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!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V10 #342
Message-ID: <391@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Sep-85 09:45:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.391
Posted: Tue Sep  3 09:45:13 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 06:43:02 EDT
References: <3477@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 38
Summary: 

In article <3477@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> rti-sel!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!columbia!topaz!BARD BARD@MIT-XX.ARPA writes:

>My first impressions of this firefight were that various "Art Snobs" were
>not granting "Good-Read Snobs" (to use a parallel term without intending
>either term to be especially accurate) that right; that they were being
>rather extreme in their claims that the standards of "Art" were the only
>worthy ones.  

My reactions have always been to extreme statements on the part of the
"Good-Read Snobs." Those of you with long memories will recall that my
first posting on quality and fiction predated the whole Davis Tucker 
series that seems to have upset so many people in this group, and was 
a reaction to Steve Brust's claim that most good writing today is 
issuing from the pens (word processors?) of SF writers. Since then,
I've seen great hostility on both sides of the fence. So please don't
mislead newcomers to this controversy by claiming that the initial
extremity was perpetrated by an "Art Snob." My OWN first impressions
were that the "Good-Read Snobs" started it; c'mon, fight like a
mensch. :-)

>Since then, much umbrage has been given, and much taken;
>probably most  of the lack of courtesy is reaction to excessive nastiness of
>the other side.  It can't be  intended personally, for we are all of us
>honorable men.

You obviously haven't seen the nasty mail messages I've occasionally
received. :-)
 
>But then, we're having fun trying to stuff each other in our favorite
>teacups.

One man's nastiness is another's debating style. As I pointed out in
one of my innumerable postings on this subject, one can be critical of
something and still like it. Why, some of my best friends voted for
Reagan in the last election (I wouldn't want my sister to marry one,
though :-).

                          -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly