gek@ihuxa.UUCP (10/12/83)
ok, i wasn't around for the original debate of the merits of the covenant
series; here is MY defense. if someone claims a book is boring and verbose,
yet another praises the imagery and sees an intricate underlying structure,
doesn't that raise the possibility that the second person is correct and
the first just isn't sufficiently perceptive? maybe the people who are
put off by donaldson's imposing double trilogy would prefer to read Lucky
Starr and the Asteroids? at least then they would not be troubled with
any symbolism interfering with the plot. to be fair, i did read some
portions of the series more, er, "quickly" than others. but i maintain
the character developments, the symbolism, the subtle shift from covenant's
difficulties in life to linden's, all are admirable. may i respectfully
suggest that sf needs a few works like this to avoid becoming like westerns
("hiyo, dragon! away!")? sorry, i got a little carried away with that one...
why don't y'all blow me away with invective saved since the last
Great Covenant Debate?
glenn kapetansky (ihnp4!gek)jj@rabbit.UUCP (10/14/83)
ok, i wasn't around for the original debate of the merits of the covenant series; here is MY defense. if someone claims a book is boring and verbose, yet another praises the imagery and sees an intricate underlying structure, doesn't that raise the possibility that the second person is correct and the first just isn't sufficiently perceptive? maybe the people who are put off by donaldson's imposing double trilogy would prefer to read Lucky Starr and the Asteroids? at least then they would not be troubled with ... glenn kapetansky (ihnp4!gek) Any maybe the people who didn't like the Covenant books simply have a slightly different set of values, and/or read books for different reasons. I like the Covenant series, I also think that there's a place for the "Lucky Starr" series. I don't think that everyone else should like either, or both. I don't demean them because they wish to be different than me. -- O o From the pyrolagnic keyboard of ~ rabbit!jj -v-v- \^_^/
kechkayl@pur-ee.UUCP (David L Kechkaylo) (10/24/83)
#R:rabbit:-206700:ecn-ee:14400002:000:171 ecn-ee!kechkayl Oct 17 01:12:00 1983 Or, possibly, the people are just perceptive enough when they know that they are reading a BAD double trilogy! (Go ahead and Flame, I don't care) Thomas Ruschak
Heiny.henr@PARC-MAXC.ARPA (11/05/83)
self loathing/pity. TC is just too much like Marvin the android for my taste. Donaldson has some good ideas (and some bad ones), and can create good images/plot/meaning when he tries to, but all to often it seems like he was just trying to meet some daily goal of pages written. Other SF writers have produced books just as meaningful and more interesting without resorting to chronic depression or an 'imposing double trilogy', or to a Lucky Starr format. Chris