BUTLER@MIT-DMS@sri-unix.UUCP (08/03/83)
Come on, folks, if you don't like Heinlein, good for you! Who cares? I'd much rather here from someone who does like Heinlein, explaining what they liked or disliked about a given novel by RAH. I get tired of "I don't like Heinlein's work at all, and this is why." Much more interesting are messages that say "I liked xxxxx by RAH, but I felt that yyyyy was wrong/not handled well/bullshit, and here's why." If you don't like Stephen R. Donaldson's Covenant trilogies, that's fine. Must I read your spleen-venting in every issue of SF-Lovers Digest? Yes, Mr. Donaldson is incredibly verbose at times; yes, he stole or borrowed or otherwise included concepts which other authors developed or wrote about first, and yes, the Covenant trilogies are somewhat less than immortal works of art that will stand unmarred forever. On the other hand, verbosity is not a capital crime, yet. If it were, many authors would be sent to the gas chambers. As for the charge of (gasp!) plagiarism, so what if the Ravers are Balrogs on bicycles? Why does it matter that Donaldson has used some of the same old songs, with a few new lines? No one grows up in a cultural vacuum. It satisfies me that enough of the story is original that it doesn't read like Donaldson changed the names and submitted "Leper of the Ring" to be published. Also, why are we complaining about the source of Donaldson's words? I don't have a list of the Nine Billion Names of Ghod, and I wager Donaldson doesn't either. If he can't come up with words that suit you, too bad. I will admit, though, that "ussusimiel" and "rhyshishym" are both words that give me hives. If you don't like what the man has written at all, don't give copies of his books to friends at Christmas. DON'T send flame after flame on the same damned note. Let someone who liked the TC books explain why, if you can get anyone to admit to liking the books. I'm too busy flaming about your flaming to consider it. Finally, JRR Tolkien is not a saint, contrary to popular belief. He was a scholar who wrote a piece of fiction which is very boring at times, very exciting at other times, and which owes at least a small part of its notoriety to the fact that it was written before most other fantasies with which the public is familiar. Frankly, John Myers Myers wrote a faster moving, more exciting fantasy in 'Silverlock', which is also very scholarly in its roots. I hope that one day I will understand all of the jokes based on literature of which I am, sadly enough, still ignorant. There. I just had to get that out of my system. Tomorrow, I'll deny having been within ten miles of this terminal. -----rlb