dub@pur-phy.UUCP (Dwight) (08/12/85)
> From: dht@druri.UUCP (Davis Tucker) > Subject: THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE FICTION TODAY, PART IX > > ..... And I've never read > a science fiction book review which remotely approached the caliber of the > New York Times Book Review, with the exception of Delany's review of Thomas > Disch's "Angouleme", a semiotic study more than a review, and Damon Knight > on Blish's "Common Time". ..... I have never read a book review from the New York Times, but judging by the context of your sentence I would quess that it is a very comprehensive review. When I read a book review I don't always want a review that is "in-depth". There's a good chance that somewhere in such a review too much of the plot would be given away. I suppose it all depends on why a person reads certain books. With some books I get a great deal of pleasure just reading all of the turns of the plot. When I read the Thomas Covenent series I felt this way. I found Donaldson's writing style fairly hard going (I worn out my dictionary!), but I couldn't wait to see what would happen to Covenent on the next page. For other books it doesn't matter if I know even the exact plot! I get my pleasure out of reading a well written yarn. This is the way that I read Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy (which I've read three times. (no, that is not a boast. I know people who have read it dozens of times.)) A "New York Times"-like review might well have spoiled a great deal of the Convenent series, but not the LotR series. * So, Davis, your a little right and a little wrong (in my opinion), but that's the way most opinions are [even my own :-) ]. Dwight Bartholomew UUCP:{ decvax, seismo, ihnp4, inuxc, sequent, uiucdcs }!pur-ee!pur-phy!dub { decwrl, hplabs, icase, psuvax1, siemens, ucbvax }|purdue!pur-phy!dub * - recursion alert! Help promote peace and make the world a safer place for parakeets. (and people)