I hope I haven't already sent a version of this, my sister was messing with
my computer and my original response disappeared... somewhere.
It seems to me that the way the lists are set up now isn't extremely useful
for their intended purpose (new person who maybe hasn't read too much sf
asks what the listserv recommends and goes into a state of disfunctional
shock when 500 titles get sent all at once). I'm not saying the to-be-read
list isn't a good idea - I think it's a great idea (Thanks Nicola and other
people). I just think it could be more useful than it is (but not without a
heck of a lot of work that I'm not prepared to help do, of course).
I don't agree that the list should be a popularity contest, because having
lesser-known books makes the list useful for people who've read a lot of
sf. I think what it really needs (and I think someone already mentioned
this) is some sort of annotation with the titles to say *why* the books are
being recommended. This could even be a brief description of what they are,
or grouping books under more specific headings than sci-fi and fantasy. I
think leaving people to try to determine which of these books they want to
read by going to the library and reading the book jacket copy and looking
at the cover pictures (because those are always sooo helpful) isn't
entirely fair. I think we're probably all obsessed enough about the books
we recommended to do short write-ups on them, but I don't know if we should
ask someone to give up their day job to deal with what gets sent. We might
have our hands full just sorting out the sci-fi and the fantasy (The
Fionavar Tapestry and I believe the Thomas Covenant the Disbeliever books
are fantasy, not sci-fi).
Any ideas?
(If we're counting votes *for* things, can we vote against things as well?
If so, I would like to vote against Robert Jordan, at least for addictive
personalities. Someone recommended him to me, and now I just can't
stop--and he's just not good enough to warrent all these pages and pages.
Can I at least vote for "horsefeathers" to stay? That really cheered me up.
I've really been enjoying all the discussion on Starship Troopers. I tried
not to analyse the movie too much myself (not too hard to do, just looked
at all the pretty people, looked at the scenery, laughed at appropriate
places) because thematically it was a very suffocating movie. It held no
alternatives. The movie was frustrating because I had to assume that it was
some sort of social critique, but at the same time it couldn't keep from
glorifying what it was criticising. It didn't go far enough to truly shock.
It managed to get me mildly disgusted at humankind, but I don't need to pay
eight dollars at a movie theatre to accomplish that. Some satire I like.
This just left me wondering what the point of it all was.
What really bothered me is that the movie has no soul. That separates it
from the like of _Star Wars_, which you watch for the special effects but
still feel for the characters. There was nothing much in Starship Troopers
to identify with. Even _Mars Attacks_ had that, however ridiculously....
Emotional range is nice, emotional shut down is kind of pointless, IMHO.
(My suggestion: stay home and spend some of the money you would have spent
on the movie on a copy of Card's _Ender's Game_)
(P.S. Hi. I'm Corene, and I'm new here. :)
I was trying to be concise, but it doesn't seem to have worked.
For fun right now I'm about twenty hours into an essay that's a genre
analysis of veterinary office pamphlets. This was an assigned topic. And I
was lying about it being fun. )
At 12:56 pm 17/11/97 PST, you wrote:
>I've discussed with Nicola and he's agreed that once the lists reach a
>reasonable state of completion, I'll work with him to convert them to
>HTML and maintain the lists on my website.
>
>Steven H Silver
>[log in to unmask]
>http://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/
>
>MaryElizabeth expounded:
>>I'm somewhat hesitant to suggest this, since it probably means a
>further
>>commitment of Nichola's time and energy (unless we were to divide the
>split
>>lists -- I'd volunteer to take and maintain one) but perhaps now that
>the
>>lists are posted, SF-Lit members could take the time to review them and
>>cast votes for the titles they agree with, to get a more complete
>>representation of the tastes of the list (and maybe narrow down the
>lists a
>>bit) instead of including everything that any one list member felt
>>passionate enough about to include. Therefore, for example, if 5 people
>>voted for _Blood Music_ by Greg Bear, it would remain on the list;
>OTOH, if
>>only one person nominated _Bimbo Librarian of GOR_, it would not remain
>on
>>the list.
>>
>>This is just a suggestion...
>>
___________________________________________________________________
Corene McKay ***[log in to unmask]*** ... & the word
Editorial Resource splits & doubles & speaks
Other Publications Society the truth ...
Freelance Writer/Editor/Proofreader - Atwood (from "Spelling")
___________________________________________________________________
|