SOMMERS@RUTGERS.ARPA (10/12/83)
I did not mean to say that Moby Dick and War and Peace are not of lasting literary merit (although I have reservations about War and Peace, a book I hated). Moby Dick is and always will be a major work, it changed the way people perceived the world around them and continues to influence and educate readers and writers. What I disagree with is the almost sole use of these two nineteenth century books as examples of literary merit. This is the same philosophy that has put Victorian pot-boilers on "Great Bookshelves". It has led to two general beliefs 1) that a book must be long and dense to be good 2) that a book that is long and dense is good. Using this value system, we can easily find an sf classic - Star-Maker by Olaf Stapledon. Classics should be classified as "books people continue to enjoy", books of great literary merit are almost self-defining. If I was going to look for classical sf of great literary merit, I would probably wish to compare the books and STORIES to such works as Medea Candide Metamorphosis Bartelby The Scrivener For Whom The Bell Tolls Frankenstein John Brown's Body Flame off liz// -------
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (10/15/83)
Where do you put the books which are awful TO READ but somewhat good TO HAVE READ? All of the works of Thomas Hardy that I have read struck me that way. laura creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
ofut@gatech.UUCP (10/19/83)
I'd say that books to awful TO READ but good to HAVE READ belong
in the trash. Reading them anyway means you're letting someone
else dictate you tastes.
If the author had something to say but could not say it well then
(s)he obviously needed a collaborator.
Remember: Freedom is not given, we have to take it.
--
-- Jeff Offutt
CSNet: Ofut @ GaTech ARPA: Ofut.GaTech @ UDel-Relay
uucp: ...!{sb1,allegra,ut-ngp}!gatech!Ofut
...!duke!mcnc!msdc!gatech!Ofutlaura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (10/20/83)
This is probably a silly place to argue, but I really resent: I'd say that books to awful TO READ but good to HAVE READ belong in the trash. Reading them anyway means you're letting someone else dictate you tastes. This is nonsense. I had to plough through a lot of Hardy to get out of high school. I can't say that my reading tastes were dictated to; if I wanted to get a good mark I had to get through The Mayor of Casterbridge. More recently, I have read more Hardy in order that I might discuss (read rip the morality to shreds, as it worked out) it with other people. Does this mean that my reading tastes are being dictated to? The alternative is to attack something without reading on the subject, or avoiding the issue. To attack things without approriate background is a very good way to repeatedly make a fool of yourself, and to continually avoid issues is a very good way to describe apathy. If the author had something to say but could not say it well then (s)he obviously needed a collaborator. What makes you think that they could say it well to the collaborator? In addition, how easy do you think today's fiction will seem to people in the 22nd century? That Shakespear wrote well does not make him an easy author for today's readers. Remember: Freedom is not given, we have to take it. I get very thoroughly annoyed when people use the wonderful word "freedom" to justify apathy and ignorance. Personal limitations infringe upon one's freedom as well. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
preece@uicsl.UUCP (10/21/83)
#R:sri-arpa:-1240700:uicsl:10700048:000:293 uicsl!preece Oct 14 14:47:00 1983 Hmm, I can see comparing the best SF to some of those books (Frankenstein, of course, could be grouped with SF without any trouble at all). As to comparing SF to Bartleby the Scrivener... I prefer not to. :-) Too easy, but somebody had to say it... scott preece pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece