Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site edison.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!edison!dca
From: dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: A SHORT RESPONSE
Message-ID: <504@edison.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Jun-85 09:53:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: edison.504
Posted: Mon Jun 10 09:53:28 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Jun-85 01:43:45 EDT
References: <1097@druri.UUCP>
Organization: General Electric Company, Charlottesville, VA
Lines: 50

> 
> 3) I read for fun. I read trash. I just don't have any illusions about it, 
>    even though I enjoy it. "Enjoyment" is not the be-all and end-all of life.

Neither is someone's purely subjective literary merit evaluation.

> 
> 4) I realize that what I say is my opinion, and I am surprised at the number
>    of people who have seen fit to inform me of this obvious fact. Lighten up.
>    At least I have attempted to support my opinion with examples and logic.
> 

He who issues flame-like messages shall get such back.  High-handed, superior
tone messages beg for assault and given the nature of the net will get it.

> 5) You may think that Norman Rockwell is vastly superior to Van Gogh, but you
>    would be wrong. There is good art, and there is bad art, and to deny that
>    there is a distinction between them is to lump greatness with mediocrity.
>    Otherwise, there is no basis for *any* critical statement except "I like
>    it". Which is incredibly egocentric.
>

Oh GOD what planet do you live on.  ART, any form, any kind, is PURELY
subjective.  What art is considered "better" is strictly cultural
brainwashing just as any music (too many notes).  Play modern 
critically acclaimed modern music to a musical theoretician of century ago
and he will tell you it is junk.  Show a critically acclaimed modern painting
to a similar artist and he will say it is demented scratchings.  Literature
similarly.  You are simply
waving your hands at a subjective evaluation and trying to make
your particular likes and dislikes something that rises above
everyone else, a typical self-delusion.  (I am not, by the way, a
Norman Rockwell fan so stop trying to pick the most ridiculous artistic
comparison you could think of to shove in my face)

> 6) "Well-written" and "boring" are mutually exclusive in my book.

That is because your purely subjective evaluation of "well-written" applies
only to those books which aren't boring to yourself but may very well be
quite ho-hum to me (rather discriminatory don't you think).

I will not disagree that in my opinion (note this phrase, you should try
using it more often) the amount of crap in the SF&F field has grown but
then so has the entire field.  If you are willing to look for it there
are still gems among the rough and I would even venture to say more
than were available in previous times.  I think, however, we would
no doubt disagree on what are gems and what is rough (and this is
probably true of virtually any two people).

David Albrecht