Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rti-sel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE FICTION TODAY - PART I
Message-ID: <223@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-May-85 18:25:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.223
Posted: Fri May 31 18:25:46 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Jun-85 00:22:52 EDT
References: <1088@druri.UUCP> <hyper.200> <316@unc.UUCP> <2779@nsc.UUCP>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 52
Summary: 

In article <2779@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
 
>To start with, it is possible to generate a list at least as long of BAD
>mainstream writers as it is to generate a list of good mainstream writers.
>It is ALSO possible to generate a list of writers, both good and bad, in
>SF, in mystery, romance, or any genre. This proposition is intuitively
>obvious to anyone who has studied Sturgeons Law, which also, I should add,
>is appropriate to postings to sf-lovers, and probably to this posting. 

Go back and read both my responses to the original postings (part I
and part II). I made precisely these points. 

> ... What I see here is an attempt to define mainstream by the best
>of the best and compare it with the worst of the best in the SF genre, and
>that's apples and oranges, folks. Sure, Ellison has clinked out at times,

Again, read my postings. I clearly state that what I'm responding to
is not the claim that there are excellent writers in SF, but that MOST
OF THE BEST WRITERS ARE IN SF. I don't take kindly to this kind of
misrepresentation of what I've said.

>but Mailer and Capote and the rest have tossed out some outrageous and/or
>self-indulgent stuff as well. If you want to get into the second rank (and
>rank is an appropriate word for some of this stuff) in the mainstream, look
>to sydney sheldon and friends.

I stated in my posting that I agreed 100% with Steve Brust's comments
about Mailer and Capote. And read my comment on Sidney Sheldon in
net.books a few months ago for my feelings on THAT hack.

>What DOES matter is this: the best of the mainstream work is very good. The
>best of the genre stuff (even in romance) is very good. I'll hold up 'When
>Jefty is five' or 'Adrift of the Isles of Langerhans' or Wolfe's New Sun
>books or any number of other genre works against the works of a Capote or a
>Mailer. I'll also throw away the garbage of both, very happily. 

Again, you've misinterpreted what I've said, or you haven't read all
three of my postings. You may judge them differently if you do so.

>Lots of people DO stay in their neighborhood, and there is absolutely
>nothing wrong with that. I would like to point out, however, that there IS

But there's certainly something wrong with making negative statements
about life outside your neighborhood when you know little about it
and haven't taken the time to acquaint yourself with the people who
inhabit it.

Please reread what I've said; you may find that my opinion of SF is
not as bleak as you seem to think, and that there's not as much to
disagree with in my postings as you may think.

                               -- Bill Ingogly