Newman.pasa@Xerox.ARPA (08/06/85)
From: Newman.pasa@Xerox.ARPA
WARNING: Personal Opinions Follow:
Dahlgren is quite possibly the worst piece of dreck I have ever set eyes
on. I said it before, and I'll say it again: YECCCCH!!!!!
RE Jim Hofmann's comments on Dahlgren: I will admit that Delaney takes
on topics that most everyone else shies away from (most everyone - not
everyone, and the others do it better!) but I don't really want to read
about these topics, and I particularly don't want to read trashy writing
on these topics. Similarly, though Delaney "divorces himself from
standard literary style", there are others who do it better.
RE "I haven't met many sci-fi readers who don't hold this book with
anything less than awe." Zowie! What planet do you live on? I have never
met anyone who actually finished the book, much less held it in awe. If
nothing else, I am impressed by your persistence.
>>Dave
PS: I'm not trying to flame here, I just want to warn folks that not
everyone thinks that Dhalgren is the greatest thing since sliced bread.hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA (08/12/85)
From: Jim Hofmann <hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA> Mr newman: Thanks for setting everybody straight. It would be nice if you brought up some examples as to why you think Dhalgren is not up to your standards. Oh and yes, I do come from another planet. One much cooler than this one. Planet Claire. Come up and see us sometime. Jim Hofmann PS When I get sometime I'll post a real review of Dhalgren and why I thought it deserves the Nebula award it got.
Newman.pasa@Xerox.ARPA (08/12/85)
From: Newman.pasa@Xerox.ARPA
Mr Jim,
I like to read about people that I can empathize with. I cannot
empathize with anyone in Dhalgren. (Perhaps that's my fault ... maybe I
am an emotional cripple) Also, I like to read books that seem to have
some direction and a plot that I can understand (so I'm a mental midget
... I'm not alone).
Perhaps it is great literature. Perhaps it has great redeeming value.
All I know is that I was really bored while reading it, and also
confused. I was sooo bored and confused that I didn't finish the book -
a rare occurrence. I get enough boredom and confusion in my real life
that I don't need it from my escapist literature.
As I said in my earlier posting, I am primarily trying to erase the
notion that everyone thinks that Dhalgren is the greatest thing since
sliced bread. If you and everyone you have ever met think that Dhalgren
is Delaney's <insert supreme accolade of your choice here>, that is
wonderful. However, I have never met anyone personally who liked the
book, and I wanted to warn those poor folk who thought to read a
wonderful book that won the Nebula award that they might not like it.
>>Dave
PS I'm sorry if my personal opinions offended you. I'm sorry if you
interpreted my note as a peronal flame. I like colorful language and
wild expressions; I guess I should include a warning for sensitive folk
when I make another outragrous posting.henry%clemson.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa (08/17/85)
From: Henry Vogel <henry%clemson.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa> I was intrigued by the person (sorry, I've deleted that message so I don't know what your name is) who claimed to never have met anyone who didn't think Dhalgren was great, wonderful, or whatever. To constrast that, I only know *one* person who would agree with him - and it's not me. I've read other books by Delany that I thought were excellent, but Dhalgren just wasn't for me. The friend who loves it also runs a newsstand/bookstore which he keeps well stocked with science fiction. I was in there one time when he was trying to get someone to try a new sf novel. The person was reluctant to try it and, since I had just finished it and enjoyed it, I told him I had also liked the book. He still looked reluctant. On a hunch, I said, "I thought Dhalgren sucked." Suddenly, the reluctance disappeared and he bought the book. Henry Vogel henry%clemson.csnet@csnet-relay
mooremj@EGLIN-VAX (08/22/85)
From: mooremj@EGLIN-VAX > From: kanders@lll-tis-a (Kevin Anderson) > I will say, though, that I have never heard [Dhalgren] described with > anything less than respectful awe. You obviously don't read this digest. There have been many articles on Dhalgren which have described it with much less than respectful awe. MUCH much less. marty moore (mooremj@eglin-vax.arpa)
KFL@MIT-MC.ARPA (09/15/85)
From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL@MIT-MC.ARPA> The only thing longer and more boring than DHALGREN is the discussion of DHALGREN that has been pointlessly dragging on for megabytes on SF-Lovers. 'nuff said. ...Keith