[net.sf-lovers] Thomas Covenant, style, and the art of lack thereof

SR.FELSHIN@MIT-SPEECH@sri-unix.UUCP (07/23/83)

From:  Susan L. Felshin <SR.FELSHIN at MIT-SPEECH>

 I read the first three TC books, hoping always that they would get
better ... ah, foolish me.  The most blatant Tolkien ripoff - the blind
guy (I've forgotten the name) who gets turned into an ent.  Really!  I
lack the courage to read the next three books, although many people say
they are better.  I wouldn't mind people plagerizing Tolkien so much, if
they would only do it well!  I found the TC books very poorly written,
containing neither style nor convincing or absorbing plot nor good
characterization (in general, that is - a few characters were ok) nor
even pretty English.  The same goes for the most obvious Tolkien copy,
the Sword of Sha-na-na.
  While I'm on the subject: to whoever asked about the importance of
style to a science fiction reader, I find style moderately important in
any type of fiction.  While I can enjoy authors with mediocre style if
their plots and/or characterization are good (e.g. James Hogan), I am
unable to stomach a book with no style whatsoever (e.g. the Elric books
by Moorcock, one of which I read, the others I skimmed, on
recommendation of a friend, whose favorite or nearly favorite books they
are, why, I don't know).  Great style, to my mind, is alone enough to
carry a book through two readings (e.g. Portrait of an Artist as a Young
Man, which otherwise had nothing to recommend it, if you ask me).

  Has anyone out there read Star Smashers of the Galaxy Rangers by Harry
Harrison?  This book brings to its ultimate peak the art of rotten pulp
Sci-Fi writing.  A truly excellent and entertaining book.

Sue (Ich moechte ein Einzelzimmer mit Bad am Ersten Stock) Felshin
PaFotSftPoRCD