Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!gatech!nsc!chuqui
From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Authorial notes
Message-ID: <3034@nsc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Jul-85 23:52:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: nsc.3034
Posted: Fri Jul 26 23:52:37 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 08:14:50 EDT
Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Organization: The Dreamer Fithp
Lines: 18

References:<228@hyper.UUCP> <3006@nsc.UUCP> <955@ihlpg.UUCP>

In article <955@ihlpg.UUCP> jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) writes:
>Hmmm.  I agree that the *story* should not be judged with (or in light of)
>its introductory notes.  On the other hand, as a would-be author (I practice
>on the net community at large, heh heh), I am fascinated by anything an
>author has to say about what was going through his/her head while writing...

Well, as an authorial apprentice, I also appreciate the analysis that I
see of specific stories -- the recent discussions of Reign In Hell rate as
a high point in this group for that. But I also feel that the analysis and
explanation should be kept separate from the original publication --
authors notes tend to degenerate into self-indulgent prose too easily and
often for my taste.

-- 
:From the carousel of the autumn carnival:        Chuq Von Rospach
{cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui   nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA

Your fifteen minutes are up. Please step aside!