mouse@uw-beaver.arpa (05/29/85)
From: utcsri!mcgill-vision!mcgill-vision!mouse@uw-beaver.arpa (der Mouse)
Sorry Davis (druri!dht in #175), I finally have to respond. There
are a few things I take issue with in that.
I think I agree with your definition of a hack, as you worded it.
Trouble is, I will argue with your usage of competent. Competency, used
in reference to a creative person (such as a painter or writer) could
very well be a compliment---of their technique, as opposed to their
imagination. Granted, both are indeed needed.
>....or that "Where The Wild Things Are" and the Dr. Seuss books show
>more imagination and extrapolation than Star Trek.
I must argue with you here. Not only because you touch a nerve
when you denigrate Star Trek, but I think there's another aspect to
this. Seuss and WTWTA are both *fantasy*, and children's fantasy at
that (children's fantasy can get away with a lot more). More
imagination, perhaps (though some of the ST episodes get pretty
imaginative). Extrapolation, though, is what SF is all about, and given
the restrictions (don't forget *when* it was made!), Star Trek did
awfully well (I'm not talking about the movies here; you have a point
there).
>But it is hard to believe that Robert Heinlein *ever* kept his
>overbearing personality out of the mouths of every character. "Time
>Enough For Love" was a nightmare - Robert A. Heinlein living forever,
>and worse, *talking* forever.
Several things here. One, so what if Heinlein wants to write the
way you say? Nobody's making you read his stuff. Two, I disagree.
Read `The Moon is a Harsh Mistress'. Manuel O'Kelly-Davis certainly
doesn't strike me as the average Heinlein Competent Man. (Personally, I
liked TEFL. Not sure why.)
>...science fiction....has almost no true masters that are....held up by
>the aficionados as examples to young acolytes. Instead, the old hacks
>are deified and glorified.
You've nearly contradicted yourself. Remember, not everybody
agrees with your opinion that those who are `deified and glorified' are
`old hacks' instead of `true masters'---indeed, there are plenty of
people who disagree. Me, for example. Well, they *were* masters when
they were in their prime.
>[old hacks are deified and glorified.] Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke.
>....if instead, the examples....were Aldiss, Ballard, and Silverberg.
All three (Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke) have written good stuff
(try early output in all three cases, done before they could sell on
their names alone instead of selling on the story). Not that I want to
slam any of the other three; indeed, I haven't read enough work I can
recall to be by any of them to be able to offer an opinion.
>....new authors who are rarely more than warmed-over [your favorite past
>author here]. .... ....Christopher Stasheff, ...., Spider Robinson,
>...., Marion Zimmer Bradley, Anne McCaffrey....
All the authors I left in the above passage I happen to like (or at
least, like some of their stuff). On the other hand, perhaps you're
right. Surely you don't call Darkover or Pern `real' SF---which is all
you claim to be talking about. They are more fantasy. Stasheff I don't
know. Had someone already done a Gramarye? It's the first time I'd met
such an idea. Spider Robinson I like for Callahan's [Two books:
Callahan's Crosstime Saloon and Time Travelers Strictly Cash]. (This is
probably because of my weak spot for puns).
der Mouse
{ihnp4,decvax,...}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse
PS. Can anyone enlighten me on the difference between "comics" and "comix"?