Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1exp 10/6/83; site ihuxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxi!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxa!gek
From: gek@ihuxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: re:defense of thomas covenant
Message-ID: <303@ihuxa.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Oct-83 15:56:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxa.303
Posted: Wed Oct 12 15:56:31 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Oct-83 22:39:40 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il
Lines: 18

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)