>I am, of course, thrilled to discuss my work...but I wasn't subtly
>(or less-than-subtly) suggesting we do so. I just wondered why of
>all my work, the only story anyone seemed inclined to discuss was
>a two-hour no-brainer piece of funny fiction.
>
>-- Mike Resnick
OK, I'll take a stab at this topic. I've enjoyed your writing for some time
and consider you a damned fine storyteller. While I have by no means read
all of your output (not even one dog story that I can recall), I have come
to know that a Resnick story will be dependably entertaining, and some I
consider quite exquisite. However, if your writing can be said to lack
something, it is ambiguity--many of your stories convey a point, and convey
it clearly and well. However, this does not leave much room for
interpretation. One tends to applaud the achievement, perhaps ponder the
point, and then moves on, rather than remaining in a haze of confusion, or
as some of my students are rather fond of saying, "What the author is
*trying* to say=8A" as if authors were unable to say clearly what they
intended. This type of fiction wins readers more often than it wins awards
or serious study, not that you haven't tackled some rather serious and
interesting topics.
For those to whom it is a new experience conversing or emailing
with a REAL, LIVE author, it would not be unusual to bring up the most
recent piece of fiction seen. One thing I love about the science fiction
field is how accessible the creative people in it are compared to most
other fields of artistic endeavour. One becomes more aware of how personal
experiences and viewpoints have shaped an artist's creative work directly
from the artist rather than relying on the second-hand reflections of
academic researchers and letter readers and the like.
P.S. Is George Laskowski still putting out Lan's Lantern? Some of the first
writing of yours that I read appeared in it and it made me want to check
out some of your other writing (as well as make a trip to Egypt and Africa
someday).
|