. Characters that you care
about surrounded by landscape and bit players who are thick ENOUGH to
support the story line. I'm seldom dissappointed by one. I _like_ that
stuff. I've read Hemmingway, everything I can. I've read (God forbid)
all of Joyce and written cogent papers on the subject. I can when
forced to, parse Coolridge. But when I get off work, and go home and
have the option, my hand leaps gleefully for eye candy. If that's not
true for you, if these don't FUNCTION as eye candy for you, then fine.
What I'm wondering is the POINT of the discussion. Weber and Flint
don't produce great lit'rachur that will "stand the test of time." --
well, we'll see. Certainly, previous contemporaries have been wrong
about which books, which films, which music will still be viewed, read
and listened to. It's doesn't matter. Time will tell. Ask me when I
turn 75.
I have a prediction. I suspect that Weber and Flint and Ringo are
embedded in their era. I _think_ that they are playing off the pop
culture's "ear". Some pulp rises above itself. (Holmes, Scrooge, L.
Long, Tarzan) and most fails (Pickwick, Barzoom) and contemporary
critics fail miserably to choose wisely. Let time be the test. Why
debate this.
I'm going to go crawl back in my hole now. Thanks for listening. A
pleasure chatting with you. -- darn where _did_ I set my copy of "March
to the Stars" ? -- aaaahhh there it is.
--Rick
wth...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu
> Lois Tilton wrote:
> > It has been suggested by some that the works published by Baen Books
> > may be deficient in the literary virtues. One method of countering
> > this claim, aside from ad hominem assaults upon the critics, might be
> > to list works from Baen which may be considered to be well-written.
> > My candidate is a book by Chico Kidd: =The Printer's Devil=.
>
>
>
> That's not to say that every "ripping yarn" is fully supplied with
> literary virtues. But then, MUCH that is studded with literary
> virtues is IMPOSSIBLE to read for enjoyment. (CF much of Hemmingway,
> all of Joyce.)
This is factually incorrect. While I have not read
Hemingway, I enjoyed "Dubliners", "Portrait of the
Artist as a Young Man", and "Ulysses".
Therefore it is not impossible.
Louann Miller
<Boat...@cjnetworks.com> wrote:
> I _like_ that
>stuff. I've read Hemmingway, everything I can. I've read (God forbid)
>all of Joyce and written cogent papers on the subject. I can when
>forced to, parse Coolridge. But when I get off work, and go home and
>have the option, my hand leaps gleefully for eye candy. If that's not
>true for you, if these don't FUNCTION as eye candy for you, then fine.
>What I'm wondering is the POINT of the discussion. Weber and Flint
>don't produce great lit'rachur that will "stand the test of time." --
>well, we'll see. Certainly, previous contemporaries have been wrong
>about which books, which films, which music will still be viewed, read
>and listened to. It's doesn't matter. Time will tell. Ask me when I
>turn 75.
>
>I have a prediction. I suspect that Weber and Flint and Ringo are
>embedded in their era. I _think_ that they are playing off the pop
>culture's "ear". Some pulp rises above itself. (Holmes, Scrooge, L.
>Long, Tarzan) and most fails (Pickwick, Barzoom) and contemporary
>critics fail miserably to choose wisely. Let time be the test. Why
>debate this.
This would make a damn fine final post to this thread. Unfortunately I
have no faith that it's actually going to stop the debate, but purely
on its merits it deserves to.
Louann
Pete McCutchen
<notint...@nospamforme.moc> wrote:
>Now I'm curious, what's the big deal @ Baen anyway? Why do people want
>to discredit them as junk publishers, if that's the case?
Baen is the publisher today with the closest thing to a "house style."
Some people don't like that particular "house style." Others object
to the alleged right-wing political sensibilities reflected in Baen
books, though Mr. Flint isn't "on-message" for that one.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<Boat...@cjnetworks.com> wrote:
>That's not to say that every "ripping yarn" is fully supplied with
>literary virtues. But then, MUCH that is studded with literary virtues
>is IMPOSSIBLE to read for enjoyment. (CF much of Hemmingway, all of
>Joyce.)
It may well be IMPOSSIBLE for you to read Joyce and Hemingway for fun,
but I assure you that it's not IMPOSSIBLE for everybody. Hemingway
and Joyce sold shitloads of books, and I assure you that they weren't
all sold to schoolchildren forced to read them.
People like different things. It's as simple as that.
--
Pete McCutchen
wth...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu
Despite the grimness, I strongly recommend reading
"portrait" first, if you have not already done so.
Or at least giving it a try.
Patrick James
(in message <PPidncUkDOG...@giganews.com>):
> Why did Lois ask the question that she did? Why tar baen with this
> broad brush of "publisher of works without literary quality" which she
> did, even if by implication. (Her original post was so tounge-in-cheek
> I'm surprized she was able to breath.)
Because she is convinced that, with a very few exceptions mostly from Lois
Bujold, Baen Books publishes trash. She doesn't like them. She doesn't like
anything about them. She doesn't like anyone who writes them. She doesn't
like anyone who has anything non-negative (it doesn't have to be positive, it
merely has to be not an attack) to say about any of those books or their
authors.
I have elected to killfile her after reading several posts made
Monday-Wednesday. Her one-note rants were considerably more irritating than
anything Weber has ever perpetuated. And that includes (ugh) _The Apocalypse
Troll_, perhaps the single most annoying wish-fulfillment wankfest it has
ever been my displeasure to read... until I read Ms. Tilton on this thread,
that is. Perhaps the effect was multiplied because I read them all
back-to-back-to-back rather than over three days, but there it is.
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Patrick James
(in message <gtlr5v466ca475g8f...@4ax.com>):
Ms. Tilton appears to be unable to grasp this.
Lois Tilton
<Boat...@cjnetworks.com> wrote:
>Why did Lois ask the question that she did?
Undoubtedly she did it to give the denizens of rasfw Yet Another
opportunity to denigrate her sincerity and impugn her motives.
--
LT
Kevin J. Maroney
> This is factually incorrect. While I have not read
> Hemingway, I enjoyed "Dubliners", "Portrait of the
> Artist as a Young Man", and "Ulysses".
>
> Therefore it is not impossible.
I didn't like most of the little Hemmingway I've read (though I need
to read the early short stories), I don't think I've ever enjoyed a
work of fiction more than the best parts of _Ulysses_ (especially
"Circe", "Ithaca", and "Penelope", chapters 15, 17, and 18).
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
David Bilek
You sure had me fooled! I thought it might be because you actually
thought it might be interesting to list some well-written books that
came out of Baen. How wrong I obviously was!
-David
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
wrote:
>By the by, in all the kerfluffle over the unreadable prose style of
>the Honor Harrington books (and I mean that literally-- I thought I'd
>enjoy them, and tried hard to get through a single chapter of the
>first one, and failed.) has anyone posted a paragraph or two from a
>public excerpt here for critique and defense? One cannot discuss prose
>without reference to examples of it.
_On Basilisk Station_ is still available at
<http://www.baen.com/library/>, so those who want can always go see
it, either directly or download it.
I've read it and thought it entertaining fluffy little book which
didn't bother me at least.
Randy Money
Just to note: Baen discussions aside, even when I've disagreed with what
I've read here from Lois, I usually find her one of the more
level-headed, even-handed posters.
I suppose milage varies, but thought I should speak up.
Randy M.
(of course, you may now go look at some of my postings and decide I'm
not a judge you trust, but I still felt I should say something)
Mike Schilling
"Pete McCutchen" <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:gtlr5v466ca475g8f...@4ax.com...
It used to be possible for an author to write best-sellers that were admired
as literature: Sinclair Lewis, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, even Norman
Mailer. I'm not sure why this is no longer true.
Richard Horton
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It used to be possible for an author to write best-sellers that were admired
>as literature: Sinclair Lewis, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, even Norman
>Mailer. I'm not sure why this is no longer true.
Part of me wants to make nasty noises about Lewis, Steinbeck, and
Mailer, but really that would be unfair.
The other part of me points out that books such as _The Corrections_
have sold quite well, and are certainly admired as literature. I am
sure that it is still possible for authors to write bestsellers that
are admired as literature -- is it less common than in the past? I
actually doubt it, but I admit I may be wrong.
Mike Schilling
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 01:48:56 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >It used to be possible for an author to write best-sellers that were
admired
> >as literature: Sinclair Lewis, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, even
Norman
> >Mailer. I'm not sure why this is no longer true.
>
> Part of me wants to make nasty noises about Lewis, Steinbeck, and
> Mailer, but really that would be unfair.
out as experimental error).
>
> The other part of me points out that books such as _The Corrections_
> have sold quite well, and are certainly admired as literature.
I blush while admitting I've never heard of it.
If I were going to attempt current examples, I'd try _The English Patient_,
_The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay_, or _A Suitable Boy_, but I really
don't know if they qualify as best sellers. Certainly they're not famous
the way _Babbitt_, _The Sun Also Rises_, _This Side of Paradise_, _The
Grapes of Wrath_, or _The Naked and the Dead_ were. _A Man in Full_ sold a
lot of copies and got an awful lot of press, but I don't think it got much
critical respect. I hope not; it was godawful.
Richard Horton
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Richard Horton" <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:JpU7a.267$8w4...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 01:48:56 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
>> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >It used to be possible for an author to write best-sellers that were
>admired
>> >as literature: Sinclair Lewis, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, even
>Norman
>> >Mailer. I'm not sure why this is no longer true.
>>
>> Part of me wants to make nasty noises about Lewis, Steinbeck, and
>> Mailer, but really that would be unfair.
>The first two are Nobel prize winners (as is Pearl Buck, but we'll throw her
>out as experimental error).
>
Oh, I know. For me they too count as experimental error, but I admit
not as utterly ridiculous as the award to Buck. (Worst Nobel ever?)
I freely admit that this is somewhat idiocyncratic of me. Indeed, I
haven't read Lewis since bouncing off him as a teen -- it's a decent
bet that he's at least OK. Steinbeck I stand by my dislike of, but
lots of people I respect really do like him, so you can call that a
matter of taste.
>>
>> The other part of me points out that books such as _The Corrections_
>> have sold quite well, and are certainly admired as literature.
>I blush while admitting I've never heard of it.
>
>If I were going to attempt current examples, I'd try _The English Patient_,
>_The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay_, or _A Suitable Boy_, but I really
>don't know if they qualify as best sellers. Certainly they're not famous
>the way _Babbitt_, _The Sun Also Rises_, _This Side of Paradise_, _The
>Grapes of Wrath_, or _The Naked and the Dead_ were. _A Man in Full_ sold a
>lot of copies and got an awful lot of press, but I don't think it got much
>critical respect. I hope not; it was godawful.
>
_A Man in Full_ was famously savaged by such critics as Updike. I
almost cited _Kavalier and Clay_ instead of _The Corrections_, but a)
I wasn't as certain of its bestseller status, and b) Jonathan Franzen,
author of _The Corrections_, grew up in Webster Groves, MO, where I
now live, and went to HS with a close friend of mine (though they
didn't really know each other, or so she says -- I think they were a
year or two apart).
(Franzen's first novel, _The Twenty-Seventh City_, is SF (and set in
St. Louis). But Chabon is SF-connected, too, so that couldn't be a
distinguishing factor.)
Shaad M. Ahmad
Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>If I were going to attempt current examples, I'd try _The English Patient_,
>_The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay_, or _A Suitable Boy_, but I really
>don't know if they qualify as best sellers.
It depends. They sell reasonably well in say, Bangladesh and India.
Though I'd probably quibble about _A Suitable Boy_ having much in the way
of literary merit othern than exoticism.
It's just another multi-generational novel with a fairly large cast of
characters set in the subcontinent. Shorn of the locale, is it really
that different from similar potboilers set in say 18th or 19th Century
Britain or America?
Regards.
--
http://cmgm.stanford.edu/~ahmad/ - Shaad -
sh...@leland.stanford.edu
Mike Schilling
>
> _A Man in Full_ was famously savaged by such critics as Updike. I
> almost cited _Kavalier and Clay_ instead of _The Corrections_, but a)
> I wasn't as certain of its bestseller status, and b) Jonathan Franzen,
> author of _The Corrections_, grew up in Webster Groves, MO, where I
> now live, and went to HS with a close friend of mine (though they
> didn't really know each other, or so she says -- I think they were a
> year or two apart).
Chabon lives in Oakland, where I work; his daughter goes to school with a
co-worker's. Oh, and Mailer went to high scholl with me father. Small
world all round:-)
Patrick James
(in message <3E5FD127...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu>):
The problem is _precisely_ with the Baen discussions. Her blanket
condemnation of writers ranging from Poul Anderson to Roger Zelanzy merely
'cause some of their stuff was published by (horrors!) Baen renders any of
her _other_ statements suspect.
And yes, I know, she didn't mention those two authors, or Kieth Laumer, or
Gordon Dickson, L. Sprague de Camp, or Robert Heinlein, or Frederick Pohl or
Harry Turtledove... but all of them wrote books published by Baen. Which are,
presumably, not well-written, as she ain't familiar with any well-written
books from Baen, by them or by anyone else.
Her position here is so breath-takingly idiotic that it renders her positions
on any other subject singularly without value. But, hey, that's merely my
opinion. I _do_ know that where before I didn't particularly care one way or
another about Ms. Tilton's position on anything in particular, she has now
come to my negative attention.
And, frankly, I rate the likes of _Three Hearts and Three Lions_, _Lest
Darkness Fall_ or _Beyond This Horizon_, just to name three examples of the
not-so-well-written books she so dislikes, _well_ above Star Trek and Babylon
5 cotton candy. Baen republished the first three after they'd been out of
print for some time... and I bought copies of each as soon as I saw them.
But that's just my opinion.
Lois Tilton
<patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
[drivel]
Mr James should have his t-shirt confiscated until he learns to read
--
LT
Martin Wisse
Well, the only difference between a standard Baen Rah! Rah! America!
book and Flint's version, is that in the latter, the unions are the good
guys... And where WEber has stupid, greedy, venal politicians, Flint has
stupid, greedy, venal CEOs.
Martin Wisse
--
In my world, the most exciting part of a first date is finding out where
each other's favorite bookstores are.
-Jeffrey C. Dege, rasfw
Martin Wisse
<notint...@nospamforme.moc> wrote:
>Now I'm curious, what's the big deal @ Baen anyway? Why do people want
>to discredit them as junk publishers, if that's the case?
As Pete says, Baen is the closest thing to a publisher with a real
housestyel the sf field has, producing mainly light entertainment
adventure science fiction and fantasy. One Baen reader compared Baen's
books to his favourite brand of canned beans (iirc), saying he always
knew what to expect when he bought one of their books and Baen used this
in advertisements.
Needless to say, this sort of attitude ia anathema to many people here.
Baen is seen as (rightly or wrongly) lowest common denominator sf, dreck
for the masses.
David Kennedy
> Baen is seen as (rightly or wrongly) lowest common denominator sf, dreck
> for the masses.
--
David Kennedy
Mike Schilling
"Kevin J. Maroney" <k...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:v9gv5vo2u81ngo89h...@4ax.com...
> On 28 Feb 2003 10:34:39 -0500, wth...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu wrote:
> > This is factually incorrect. While I have not read
> > Hemingway, I enjoyed "Dubliners", "Portrait of the
> > Artist as a Young Man", and "Ulysses".
> >
> > Therefore it is not impossible.
>
> I didn't like most of the little Hemmingway I've read (though I need
> to read the early short stories), I don't think I've ever enjoyed a
> work of fiction more than the best parts of _Ulysses_ (especially
> "Circe", "Ithaca", and "Penelope", chapters 15, 17, and 18).
(innocently) And was it "Penelope"s prose you enjoyed?
Mike Schilling
"Shaad M. Ahmad" <sh...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:b3p8ju$8qf$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <sQU7a.1189$bD4.71...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >If I were going to attempt current examples, I'd try _The English
Patient_,
> >_The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay_, or _A Suitable Boy_, but I really
> >don't know if they qualify as best sellers.
>
> It depends. They sell reasonably well in say, Bangladesh and India.
> Though I'd probably quibble about _A Suitable Boy_ having much in the way
> of literary merit othern than exoticism.
>
> It's just another multi-generational novel with a fairly large cast of
> characters set in the subcontinent. Shorn of the locale, is it really
> that different from similar potboilers set in say 18th or 19th Century
> Britain or America?
I'd say the prose and the character development are both outstanding.
Louann Miller
wrote:
Again with the deep-breaths advice. I can't, obviously, compell you
not to turn into T*rry A*st*n. But I don't think we actually need
another one.
Sea Wasp
No danger of that. Terry ENJOYS his work. I haven't gotten the
impression that Lois actually LIKES flaming people as a general hobby.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Patrick James
(in message <qtn16vogdu9lc2ojh...@4ax.com>):
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 04:48:29 -0600, Lois Tilton <lti...@rcn.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:51:14 -0500, Patrick James
>> <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> [drivel]
>>
>>
>> Mr James should have his t-shirt confiscated until he learns to read
So she knows that I've killfiled her, and why... and she still elects to
reply. That pretty much says all that needs to be said about her personality.
And, as for the t-shirt... y'all have something against Sluggy Freelance,
too? Why am I not surprised?
Also, it appears that she doesn't much like it when people can and do point
out 'well-written' books from Baen. And that certain other people can't
produce books anywhere nearly as well-written.
I suppose that someone has to provide Star Trek cotton candy. It's just that
if they do, they'd be well-advised to not take others to task for their lack
of literary pretensions.
Just my opinion, of course.
>
> Again with the deep-breaths advice. I can't, obviously, compell you
> not to turn into T*rry A*st*n.
Too late.
> But I don't think we actually need
> another one.
>
>
--
Patrick James
(in message <3E60E1...@wizvax.net>):
That would depend on whether or not those people have the audacity to think
that it's possible that there might be one or two books from a certain
publisher which are _not_ utter dreck.
Ian Montgomerie
<patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 11:29:43 -0500, Louann Miller wrote
>(in message <qtn16vogdu9lc2ojh...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 04:48:29 -0600, Lois Tilton <lti...@rcn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:51:14 -0500, Patrick James
>>> <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [drivel]
>>>
>>>
>>> Mr James should have his t-shirt confiscated until he learns to read
>
>So she knows that I've killfiled her, and why... and she still elects to
>reply. That pretty much says all that needs to be said about her personality.
An odd statement coming from someone replying to someone he has
supposedly killfiled.
Lois Tilton
<i...@ianmontgomerie.com> wrote:
>An odd statement coming from someone replying to someone he has
>supposedly killfiled.
Of a piece with the rest of Mr James' logic.
Some people are merely a waste of good electrons.
--
LT
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
Now, what's that got to do with this post?
Could you please refrain from inserting your personal flamewars into
the discussion?
Sean O'Hara
declared...
>
> It used to be possible for an author to write best-sellers that were admired
> as literature: Sinclair Lewis, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, even Norman
> Mailer. I'm not sure why this is no longer true.
>
Allende, Seamus Heaney, and Charles Frazier have had bestsellers
in the last few years.
--
Sean O'Hara
"I am aware this is the second time in two weeks I have
been compelled to quote Lear, but there are times when
Eminem simply will not do." -Roger Ebert
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Mike Schilling
> declared...
> >
> > It used to be possible for an author to write best-sellers that were admired
> > as literature: Sinclair Lewis, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, even Norman
> > Mailer. I'm not sure why this is no longer true.
> >
> Why do you think it isn't? Toni Morrison, Salman Rushdie, Isabel
> Allende, Seamus Heaney, and Charles Frazier have had bestsellers
> in the last few years.
Arundhaty Roy too.
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan - ada...@despammed.com - this is a valid address
homepage: http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
English blog: http://annafdd.blogspot.com/
Blog in italiano: http://fulminiesaette.blogspot.com
Sean O'Hara
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 07:52:39 GMT, Richard Shewmaker
> <notint...@nospamforme.moc> wrote:
>
> >Now I'm curious, what's the big deal @ Baen anyway? Why do people want
> >to discredit them as junk publishers, if that's the case?
>
> As Pete says, Baen is the closest thing to a publisher with a real
> housestyel the sf field has, producing mainly light entertainment
> adventure science fiction and fantasy. One Baen reader compared Baen's
> books to his favourite brand of canned beans (iirc), saying he always
> knew what to expect when he bought one of their books and Baen used this
> in advertisements.
>
Recently we received this letter from Travis Shelton of Dayton,
Texas:
I have come to associate Baen Books with Del Monte. Now what
is that supposed to mean? Well, if you're in a strange store
with a lot of different labels, you pick Del Monte because the
product will be consistent and will not disappoint.
[etc.]
--from the last page of "Marooned in Realtime" by Vernor Vinge
I think it worth mentioning that at the time the ad appeared, Baen
was publishing Vinge and Martin, two of the most popular authors
in rasw these days.
Andrew Wheeler
>
> "Richard Horton" <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:JpU7a.267$8w4...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 01:48:56 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
> > <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >It used to be possible for an author to write best-sellers that were
> > >admired as literature: Sinclair Lewis, Hemingway, Fitzgerald,
> > >Steinbeck, even Norman Mailer. I'm not sure why this is no longer
> > >true.
> >
> > Part of me wants to make nasty noises about Lewis, Steinbeck, and
> > Mailer, but really that would be unfair.
>
> The first two are Nobel prize winners (as is Pearl Buck, but we'll throw
> her out as experimental error).
>
> > The other part of me points out that books such as _The Corrections_
> > have sold quite well, and are certainly admired as literature.
>
> I blush while admitting I've never heard of it.
>
> If I were going to attempt current examples, I'd try _The English
> Patient_, _The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay_, or _A Suitable Boy_,
> but I really don't know if they qualify as best sellers.
All were bestsellers (see below).
> Certainly they're not famous the way _Babbitt_, _The Sun Also Rises_,
> _This Side of Paradise_, _The Grapes of Wrath_, or _The Naked and the
> Dead_ were.
That's not a fair comparison, though. What you want to ask is "Is John
Updike as famous as John Grisham?" (My answer: not to the same
mass-consciousness level, but JU has been famous longer and will remain
famous longer, I think.)
> _A Man in Full_ sold a lot of copies and got an awful lot of press, but
> I don't think it got much critical respect. I hope not; it was
> godawful.
A bestseller is, in the field, defined as a book that hits the NYTimes
weekly list at least once. (Books that hit the _Publishers Weekly_ list
are usually allowed into the club, as well.)
Current "literary," respectable books on the Times hardcover list (from
the issue dated 3/2/03): Alice Sebold's _The Lovely Bones_ (also loosely
fantastic, a huge bestseller and the literary fiction debut of the year)
and _Life of Pi_ by Yann Martel (winner of the Booker Prize, if I
remember correctly).
In paperback we've got Michael Cunningham's _The Hours_ (given a boost
by the movie, true, but it was a bestseller even before that).
That's just one random week -- authors who are very literary who are
also regularly bestsellers include Philip Roth (_Pornoy's Complaint_ was
an enormous seller), John Updike, Don DeLillo, Toni Morrison and Alice Hoffman.
I'd rephrase the comment at the top as "it's possible to write books
admired as literature that are bestsellers," particularly since talking
about "writing bestsellers" conjures up (rightfully) an image of
calculation and of copying successful formulas. There is a good-sized
audience for books of real literary worth in this country, and they do
get interested in books (even by young, unknown writers, witness Zadie
Smith) that are reviewed well and have "buzz." (And buzz is just
shorthand for "people are saying that they really liked it.")
--
Andrew Wheeler
--
"It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on
a kite over Central Park." -Jim Moran
Ian Montgomerie
Hm. You're really going into my killfile, though. No reason to waste
my time reading pointless insults.
Eric Flint
"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:a2vu5v49d466349dc...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:47:40 GMT, "Eric Flint" <efl...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> More than enjoyable; much of _Ulysses_ is actively fun, far more so
than
> >> _Portait_, which is pretty grim.
> >
> >That's my reaction, too. Of all Joyce's writings, ULYSSES is far and
away
> >my favorite. The chapter depicting Leopold Bloom's argument with a
drunk
> >in a pub, told in the form of a Biblical parody, is worth the price of
> >admission alone.
>
> You nearly persuade me to take a crack at the thing. It sounds weird
> when you tell it, but so does the wisdom-teeth scene or the
> dividing-grandma's-furniture scene in "Cryptonomicon" and I found
> those freaking hilarious.
>
> Louann
The thing to be aware of, when you start ULYSSES, is that the first three
chapters are told from the viewpoint of Stephen Daedelus, who is something
of a tortured young intellectual -- and that's reflected in the prose, some
of which is genuinely godawful to work your way through. The man takes
himself _so_ seriously. Most of the wit in the novel, and there's a lot of
it, doesn't start until Leopold Bloom becomes the central viewpoint
character. When you re-read it, of course, you can spot a lot of humor in
the Daedelus chapters too. What seems turgid and opaque prose is in fact
simply Joyce poking fun at the tendency of self-absorbed young intellectuals
to be... turgid and opaque.
I studiously avoided ULYSSES for years, because of its fearsome reputation
as an impenetrable novel. So did my roommate David. Alas, David was an
English major, so eventually, squirm as he might, he was _forced_ to read
the book. (I was a history major, and could thus dodge the bullet.) He
moaned and groaned about it for weeks. Then, I came home one day to find
him perched on the couch with a fat volume in his lap, laughing his head
off. I asked him what was so funny and he held up ULYSSES. "All these
years I spent ducking this thing, Eric, because none of these stoopit
perfessers ever told me it was FUNNY." Which it is, once you get into it.
The book is a comedy, ultimately, and a very genial one at that.
Eric
Eric Flint
"Pete McCutchen" <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:gtlr5v466ca475g8f...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:50:08 -0600, Rick Boatright
> <Boat...@cjnetworks.com> wrote:
>
> >That's not to say that every "ripping yarn" is fully supplied with
> >literary virtues. But then, MUCH that is studded with literary virtues
> >is IMPOSSIBLE to read for enjoyment. (CF much of Hemmingway, all of
> >Joyce.)
>
> It may well be IMPOSSIBLE for you to read Joyce and Hemingway for fun,
> but I assure you that it's not IMPOSSIBLE for everybody. Hemingway
> and Joyce sold shitloads of books, and I assure you that they weren't
> all sold to schoolchildren forced to read them.
>
> People like different things. It's as simple as that.
I agree completely with Pete on this one. I love Joyce and find Hemingway
boring. (Not because of his writing style but because, at least for me, his
novels obsess over issues which I pretty much resolved for myself by the age
of sixteen.) I love Faulkner, and find Steinbeck okay but nothing special.
If there's any clear consistency in my preferences, I'd be hardpressed to
say what it is. I dislike Henry James intensely, but like a lot of Thomas
Mann a great deal. I like Dostoyevsky an awful lot but find that Tolstoy
generally bores me. Go figure. About the only consistency I've ever found
is that I'll tend to like authors who write sea stories. Dunno why. I love
Moby Dick and a lot of other stuff by Melville, and positively dote on
Joseph Conrad. Other people I know, perfectly sane and intelligent
otherwise, can't stand either author. My wife and I tend to have quite
divergent tastes in literature, whether we're talking about "high lit" or
potboilers. Except that we both really like Jane Austen and, when I finally
cajoled her into watching it, The Terminator. Go figure.
Personally, I just think this is one of the things that makes the world an
interesting place.
Eric
TheBaron
> It has been suggested by some that the works published by Baen Books
> may be deficient in the literary virtues. One method of countering
> this claim, aside from ad hominem assaults upon the critics, might be
> to list works from Baen which may be considered to be well-written.
>
>
> My candidate is a book by Chico Kidd: =The Printer's Devil=.
>
> It is well-studded with Latin quotations, what more can one ask?
Well since you seem to be an authority I would like to read your
published works to compare them with the books I enjoy from Baens.
Could you please supply me with a list? I am assuming that you are a
published sci-fi/fantasy author based on your post.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> and _Life of Pi_ by Yann Martel (winner of the Booker Prize, if I
> remember correctly).
What's it like? I found it at the local English Bookshop and was midly
interested but not enough to buy it. I'd be curious to hear opinions.
Steve Taylor
> Again with the deep-breaths advice. I can't, obviously, compell you
> not to turn into T*rry A*st*n. But I don't think we actually need
> another one.
Agreed we don't, but her posting was in reply to a rather
spittle-flecked post.
Steve
Steve Taylor
> Well since you seem to be an authority I would like to read your
> published works to compare them with the books I enjoy from Baens.
Do you need to be a good cook to tell that your meal has been ruined?
Steve
Patrick James
(in message <8n026vs3vc8po712d...@4ax.com>):
In what way is this 'odd'?
What _is_ odd is that I've said this before, in more or less the same words.
Only that time I was talking about Terry Austin, who is... less than popular.
(It was back in August, last year. The thread was 'Superhot coffee (was: Re:
help: Thinking with Meat)' if you really want to go and have a look.) No-one
found my comment then to be 'odd', or doubted that Mr. Austin was, in fact,
in my killfile. Of course, I may have been slightly less polite when
referring to Mr. Austin. That's it, I was too polite this time. Gotta watch
that. Might give the wrong impression.
Or maybe it might be that I just killfiled someone popular (in some quarters,
at least) this time. Gee. How odd. Unless, of course, I disagree with her.
And have said so. And why.
Of course, it might be that, to some, my opinion does not count. After all,
to some the opinions of those who disagree with them are merely dust under
their chariot wheels. Such an attitude would merely confirm my opinion of
their elitist pretensions. Personally, I find such attitudes... odd... in one
who produces Star Trek cotton candy, but that's merely my opinion.
And, just in case someone elects to make something of the above, it's not the
writing of the cotton candy that's objectionable; I'm sure that there are
perfectly good Star Trek books. It's the holier-than-thou attitude without
one shred of a reason to support it that I dislike.
But that's just my opinion. Last I looked, I was entitled to one of those.
Has this changed?
Patrick James
(in message <6462914d.03030...@posting.google.com>):
Interesting.
Martin Wisse
Dal Dan) wrote:
>Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>
>> and _Life of Pi_ by Yann Martel (winner of the Booker Prize, if I
>> remember correctly).
>
>What's it like? I found it at the local English Bookshop and was midly
>interested but not enough to buy it. I'd be curious to hear opinions.
I was very disappointed when I learned it was a work of fiction, instead
of a non fiction book about Pi. I was hoping for a sort of eclectic
history about the disciovery of Pi and all that, but never mind.
Martin Wisse
--
[How to kill and humiliate the Draka]
"Oh, Lord. The Draka vs. Ally McBeal. I think we have a winner..."
John Schilling, rasfw
Sea Wasp
>
> On 28 Feb 2003 10:34:39 -0500, wth...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu wrote:
> > This is factually incorrect. While I have not read
> > Hemingway, I enjoyed "Dubliners", "Portrait of the
> > Artist as a Young Man", and "Ulysses".
> >
> > Therefore it is not impossible.
>
> I didn't like most of the little Hemmingway I've read (though I need
> to read the early short stories), I don't think I've ever enjoyed a
> work of fiction more than the best parts of _Ulysses_ (especially
> "Circe", "Ithaca", and "Penelope", chapters 15, 17, and 18).
The question I have is whether Joyce's stuff is
similar enough that I can reasonably continue to
avoid it, having tried several of his shorter
works and bounced hard, or whether he's one of the
rare ones that can't write shorts to save his life
but whose longer works are worth reading. I've
seen several people posting positively about
"Ulysses" in ways that make it almost sound
interesting. (never heard anyone refer to anything
Joyce wrote as FUNNY before)
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Sea Wasp
> > Part of me wants to make nasty noises about Lewis, Steinbeck, and
> > Mailer, but really that would be unfair.
> The first two are Nobel prize winners (as is Pearl Buck, but we'll throw her
> out as experimental error).
The prizes don't prove anything. They gave one
to Golding, f'crissakes.
Louann Miller
wrote:
>I agree completely with Pete on this one. I love Joyce and find Hemingway
>boring. (Not because of his writing style but because, at least for me, his
>novels obsess over issues which I pretty much resolved for myself by the age
>of sixteen.) I love Faulkner, and find Steinbeck okay but nothing special.
>If there's any clear consistency in my preferences, I'd be hardpressed to
>say what it is.
>My wife and I tend to have quite
>divergent tastes in literature, whether we're talking about "high lit" or
>potboilers. Except that we both really like Jane Austen and, when I finally
>cajoled her into watching it, The Terminator. Go figure.
Where do you fall on Thomas Hardy, just out of curiosity? (For me the
answer would be "aiming for the head, ideally with a sharp heavy rock
in hand.")
I picked up an Anne Perry mystery recently, and didn't think much of
it. It was sort of -like- the real Victorian era, but pervasively
wrong. That put me in the mood for a real one, to wash the bad taste
away. Wound up with "The Eustace Diamonds" by Anthony Trollope, which
I hadn't read before. That was definitely (obDocSmith) the clear
quill, but I came away not liking Trollope as a person very much.
Several instances of "look! This character is Jewish! Eeeeew!!!" I
could cope with that as a product of its times. But the evil Lady
Eustace's young son winds up at the end of the book still being raised
by his mother and her icky second husband; the poor kid won't stand a
chance. Austen would have made sure he wound up in the family of the
virtuous uncle or something.
Louann
Sea Wasp
My wife and I tend to have quite
> divergent tastes in literature, whether we're talking about "high lit" or
> potboilers. Except that we both really like Jane Austen and, when I finally
> cajoled her into watching it, The Terminator. Go figure.
"Pride and Extreme Prejudice"?
I'm now tempted to either write a novel about
the Terminator universe in the style of Jane
Austen, or to write a Jane Austen plot with the
Terminator involved.
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Richard Shewmaker
Oh, come on, now, Ian! After having had the lion's share of scorn,
snot and nasty personal attacks shot at her, it's unacceptable that
she makes a short, one-liner comeback with regard to her main
detractor? And one which, on top of that, is quite mild and
non-personal? Killfiling her for this seems excessive (if you were me,
obviously).
What happened here (in general, not you in particular)? I really don't
understand. She asked her question, I answered her request with a list
of books, mentioned I thought simply labeling any book out of Baen as
2% low fat SF might be a bit extreme, she replied and admitted that
two or so of the authors I listed were ... well ... OK (no, she did
better than that). Sure, she missed a few in my list which I thought
were pretty good authors, certainly not deserving a "junk author"
label, but we like what we like based on our own opinions, not others'
(thank God!). She certainly wasn't rude or dismissive. I read some of
the other replies until they turned into the usual non-related stuff
and never saw her get nasty. So I don't get this at all.
I have general impressions of many of the regular posters here, and I
don't recall any of the really vocal ones right now being horrible in
the past. (And, yes, there are some very few whose posts I either
don't read or won't bother to respond to, even to agree, due to past
personal attacks on their part.) I stop reading threads I'm interested
in when they no longer discuss the stated topic, so I may have missed
things which would change my impression of what's presently happening.
My point is that I think that despite the wiggy nature of some
people's posts in this thread, most of them are usually not raving
lunatics, and I wish we'd get back to discussing SF instead of lobbing
chunks of flaming poo at Lois!
I don't mean this as a criticism of you in particular, not at all. I
don't think there's much point in trying to reason with someone who's
in mid-rant however. I've been going through these messages this
morning for no apparent reason, have wanted to say something but kept
holding back, and then yours seemed like a good way to venture a few
thoughts.
Oh, well, too many words and doubtlessly very little interest in them
from others. I suspect I already skidded past the point of diminishing
returns in this one!
Hope to see y'all in more funnerer discussions.
--
My mother used to laugh and say that the only thing my father wouldn't
do for Axel Kern was promise him his only child. Of course, she was
wrong about that.
-- Elizabeth Hand, "Black Light"
Richard Shewmaker
I hope you're not allowing this to bother you too much. I hate it when
the "my opinion is the only valid one w/regard to assessment of value"
slides right off the edge into full-on personal attacks.
Not being female, I can't use the following myself, which I truly
regret since I think it's so funny (got it from f-Suck.com, I believe,
my favorite gal, Polly Esther). For you, Lois, I say to those (and
they all appear to be men, huh) who have rolled off the edge of reason:
"Get off my tit!"
I'd use it all the time if I weren't a guy.
Hoping for cheerier times for all....
--
"Listen -- I know you're a little upset, but you've got to let it go,
or ... or get over it -- pick one of those, any one."
-- Robin Williams, "Toys"
Bill Snyder
Wisse) wrote:
>On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 10:02:07 +0100, ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio
>Dal Dan) wrote:
>
>>Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>>
>>> and _Life of Pi_ by Yann Martel (winner of the Booker Prize, if I
>>> remember correctly).
>>
>>What's it like? I found it at the local English Bookshop and was midly
>>interested but not enough to buy it. I'd be curious to hear opinions.
>
>I was very disappointed when I learned it was a work of fiction, instead
>of a non fiction book about Pi. I was hoping for a sort of eclectic
>history about the disciovery of Pi and all that, but never mind.
Assuming this isn't pure irony, look for Petr Beckman's _A Short
History of Pi_.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Martin Wisse
<notint...@nospamforme.moc> wrote:
>Ian Montgomerie wrote:
>> Lois Tilton <lti...@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<9i726vgcqkg5hrv5c...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>>On Sat, 01 Mar 2003 10:59:12 -0800, Ian Montgomerie
>>><i...@ianmontgomerie.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>An odd statement coming from someone replying to someone he has
>>>>supposedly killfiled.
>>>
>>>Of a piece with the rest of Mr James' logic.
>>>
>>>Some people are merely a waste of good electrons.
>>
>> Hm. You're really going into my killfile, though. No reason to waste
>> my time reading pointless insults.
>
>Oh, come on, now, Ian! After having had the lion's share of scorn,
>snot and nasty personal attacks shot at her, it's unacceptable that
>she makes a short, one-liner comeback with regard to her main
>detractor? And one which, on top of that, is quite mild and
>non-personal? Killfiling her for this seems excessive (if you were me,
>obviously).
Yeah, what's up with the attacks on Lois all of a sudden? Sure, most of
them are by Baen fanboys, but what's up with Ian and Pete joing the
bandwagon?
Martin Wisse
--
"Desaad: Master, I have found it! Doom plus Magic plus IRC plus netnews
plus MUDding!"
"Darkseid: You cringing fool! That is *not* the Anti-Life Formula, it is
the No-Life Formula!"--Dave Van Domelen
Sean O'Hara
declared...
> On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 03:59:01 GMT, "Eric Flint" <efl...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >My wife and I tend to have quite
> >divergent tastes in literature, whether we're talking about "high lit" or
> >potboilers. Except that we both really like Jane Austen and, when I finally
> >cajoled her into watching it, The Terminator. Go figure.
>
> Where do you fall on Thomas Hardy, just out of curiosity? (For me the
> answer would be "aiming for the head, ideally with a sharp heavy rock
> in hand.")
>
his plots without the prose. The best is "The Claim" which sets
"The Mayor of Casterbridge" as a western (Well, at least its set
in a California mining town during the construction of the
transcontinental railroad.)
> I picked up an Anne Perry mystery recently, and didn't think much of
> it. It was sort of -like- the real Victorian era, but pervasively
> wrong. That put me in the mood for a real one, to wash the bad taste
> away.
Yes, but unlike other mystery writers, Anne Perry knows what its like
to commit murder.
Sean O'Hara
>
> I like Dostoyevsky an awful lot but find that Tolstoy
> generally bores me.
>
Sean O'Hara
> Mike Schilling wrote:
> >
> > The first two are Nobel prize winners (as is Pearl Buck, but we'll throw her
> > out as experimental error).
>
> The prizes don't prove anything. They gave one
> to Golding, f'crissakes.
>
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
<darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> I have come to associate Baen Books with Del Monte. Now what
> is that supposed to mean? Well, if you're in a strange store
> with a lot of different labels, you pick Del Monte because the
> product will be consistent and will not disappoint.
ObTangent: And that's why people go to Mcdonald's when they have lots
of real restaurants. Fear of unknown.
vlatko
--
http://www.niribanimeso.org/eng/
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
Go! Go! Go!
Martin Wisse
wrote:
Thank you. Wasn't meant to be ironic at all.
Martin Wisse
--
For lusers, understanding error messages is NP-hard.
-Paul Guertin, SDM.
Mike Schilling
"Sea Wasp" <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
news:3E620743...@wizvax.net...
He's very funny. One of the chapters in _Ulysses_ is written in a teenaged
romance style, and it's hilarious. The Ithaca chapter Kevin mentions is a
series of questions and answers in a very dry, factual style that a
techincal writer like yourself should really appreciate.
Mike Schilling
That was sloppiness. They knew it should go to the author of _Lord of the
something-or-other_.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> The question I have is whether Joyce's stuff is
> similar enough that I can reasonably continue to
> avoid it, having tried several of his shorter
> works and bounced hard, or whether he's one of the
> rare ones that can't write shorts to save his life
I would certainly give much, up to and including major body parts, to be
as much of a dismal failure at short story writing as James Joyce, the
author, you know, of such stinkers as "The dead".
<Goes away shaking head>
Jim Cambias
Ahmad) wrote:
> In article <sQU7a.1189$bD4.71...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >If I were going to attempt current examples, I'd try _The English Patient_,
> >_The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay_, or _A Suitable Boy_, but I really
> >don't know if they qualify as best sellers.
>
> It depends. They sell reasonably well in say, Bangladesh and India.
> Though I'd probably quibble about _A Suitable Boy_ having much in the way
> of literary merit othern than exoticism.
>
Kavalier & Clay is big in India? Who knew?
Personally I was delighted to see a Pulitzer winning novel with lots of
obscure modern comics references hidden in it.
Cambias