Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!reiher
From: reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Critics and art
Message-ID: <3532@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 4-Sep-85 18:50:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.3532
Posted: Wed Sep  4 18:50:25 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 09:11:15 EDT
Sender: daemon@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 21

From: Peter Reiher <reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU>

I composed a response to Mr. Brust's reply to one of my recent messages.
Since it weighed in at over 100 lines, I'll just include the last paragraph
here, and send the whole gargantuan mess to Mr. Brust.

My point, before and now, is that one must beware of those who claim
that readability is a *necessary* criterion for artistic greatness.
Essentially, what I'm saying is this:  I read a book, work hard at it
because it isn't an easy book to read, get blown away by it, and tell
people that it's a great book.  They come back and say, "It isn't easy,
so you're wrong."  Moreover, they refuse to consider the possibility that
expending more effort might convince them that there is something to my
point of view.  I can accept that some people do not want to spend effort
on reading, that they read to relax and hear a good story, but I do object
to having them then tell me that their criteria for art are better than
mine, and that is precisely what some people have been saying.

        			Peter Reiher
				reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
        			{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher