dht@druri.UUCP (Davis Tucker) (06/05/85)
Just for the record:
1) I *do* like science fiction, quite a lot. Don't say that I don't because
I point out some of its problems.
2) I do not think I am God. I don't even think I'm L. Ron Hubbard.
3) I read for fun. I read trash. I just don't have any illusions about it,
even though I enjoy it. "Enjoyment" is not the be-all and end-all of life.
4) I realize that what I say is my opinion, and I am surprised at the number
of people who have seen fit to inform me of this obvious fact. Lighten up.
At least I have attempted to support my opinion with examples and logic.
5) You may think that Norman Rockwell is vastly superior to Van Gogh, but you
would be wrong. There is good art, and there is bad art, and to deny that
there is a distinction between them is to lump greatness with mediocrity.
Otherwise, there is no basis for *any* critical statement except "I like
it". Which is incredibly egocentric.
6) "Well-written" and "boring" are mutually exclusive in my book.
7) I am not a "fan". I don't go to "cons". But my familiarity with the field
is not lacking, nor is my familiarity with mainstream fiction.
8) I could be wrong about everything, but there haven't been too many attempts
to change my mind with reason and comparisons and concrete examples.
9) I do not think that personal attacks and name-calling, such as I have been
receiving in my mailbox, are necessary, nor particularly witty, either.
10) I notice that the majority of responses have ignored the main point of each
essay. No one chose to argue with Phillip K. Dick when he said, "The field
has been growing weak... it has become ossified. A stale timidity has crept
over it..."
Davis Tuckerndd@duke.UUCP (Ned Danieley) (06/05/85)
In article <1097@druri.UUCP> dht@druri.UUCP (Davis Tucker) writes: > >4) I realize that what I say is my opinion, and I am surprised at the number > of people who have seen fit to inform me of this obvious fact. Lighten up. > At least I have attempted to support my opinion with examples and logic. > >5) You may think that Norman Rockwell is vastly superior to Van Gogh, but you > would be wrong. There is good art, and there is bad art, and to deny that > there is a distinction between them is to lump greatness with mediocrity. > Otherwise, there is no basis for *any* critical statement except "I like > it". Which is incredibly egocentric. > I think that the thing that bothers me is the dogmatic tone of your articles, all of which sound much like your point #5. I don't see how you can say that there is good art and bad art; that seems to me a little too strong. It may be your opinion, but where are the examples and logic: how do you *know* that Norman Rockwell isn't superior to Van Gogh? Maybe if you would lighten up, some of your critics would too. Ned Danieley duke!ndd
chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (06/07/85)
> [...] > 5) You may think that Norman Rockwell is vastly superior to Van Gogh, but you > would be wrong. There is good art, and there is bad art, and to deny that > there is a distinction between them is to lump greatness with mediocrity. > Otherwise, there is no basis for *any* critical statement except "I like > it". Which is incredibly egocentric. > > Davis Tucker There is a distinction between good art and bad art, but that distinction is completely relative to the person drawing the dividing line. There is no *absolute* distinction. Also, what is wrong with a just plain "I like it"? You can listen to a thousand reviews on a story, movie, play, etc.; but the final judge in the matter is you. Chris Andersen
dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (06/10/85)
> > 3) I read for fun. I read trash. I just don't have any illusions about it, > even though I enjoy it. "Enjoyment" is not the be-all and end-all of life. Neither is someone's purely subjective literary merit evaluation. > > 4) I realize that what I say is my opinion, and I am surprised at the number > of people who have seen fit to inform me of this obvious fact. Lighten up. > At least I have attempted to support my opinion with examples and logic. > He who issues flame-like messages shall get such back. High-handed, superior tone messages beg for assault and given the nature of the net will get it. > 5) You may think that Norman Rockwell is vastly superior to Van Gogh, but you > would be wrong. There is good art, and there is bad art, and to deny that > there is a distinction between them is to lump greatness with mediocrity. > Otherwise, there is no basis for *any* critical statement except "I like > it". Which is incredibly egocentric. > Oh GOD what planet do you live on. ART, any form, any kind, is PURELY subjective. What art is considered "better" is strictly cultural brainwashing just as any music (too many notes). Play modern critically acclaimed modern music to a musical theoretician of century ago and he will tell you it is junk. Show a critically acclaimed modern painting to a similar artist and he will say it is demented scratchings. Literature similarly. You are simply waving your hands at a subjective evaluation and trying to make your particular likes and dislikes something that rises above everyone else, a typical self-delusion. (I am not, by the way, a Norman Rockwell fan so stop trying to pick the most ridiculous artistic comparison you could think of to shove in my face) > 6) "Well-written" and "boring" are mutually exclusive in my book. That is because your purely subjective evaluation of "well-written" applies only to those books which aren't boring to yourself but may very well be quite ho-hum to me (rather discriminatory don't you think). I will not disagree that in my opinion (note this phrase, you should try using it more often) the amount of crap in the SF&F field has grown but then so has the entire field. If you are willing to look for it there are still gems among the rough and I would even venture to say more than were available in previous times. I think, however, we would no doubt disagree on what are gems and what is rough (and this is probably true of virtually any two people). David Albrecht
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/14/85)
>> 3) I read for fun. I read trash. I just don't have any illusions about it, >> even though I enjoy it. "Enjoyment" is not the be-all and end-all of life. > >Neither is someone's purely subjective literary merit evaluation. This, of course, is a subjective response. >> 5) You may think that Norman Rockwell is vastly superior to Van Gogh, but you >> would be wrong. There is good art, and there is bad art, and to deny that >> there is a distinction between them is to lump greatness with mediocrity. >> Otherwise, there is no basis for *any* critical statement except "I like >> it". Which is incredibly egocentric. >Oh GOD what planet do you live on. ART, any form, any kind, is PURELY >subjective. Wrong. Art has both a subjective and an objective side. The objective side is technique, and how well the artist uses the techniques and tools of the trade. For a writer, there are things like spelling, grammar, and the structure of their works. For a painter, there is the use of paints and brushes, perspective, and the technical details of putting together a painting. The subjective side is how well the artists these techniques, and how well the author can break the techniques in positive ways. Both are important; the best ideas in the world are unreadable if the way they are presented is illegible (just look at a random sampling of usenet, for example... *grin*) -- :From the misfiring synapses of: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA The offices were very nice, and the clients were only raping the land, and then, of course, there was the money...