mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (10/24/85)
> Well, where should one start? With the simple truth that the great Dr. A > doesn't know jack about commas, and uses them in the wrong place at the wrong > time? Or with his smug, egocentric male chauvinism toward his daughter, her > "lovely co-worker", and his wife, whom he refuses to name? It's his ex-wife, which may have something to do with his not naming her. > How about some- > thing more substantive - like why in the hell is this vignette included in a > science history article about the discovery of yeast? What does his con- > descension toward his beautiful daughter and his resultant foul aspersions > on her parentage have anything whatsoever to do with anything that any human > being besides an Asimov worshipper would want to know? Many people like Asimov's personal pieces better than the science articles they precede. I have no doubt that ego enters into it, but Asimov is just providing what a substantial portion of his audience is asking for. > I mean, "unmistakeable > Asimovian features" my left hand of darkness! Does anyone you know talk about > his daughters "Jacksonian features" or "Alberryesque features" or "Rospachian > features"? No, but I don't see why they shouldn't. > How many people do you know who would refer to their daughters in > print as "gorgeous women"? How many writers have you ever read that would > say "she was asked to play the role, at sight, in her grammar school...", > and totally forget that there is no such construct as "at sight" (it is > correctly "at first sight")? From the Random House Dictionary: sight ... 11. at or on sight, immediately upon seeing. > > More questions - how does even the demigod of science fiction, the master of > prolix spew, get away without having this kind of ridiculous, embarrasing > drivel of a father slobbering over the fact that he actually raised a daughter > that ended up looking good and going into some sort of social worker program > (that he not-so-subtly hints at being amusingly disapproving of) edited out > of his otherwise good and informative article? Why does he think that anyone > in his right mind or even his left mind would find what he has to say about > his daughter, her adorable liberal tendencies and her Aryan makeup, in any > way germane to his article about yeast, or even to the more global, meta- > fictional point of essay-writing? > > I just don't get it. Could somebody clue me in? Because people keep telling him that they want to read more of this stuff. Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "There are good guys and there are bad guys. The job of the good guys is to kill the bad guys."