Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!columbia!topaz!Postmaster@bbn-vax
From: Postmaster@bbn-vax
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: the problems of SF, and quality writing
Message-ID: <2165@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 1-Jun-85 10:09:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.2165
Posted: Sat Jun  1 10:09:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Jun-85 07:46:56 EDT
Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 26

From: dm@bbn-vax.arpa


While browsing in the bookstore the other day, I noticed that Umberto Eco
(author of _The Name of the Rose_, an interesting medieval fantasy,
and paradigmatic semiotician) called Samuel Delaney ``The most interesting
writer working today.''

Also, in writing about the problems of SF, you rely too much on anecdotal
evidence: maybe the SF YOU read is lacking in characterization, plot, etc.,
but that's just because your horizons seem to be limited: maybe you've been
going to too many cons.

CJ Cherryh, Samuel Delaney, W Gibson, John Ford, Stanislaw Lem, UK LeGuin, are
all exceptions to your generalizations about SF.  Had you dwelt on them
instead of the writers of juvenile SF like Asimov, Clarke, etc., I think your
essays would have a much different tone (does anyone over the age of, say, 18
read Asimov?).

Speaking of anecdotal evidence, I am reminded of the remarks _The New
Republic_ had to make about the infamous _Newsweek_ Yuppie issue: _Newsweek_
had to look real hard to find those dozen yuppies who so fit their
preconceptions.  Had they chosen, they could have gone out and found a dozen
still-active activists to serve as evidence for a special issue on ``Survivors
of the Sixties: still caring, still growing.''  I think all of your essays
have been guilty of much the same crime.