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!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: literary sterility
Message-ID: <247@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Jun-85 09:56:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.247
Posted: Wed Jun 12 09:56:22 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Jun-85 06:11:33 EDT
References: <2255@topaz.ARPA>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 28
Summary: 

In article <2255@topaz.ARPA> reiher@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA writes:
 
>> Charlie Martin writes:
>...
>>Have you ever read (or tried to read) a story in which you were
>>never able to become engrossed in the story?  Where you were always
>>conscious that you were ... reading ... a ... book?  Then I believe
>>you were reading something that I call sterile.
>
>Odd definition of literary sterility.  The term "sterility" is usually
>meant to convey something incapable of reproducing, so I would have 
>thought literary sterility to mean that the work in question is a dead
>end, that it will have no influence on future works, perhaps that it does
>not stimulate speculation or thought.  Your use of "sterility" strikes me as, 
>intentional or not, an attempt to misuse a word so that you can take advantage 
>of its perjorative connotations.  ...

Sorry, Charlie's definition of literary sterility is close to the
standard one. From Webster's New World Dictionary, Second College 
Edition:

    ... 3. lacking in interest or vitality; not stimulating or
        effective [a sterile style] ...
 
I won't presume to respond to the rest of your response to him, but I
did want to set the record straight on this point.

                      -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly