Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!unc!wfi From: wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: Metropolis and Brunner Message-ID: <332@unc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 6-Apr-85 11:56:18 EST Article-I.D.: unc.332 Posted: Sat Apr 6 11:56:18 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Apr-85 01:36:47 EST References: <216@unc.UUCP> <292@unc.UUCP> Reply-To: wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly) Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill Lines: 92 Summary: >>> Yet again, it ought to be clear that the fewer qualifiers used, the >>> stronger the statement is. Have read Strunk and White's THE ELEMENTS >>> OF STYLE? It is the best book on English usage...never mind. >> >> Your appeal to Strunk and White as an authority is beside the point. >> A statement can also be strong to the point of absurdity. Some writers >> use this for comic effect (it's called hyperbole). The unskillful or >> inappropriate use of hyperbole is defective style, pure and simple. > I'm sorry my style is defective. I'm sorry you took my comments so personally. > But wait...how are you any more > of an authority on style, defective or otherwise, than I am on > Best SF Novel of all time? > Why didn't you say, "In my opinion"? Did > you think it was implied? > Or do you feel yourself capable of making > this kind of judgement beyond question? I don't claim to be more of an authority. What I do claim is that styles can be compared but that statements about the best this or that are basically meaningless. My reference is several hundred years' of literary criticism. Try the introduction to Northrop Frye's "The Anatomy of Criticism" for starters. Or are you suggesting that the people who have out of love devoted their careers to literary criticism are all social parasites who have wasted their lives? > Or, perhaps, were you merely > making a strong statement of opinion; knowing, instictivly, that to > qualify it would weaken it unnecessarily, and that any reasonable > person reading would understand what you were doing? Hogwash. The whole point I've been trying to get across is that it's NOT clear to 'any reasonable person' that a statement about the 'best book of all time/the 20th century' contains an unstated qualifier. > ... When two or three people state > "thus and so is the best", and thus and so is different in each case, > the alert reader will begin to understand that opinions are being > discussed here. How do I know I'm not listening to two or three people who sincerely and honestly believe the books they're referring to ARE the greatest things since sliced bread and rubber chickens? Sheesh. > Many writers (Zelazny, to pick an example at random) have the habit > of assuming a minimal amout of intelligence and sensitivity on > the part of the reader. Some readers consider this a flaw. Where > do you stand, and why? An 'alert reader' will realize that this question is a red herring. I don't think this question has any relevance to the question we're discussing. > As to what I am letting the alert reader know about me--well, that > would be telling now, wouldn't it. But I'll give you a hint. From > the tone of your comments you appear to have formed an opinion of > me. I would suspect that, from your perspective, it is a correct > opinion. Again, I'm sorry you're taking this so personally. > ... A writer who > lays everything out in such a way that the reader need do no work > at all, is denying to reader the pleasure of bringing the writers > thoughts, based on his experience, into conflict with the readers, > based on his own. Great. The next time I write a User's Manual for a piece of software, I'll make sure the reader has the pleasure of bringing my thoughts into conflict with his own. Make the beggars work for it, I say! The reader/writer interaction you describe makes the reading of fiction and poetry pleasurable. It's not at all clear to me that this sort of tension is necessary or desireable in other sorts of writing. Or are you saying that your original comments were themselves fiction or poetry? :-) > However, in this one case I will lay this rule aside and say, > precisely and clearly, what I intend to convey: The above > comments were made with the understanding that those who > read them were capable of thinging. And I hope my comments on these matters have stimulated some readers of this newsgroup to approach their reading of SF more critically. Please realize, Steve, Ray, and all of you who have commented on my postings, that critical comments are NOT intended as personal attacks. --- Cheers, Bill Ingogly