Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rabbit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!rabbit!jj
From: jj@rabbit.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: re:defense of thomas covenant
Message-ID: <2067@rabbit.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Oct-83 15:06:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: rabbit.2067
Posted: Fri Oct 14 15:06:13 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Oct-83 06:21:44 EDT
References: <303@ihuxa.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 23


	
  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
  			...
  glenn kapetansky (ihnp4!gek)

Any maybe the people who didn't like the Covenant books simply have a
slightly different set of values, and/or read books for different reasons.
I like the Covenant series, I also think that there's a place for
the "Lucky Starr" series.  I don't think that everyone else should like
either, or both.  I don't demean them because they wish to be
different than me.
-- 
 O   o   From the pyrolagnic keyboard of
   ~              rabbit!jj
 -v-v-
 \^_^/