Postmaster@bbn-vax (06/01/85)
From: dm@bbn-vax.arpa While browsing in the bookstore the other day, I noticed that Umberto Eco (author of _The Name of the Rose_, an interesting medieval fantasy, and paradigmatic semiotician) called Samuel Delaney ``The most interesting writer working today.'' Also, in writing about the problems of SF, you rely too much on anecdotal evidence: maybe the SF YOU read is lacking in characterization, plot, etc., but that's just because your horizons seem to be limited: maybe you've been going to too many cons. CJ Cherryh, Samuel Delaney, W Gibson, John Ford, Stanislaw Lem, UK LeGuin, are all exceptions to your generalizations about SF. Had you dwelt on them instead of the writers of juvenile SF like Asimov, Clarke, etc., I think your essays would have a much different tone (does anyone over the age of, say, 18 read Asimov?). Speaking of anecdotal evidence, I am reminded of the remarks _The New Republic_ had to make about the infamous _Newsweek_ Yuppie issue: _Newsweek_ had to look real hard to find those dozen yuppies who so fit their preconceptions. Had they chosen, they could have gone out and found a dozen still-active activists to serve as evidence for a special issue on ``Survivors of the Sixties: still caring, still growing.'' I think all of your essays have been guilty of much the same crime.