LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for SF-LIT Archives


SF-LIT Archives

SF-LIT Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SF-LIT Home

SF-LIT Home

SF-LIT  January 1997

SF-LIT January 1997

Subject:

Star Wars and condemnation

From:

Nicola Gebendinger <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science Fiction and Fantasy Listserv <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 29 Jan 1997 14:53:15 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (301 lines)

Subject: MISC

>> From _Star Wars: Heir to the Empire_ by Timothy Zahn,
>> Bantam paperback edition, 1991, chapter 10, begining at the
>> top of page 112 and continuing to page 117.

> Well, your comments are right on.  (Typically) it's
> developed about as well as a decent writer's first draft.
>  But this is copyrighted material.  Even with the credit, is
> it appropriate to reproduce so much of it here?

        I'm no expert in copyright laws, but as far as I understand it, you *should* be able to reproduce so
long an excerpt in a list such as this, as you don't make money from it and, even if the posting is
distributed, it is not a paper to be submitted for publication or a dissertation. But I may be wrong, though.

>> What makes those books masterpieces? What elements exist in
>> those books that so many others fall short of? Is it the
>> timeliness of the subject, the character development, the
>> originality of the idea...?

> Withstanding the test of time is a good indicator.  Time
> passage tends to strip away the faddish light which can make
> a particular book immediately successful and leave only the
> literary qualities for later readers to judge. I'm pleased
> to see "The Dreaming Jewels" make the grade. <sentimental
> sigh> Always did like Sturgeon.  I'd have to add something
> of Roger Zelazny's, because of his Jungian tendencies.  The
> man had a real way with archetypes.

        Too bad that Star Wars is withstanding the test of time quite well, as, whatever its merits are, it is
*not* a masterpiece, in my opinion.
        And anyway, Lela, how could you keep THE DREAMING JEWELS out of the list?

> I don't know that Ellison would appeal to today's youth.
>  I'd suspect the reading level is too high for a group
> that's cut their teeth on STAR WARS and the current (as you
> say) minimalist style.  Do you suppose the average reader
> has a working vocabulary of 300 words?

        I admit I have cut my teeth on Andre Norton, Arthur Clarke, Poul Anderson and Isaac Asimov, but even
sticking to english only, MY vocabulary is greater than 300 words, probably closer to 3-4000. And at nearly 34,
I might not be a youth anymore.
        But Ellison doesn't appeal me!

>>Then I have another question, but does anybody know *when*
>> were the planets called with those names (I suspect this is
>> one of those questions which cannot have an answer,
>> but...).
>> Umberto Rossi

> After Galileo, wasn't it?  Nobody scientific noticed until
> then.  I'm always vague about dates and times, but I do know
> the reason why.  Until recently Western scientists fancied
> themselves as carrying on a classical tradition, so they
> named everything from Latin or Greek.  Then everyone seems
> to have become irreverent, so you see quarks and (?) what do
> you call those particles with different spins?  Silly names
> instead.

        The five planets that can be seen with the naked eye, from Mercury to Saturn, have ben named this way
long before than Galileo, I believe. But I do not know how and when.

>>Lela, tesoro, it should. Can coach you, if you want. :)
>>        Nicola

> Probably wouldn't help my accent much. <g>  What's your
> mailcode?  It doesn't come through on the posting.

        Do you mean, my email address? [log in to unmask]

========================

Subject: Re: Science Fiction Art & Artists

>>        Usually, I don't pay much attention to covers. Oh,
>> it may attract my attention, and I pick up the book
>> beginning to go through the cover leaves and the pages, but
>> I can't honestly say I remember many covers... Just a few
>> by Michael Whelan and by Boris Vallejo.
>>        My mind is word-oriented, not figure-oriented, I'm
>> afraid.

> Nicola,
>         Have you seen the cover for "The Iron Dragon's
> Daughter" by Michael Swanwick.  Great stuff from Dorian
> Vallejo.

        No, I don't think I have seen it. At least, I don't remember. I'm text-oriented, not cover-oriented.
:::lopsided smile:::

========================

Subject: Re: Science Fiction Art & Artists

> When I am choosing a book (and not looking for a title which
> has been recommended me, or a new book by an author whom
> previously pleased me), I grab books off the shelf at
> random.  I read the first page.  If the first page intrigues
> me, I might read the first three pages.  If those pages
> intrigue me, I look at the organisation of the book.  I like
> books with epilogues and prologues, divided into three
> parts, with lyrically-named chapters.  I like a minimum of
> dialogue, and prose that seduces.  If the book meets enough
> of those criteria to suit my mood for that particular day, I
> buy it.

        This is about the way I choose a new, unknown book by an unknown (to me) author, Chas & list. I grab
it, I look at the summary in the back cover (or whatever it is called in english), then I read the first page
and leaf through it. If I like it, I buy it otherwise it stays on the shelf.

> This does suggest another topic for the list.  What _most_
> makes you buy a book?  The recommendation of a friend, a
> critic, the cover, or familiarity with the author?  Or some
> other factor(s)?

        Either how much I like what I read standing in front of the bookstore shelf or the familiarity of the
author. Unless I'm buying by mail, in which I'm shooting quite blindly... Unless I already know about the book
on the basis of previous experiences.

------------------------------

Subject: Re: Star Wars novels - Part 2

>> There is a thing called willful suspension of disbelief,
>> and it might be time for you to excercise it. <Grabbing the
>> soapbox> Every once in a while, it's nice just to relax and
>> enjoy reading a book. When I'm at work, I have to think;
>> when I'm at home at the end of the day, I just want to kick
>> back. I have no desire to read critically or analyze the
>> flaws in the book. I'm only interested in how well the book
>> performs it's task of entertainment.

> You said something very important here.  Maybe work is what
> separates the readers of this list.  I usually have a boring
> job.  There isn't much opportunity to think at all.  I like
> to think.  For me, to be entertained is to be able to
> exercise those intellectual muscles (which aren't worked
> otherwise).  If I want to be immersed in stupidity, I don't
> have to open a book.  Life guarantees that my quota of
> stupidity will always be met, and then exceeded.

> Does anyone think that there is any correlation?

        No, Chas, I don't think that the correlation is very strong. Even when I worked the hardest, when I
want to read a book, I want a challenging book that makes me think. It can be a science fiction book or a
biology textbook, but I want to think. And I want the complexity and the stimulus to think in character and
plot development instead in the language quirks! Italian politicians have done wonderfully in killing any
appreciation I could have had for ornate language.

========================

Subject: Condemnation (was Star Wars Novels)

> 7 You condemn the author for plot inconsistencies and poor
> scene setting, yet the same accusations can be made against
> such authors as E E "Doc" Smith and others of the "he
> grabbed a handy blaster" school of SF. The same "space
> opera" authors are now held by some as "deities" (well
> almost) in the world of SF and their works regarded as
> "classic" _despite_ their faults.

        And this is a sad thing, John. These books should have been let to die obscurely and peacefully...

> Lots ( and  mean LOTS ) of people like them, just as lots of
> people like " The Young and the gormless" ( or whatever it
> is called :-) ). Remember that 90% crap rule ( Sturgeon's
> Law ? ), correct grammar _never_ made a bad book worthy just
> as incorrect grammar doesn't make a good product bad.

        John, incorrect grammar surely helps in downgrading a book. And also quite a lot. I spent a lifetime
using italian, 8 years studying french, an 15 years honing english, and I'm trying hard to use correct grammar
and synthaxis for each. And I'm no writer.
        Why should a writer be excused for not knowing what are fundamental skills of his/her trade? If I can't
be excused for not using grammar and synthaxis correctly, neither can a writer. It's a matter of respect for
each other and for oneself! Too ornate a style makes me throw a book against next wall, but incorrect use of
grammar and synthaxis makes me throw it in the waste-basket.

========================

Subject: Re: MISC

> I suppose it is only because I am a medievalist that I am
> appalled that anyone can think that "nobody scientific
> noticed until then". Nothing personal intended! All Galileo
> did was, by cheating (he used a telescope!), discover that
> Jupiter had moons.

        Using a telescope to discover Jupiter's moon, Venus' phases and Saturn Rings was *NOT* cheating, Mr.
James! Galileo was simply the first or one of the firsts to use telescope for astronomical purpose.
        Would you say that today's use of Computerized Axial Tomography or Nuclear Magnetic Resonance for
research and diagnosis is cheating, just because they weren't available up to 20-30 years ago?

========================

Subject: Re: Condemnation (was Star Wars Novels)

>> Now, I am not trying to start a flame war here, I do not
>> feel qualified to enter into a debate on the relative
>> merits of this type of work. My point is that, I don't
>> think _anyone_, on this list, or in general, should be the
>> arbiter of either taste or quality.

> While I agree that it would be futile to try to promote
> oneself as an arbiter of taste, I do think that some of us
> can claim to be arbiters of quality.  My second Master's
> degree is in English, and I have published several articles
> in refereed scholarly journals and in books.  I think that
> these qualifications enable me to speak more authoritatively
> about literature, on this list and in general, than readers
> who boast that they do not read critically and who have not
> matched my achievements.  In the same way, I defer to others
> who have studied and published in other fields, when I find
> myself in conversation with them.

        Oh, well, Fiona, I'm just a reader, and my studies have been in everything BUT literature and literary
theory, but *I* am the final arbiter of my tastes and ideas, whether right or wrong these ideas are, and
educated or non-educated I am.
        Sure, I should defer to experts with master's degrees and PhDs and so on, but *my* qualification is
that I have always been an avid reader (in this case of SF/fantasy/horror), so I think I'm entitled to an
opinion on what I read, just because I've read it and thought about it, and to state that opinion. Sometimes I
got kicked, sometimes praised for these ideas, sometimes I changed them, sometimes I didn't.
        And, wrong or right that such an attitude is, it's up to me to decide how much I'm impressed by
somebody's degrees and publications. There is also something called "quality" of a publication, and I've read
some microbiology papers published in respected journals that should have been laughed at during the rejection
process. Experts may be proven wrong and laypeople may be proven right, sometimes.
        Oh, this is not a personal attack, btw. :)

========================

Subject: The Star Wars' wars

> I had joined the SF Lit list because supposedly it existed
> for the discussion of matters science fictional, including,
> but not restricted to, the criticism of SF prose.  In fact,
> I had assumed that this list would be inhabited primarily by
> teachers, critics, authors, scholars, librarians, and
> researchers who were either actively involved in the life of
> the SF discipline or aspired to be so. I am not at all
> convinced that this is the case, and Mr. Prendergast's post
> has nearly eliminated my last shred of doubt in this matter.

        Rick, common readers outnumber all the other categories you quoted. On a statistical basis, you should
have expected that many of them subscribed to the list...

> What I mean by this is that all too much (for my tastes
> anyway) of the talk on this list is, I'm afraid, trivial,
> self-evident, uninformed, irrelevant, anti-intellectual, or
> just plain nasty and mean-spirited (and I think all those
> adjectives apply to Mr. Prendergast's comments).  It is for
> this reason that I have hesitated for over two weeks to post
> some work I have been doing on a taxonomy of SF themes; it
> is also why I have considered at least taking a long break
> from this list -- I simply can't afford to read a hundred
> messages a day when only 15-20 possess much substance.

> This is not, I hope, itself a plea for censorship; I simply
> wonder if we might not review the mandate of this list and
> on that basis empower Ms. Stumbaugh to greater vigilence in
> her task of sifting and winnowing.

        Unfortunately, you're right here. Much of the talk here is "trivial, self-evident, uninformed,
irrelevant, anti-intellectual, or just plain nasty and mean-spirited". I hope I haven't been anti-intellectual,
nasty and mean-spirited in my postings, and I am guilty for having been trivial, self-evident, uninformed,
irrelevant.
        But: #1) I don't think it is Ms Stumbaugh's job to sift and winnow in our place. It's OUR job. Ms.
Kelleghan's, Mr. Rossi's, Ms. Buis, Mr. Resnick, yours, mine. Therefore, I so move that Ms Stumbaugh is NOT
empowered to greater vigilance.
        #2) As I suspect Ms. Stumbaugh is *not* paid exclusively to moderate this list, I'm inclined to think
she's doing a great job. (I'm also partial to the current way she's doing it: I never had a posting killed!
<G>)
        #3) I'm no specialist, and I would be saddened if I can't post on this list just because the moderator
thinks my posting fall short of his/her/its standards.

        By the way, when will you post your ideas on the possible fascistic elements in Clarke's "Childhood's
End"? I'm surely interested in hearing them.

========================

Subject: the names of the planets

> And here I must confess to some lack of knowledge:  Saturn,
> the sixth planet, was the first one (not visible to the
> naked eye) discovered, and I believe it was Christiaan
> Huygens around 1660 who first observed it.

        Rick, I beg your pardon, but you've lost me. Saturn is one of the planets visible with the naked eye,
and one that was known since antiquity. On this light, your sentence here is nonsensical.

========================

Subject: Re: Star Wars novels - Part 2

> go figure - "de gustibus non est disputandum" (lest nicola &
> umberto think i'm totally without refinement...)

        I don't know about Umberto, but I never said that! :) (Probably, Umberto didn't either.)



        Nicola

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager