Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site hyper.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!hyper!brust
From: brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Metropolis and Brunner
Message-ID: <143@hyper.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Mar-85 13:32:18 EST
Article-I.D.: hyper.143
Posted: Fri Mar 22 13:32:18 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Mar-85 07:05:35 EST
References: <980@topaz.ARPA>
Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls., Mn.
Lines: 103

> From: Alastair Milne <milne@uci-icse>
> 
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>    >Also who wrote THE SHEEP LOOK UP , ( an english guy ?) , the Best
>    >SF Book of all time .
>    >-Julian Long
> 
>    No.  The best SF book of all time is LORD OF LIGHT by Roger Zelazny.
>    It is also the best English Language book written in the twentieth
>    century.  An argument of best SF book of all time could be made for
>    Twain's Connecticut Yankee.
> 
>                             -- SKZB
> 
> 
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> 
> 
>   The best English language book of the 20th century is very probably 
> Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings".  Absolutely masterful.  A work both of 
> writing and creation that has become the standard by which such works are 
> measured.  When a publisher really wants to turn heads for a fantasy book,
> he puts on the cover something like "a new rival for The Lord of the Rings",
> which is almost universally false, but eye-catching.
> 
>   Tolkien held the chair in English at Merton College in Oxford for many 
> years, was a master of Middle English and a prolific writer.  His 
> qualifications for use of English go far beyond those of any sf-author I have 
> ever heard of, even my absolute favourites, and his writings and poetry prove
> it.
> 
>   So I would want to see *very* convincing evidence of Lord of Light's claim
> before I would even consider ranking Zelazny with Tolkien.
> 
> 					Alastair Milne

I don't want to put down Tolkien.  Heaven knows, I have read the trilogy upwards
of thirty times, and I have all of the follow-ups to it (Unfinished Tales,
Letters, etc) in hardcover.  But, frankly, Tolkien's pros tend to be
sloppy.  He drags, his characters sometimes seem shallow (they actually
aren't when you push it, but you shouldn't have to push it), and the
book is loaded with, if not inaccuracies, at least things that push
your suspension of disbelief (relationship between the aristocracy and
the peasantry, the general lack of disease, errors in transportation)
when it comes to the European Middle Ages.  His triumph was the telling
of a magnificent tale in spite of these problems.

The reason that he is used as the standard is becuase he sold well.  If
you feel this is a valid standard, than the GOR books of John Norman
are equivelant of today.  I hope this is not the case.

Those who are into peotry don't think much of Tolkien's in many cases.  I
wouldn't know about that; I love his poetry.  I once did a dramatic reading
of Gimli's poem that--never mind.

As for LORD OF LIGHT--within the context of the story, there are no flaws.
After reading it about six times, I found a few plot holes.  After reading
it about nine times, I understood them to be statements on their own.  The
book reads well and is accessable.  It is a good story.  It is yet another,
different good story.  And a third.  At least three different stories (the
direct one, involving Sam, Yama, and their merry friends, the story within
the context of the Hindu Gods, and the story of the development of the
society).  And this is BEFORE getting into the real depth of the book.

At one level, he is dealing with the conflict between man's desire for
individual happiness and his need to improve the world around him.  At
another level, he is dealing with relationship between man and the gods
that he creates.  At another, he is making a statement about the
effect of technology on man--his own diefication.  At another, on the
process of maturation, individual and societal.  And at another, on
our perceptions of the world around us, and how this effects our
ability to change it.  Yet again, on the relationship between
knowledge and the need to act on this knowledge.  And on the nature
of pride--good and bad.

This is only a part of it.  I once made a list of the different levels
of the story and, while I don't remember the total list, it was quite
impressive.  I don't think I've read the book more than fifty times,
so I'm sure there are plenty that I missed.  Every time I read it I
come away with something new.  Each level is carried to full fruition
in a book less than 400 pages long.  And this, by the way, is without
getting into additional things he may be saying by obscure metaphor,
on which I'm not prepared to comment.

His characterizations are beautiful and powerful both in the sense that
characters are easily distingushable from each other by both content and
style of speech, and in the depth that each one has.  In the book, as in
life, there is not a single character who is on for more than three pages
who doesn't change throughout the book.

His prose and dialogue are perfect.  The mechanics of the writing are
without flaw.  And above all, he never for an instant forgets that his
job as a novelist is to tell an enjoyable story, and he does.  The first
two or three times I read it, I wasn't aware that there was anything
more to it than it.

It is incomperable.

			-- SKZB