Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles hp 2.0 03/25/85; site hpislb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!pesnta!hplabs!hpisla!jayj
From: jayj@hpisla.UUCP (Jay Johannes)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: SF Poll. "Best" 59 books (so far). Film at 11.
Message-ID: <69700001@hpislb.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 15:35:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: hpislb.69700001
Posted: Wed Jun 19 15:35:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 04:26:48 EDT
References: <7301@watdaisy.UUCP>
Organization: HP Instrument Systems Lab - Loveland, CO
Lines: 24

Hold on just a second, here. I have been reading over the list and 
am wondering if everybody knows what "canonical" means? Webster 
gives definitions of orthodox and simplest form. I take the word
in context to mean that the author wanted those stories that have 
set the standards for the current state of science fiction. That is,
those stories that have broken new ground in either plot or style.

I am not going to argue about the QUALITY of the stories that were listed.
Most are very good examples of the best authors. However, many just cannot 
be classed as ground breaking. I especially question those stories that have
been published within the last 12 months. How can a new story be changing 
directions already?

A number of the books on the list can be traced back to earlier works
sometimes even to works by the same author. 

One of the problems might be that some of the most innovative work is 
done in short story format. The novel, which requires much more extensive
plot and character development, generally doesn't have the same freedom
to work with new directions. 

I guess the offshoot is that I am not sure that asking for novels is the
best way of exploring this. I finish up with an apology for not yet submitting
my own list. The check is in the mail :-)