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!reiher@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA
From: reiher@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: literary sterility
Message-ID: <2311@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 18-Jun-85 13:19:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.2311
Posted: Tue Jun 18 13:19:10 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 10:13:56 EDT
Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 17

From: Peter Reiher <reiher@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>


 Bill Ingogly writes
>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] ...

Only if you accept his premise that the only way in which a work of
fiction can be interesting, vital, stimulating, or effective is if
it wraps its reader up in its own world, a premise I do not accept.
Do you?

			Peter Reiher