tfl (03/24/83)
Oh, come now wdr, there are any number of reasons why discussions of SF books qua literature belongs in net.sf-lovers, and not in some net.books: 1) What would be left to discuss in net.sf? movies? (send to net.movies) ideas? (send to net.religion or net.philosophy) I think that net.sf-lovers should be (and presently is) the repository for discussing anything that has to do with science fiction, whether it be literature, movies, ideas, engineering, conventions, or whatever. 2) Having a net category is no assurance that all articles will be in any one person's area of interest. I get tired, myself, of reading all THE OTHER speculation. My response is merely to be a little more selective in reading articles.(ohhhh, wooza woooza. your little finger gets tired of pressing the 'n' key, huh?) 3) If we are tightening the sf-lovers category, shouldn't your letter be relegated to net.flame? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. 4) Why shouldn't sf be criticized as literature? If we can't discuss plot, characterization, symbolism, etc., the we're playing into the hands of those who claim that sf is juvenile trash. There's more to sf than blasters and tractor beams. 5) Criticizing anything requires that one be familiar with the genre to which it belongs. Therefore, criticizing sf as literature requires someone well versed both in sf and literature. Unfortunately, due to the impression of sf as non-literature, most people in net.books are not qualified to discuss sf. How many more articles like that in Harpers do you want, anyway?! 6) Why not get rid of net.sf-lovers all together? We can spread out the articles into net.religion, net.space, net.physics, net.religion, net.philosophy, etc. (said with extreme sarcasm) Keep net.sf-lovers the way it is. -not afraid or too weak to use the 'n' key