Message-ID: <833@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 1-Mar-85 10:11:42 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.833
Posted: Fri Mar  1 10:11:42 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Mar-85 01:52:28 EST
Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 48

From: Peter Badovinatz 



>        Also what about some of the REAL clasics like METROPOLIS .  A
>must for anyone who wants to be a real s-f fan , black&white very old
>and , of course , silent .

The original _Metropolis_ was an incredible film.  Has anyone seen the
re-released version with the modern score(much of it by Queen)?  How did
it compare with the original?

>Also who wrote THE SHEEP LOOK UP , ( an english guy ?) , the Best SF
>Book of all time .

>-Julian Long

John Brunner wrote _The Sheep Look Up_, about a U.S. on the decline.  The 
writing style is somewhat strange and not at all a "traditional" construction.

(begin **SPOILER**)

woman in England speaking to her husband: 
"I can smell something burning dear.  Better call the fire brigade."

husband:
"They'd have a long trip to put it out.  That's America you smell."

(end **SPOILER**)

Some of Brunner's other stuff includes: _Stand on Zanzibar_, written in much
the same style as _The Sheep Look Up_, and just as good in my opinion.  It has
a similar theme as _... Sheep ..._ but a more optimistic ending.
_The Crucible of Time_ is written in a more "traditional" style and covers
a civilisation about to be destroyed by a natural catastrophe, its history
and development.  
_The Shockwave Rider_ provides some excellent views of a world-wide computer-
based information network and the effects of a tapeworm or two.  

All four of the above are recommended reading.

"COINCIDENCE:  You weren't paying attention to the other half of what
               was going on."
                         --"The Hipcrime Vocab" by Chac C. Mulligan

Peter R Badovinatz                            ARPA: BADOVINATZ@UTAH-20
University of Utah Dept. of Computer Science  UUCP: decvax!utah-cs!badovin
-------

Article-I.D.: hyper.120
Posted: Thu Mar  7 15:38:27 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Mar-85 01:11:23 EST
References: <833@topaz.ARPA>
Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls., Mn.
Lines: 11

> From: Peter Badovinatz 
> >Also who wrote THE SHEEP LOOK UP , ( an english guy ?) , the Best SF
> >Book of all time .
> 
> >-Julian Long
No.  The best SF book of all time is LORD OF LIGHT by Roger
Zelazny.  It is also the best English Language book written in
the twentieth century.  An argument of best SF book of all
time could be made for Twain's Conneticut Yankee.

                         -- SKZB

Article-I.D.: topaz.980
Posted: Thu Mar 14 23:53:57 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Mar-85 01:37:19 EST
Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 37

From: Alastair Milne 


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

   >Also who wrote THE SHEEP LOOK UP , ( an english guy ?) , the Best
   >SF Book of all time .
   >-Julian Long

   No.  The best SF book of all time is LORD OF LIGHT by Roger Zelazny.
   It is also the best English Language book written in the twentieth
   century.  An argument of best SF book of all time could be made for
   Twain's Connecticut Yankee.

                            -- SKZB


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


  The best English language book of the 20th century is very probably 
Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings".  Absolutely masterful.  A work both of 
writing and creation that has become the standard by which such works are 
measured.  When a publisher really wants to turn heads for a fantasy book,
he puts on the cover something like "a new rival for The Lord of the Rings",
which is almost universally false, but eye-catching.

  Tolkien held the chair in English at Merton College in Oxford for many 
years, was a master of Middle English and a prolific writer.  His 
qualifications for use of English go far beyond those of any sf-author I have 
ever heard of, even my absolute favourites, and his writings and poetry prove
it.

  So I would want to see *very* convincing evidence of Lord of Light's claim
before I would even consider ranking Zelazny with Tolkien.

					Alastair Milne

Article-I.D.: unc.216
Posted: Sat Mar 16 13:05:29 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Mar-85 01:48:09 EST
References: 
Reply-To: wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly)
Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lines: 31
Summary: 

>Also who wrote THE SHEEP LOOK UP , ( an english guy ?) , the Best
>SF Book of all time .

>>No.  The best SF book of all time is LORD OF LIGHT by Roger Zelazny.
>>It is also the best English Language book written in the twentieth
>>century.  

>>>The best English language book of the 20th century is very probably 
>>>Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings".  

Why so many people in this group and others feel compelled to make 
statements about the "best X of all times" is beyond me. Have you people 
read every SF book ever written, and read them critically so you're 
prepared to defend statements like this? How many books outside the SF 
genre have you read? Do you sincerely think ANYONE (professional critics 
included) is qualified to talk about "the best English language book of 
the 20th century?" At least the last poster qualifies his/her claim of
excellence with 'probably.' But probably in what sense? Because s/he
thinks it's the best? Because it's generally acknowledged to be the
best book of the century by critics, friends, other SF fans, or what?

Please, people, you're just begging for flames with postings like
this. Each of us has books/films/songs that he or she is particularly
fond of, but personal preference may have little to do with how well a
particular work is received by other readers/viewers/listeners.  You
can save yourself trouble by qualifying your claims with a simple "in
my opinion" or "the best I've ever." Enough said.

                           -- Cheers, 
                                       Bill Ingogly
                                       University of North Carolina

Article-I.D.: edison.448
Posted: Tue Mar 19 15:23:17 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Mar-85 02:27:08 EST
References: <980@topaz.ARPA>
Organization: General Electric Company, Charlottesville, VA
Lines: 52

> From: Alastair Milne 
> 
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>    >Also who wrote THE SHEEP LOOK UP , ( an english guy ?) , the Best
>    >SF Book of all time .
>    >-Julian Long
> 
>    No.  The best SF book of all time is LORD OF LIGHT by Roger Zelazny.
>    It is also the best English Language book written in the twentieth
>    century.  An argument of best SF book of all time could be made for
>    Twain's Connecticut Yankee.
> 
>                             -- SKZB
> 
> 
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> 
> 
>   The best English language book of the 20th century is very probably 
> Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings".  Absolutely masterful.  A work both of 
> writing and creation that has become the standard by which such works are 
> measured.  When a publisher really wants to turn heads for a fantasy book,
> he puts on the cover something like "a new rival for The Lord of the Rings",
> which is almost universally false, but eye-catching.
> 
>   Tolkien held the chair in English at Merton College in Oxford for many 
> years, was a master of Middle English and a prolific writer.  His 
> qualifications for use of English go far beyond those of any sf-author I have 
> ever heard of, even my absolute favourites, and his writings and poetry prove
> it.
> 
>   So I would want to see *very* convincing evidence of Lord of Light's claim
> before I would even consider ranking Zelazny with Tolkien.
> 
> 					Alastair Milne

Since when does academia have a damn thing to do with a good book?
Though Tolkien certainly was extremely imaginative and innovative.
Personally, I find his writing ponderous and the characters a bit
too black and white though certainly they are well above average
books.  I enjoyed Lord of Light more than Tolkien but I am not sure
I would say best book of all time.  Songmaster (Orson Scott Card)
perhaps, Heritage of Hastur (Marion Zimmer Bradley) maybe, Creatures
of Light and Darkness (Zelazny again) possibly, (Riddle of Stars)
Patricia Mckillip Ahhh! I give up.
But if I really had to choose I think I wouldgo with the Belgariad
by David Eddings.  Though more recent the books blend real seeming
and humorous characters with gripping fantasy.

David Albrecht

Article-I.D.: hyper.143
Posted: Fri Mar 22 13:32:18 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Mar-85 07:05:35 EST
References: <980@topaz.ARPA>
Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls., Mn.
Lines: 103

> From: Alastair Milne 
> 
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
>    >Also who wrote THE SHEEP LOOK UP , ( an english guy ?) , the Best
>    >SF Book of all time .
>    >-Julian Long
> 
>    No.  The best SF book of all time is LORD OF LIGHT by Roger Zelazny.
>    It is also the best English Language book written in the twentieth
>    century.  An argument of best SF book of all time could be made for
>    Twain's Connecticut Yankee.
> 
>                             -- SKZB
> 
> 
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> 
> 
>   The best English language book of the 20th century is very probably 
> Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings".  Absolutely masterful.  A work both of 
> writing and creation that has become the standard by which such works are 
> measured.  When a publisher really wants to turn heads for a fantasy book,
> he puts on the cover something like "a new rival for The Lord of the Rings",
> which is almost universally false, but eye-catching.
> 
>   Tolkien held the chair in English at Merton College in Oxford for many 
> years, was a master of Middle English and a prolific writer.  His 
> qualifications for use of English go far beyond those of any sf-author I have 
> ever heard of, even my absolute favourites, and his writings and poetry prove
> it.
> 
>   So I would want to see *very* convincing evidence of Lord of Light's claim
> before I would even consider ranking Zelazny with Tolkien.
> 
> 					Alastair Milne

I don't want to put down Tolkien.  Heaven knows, I have read the trilogy upwards
of thirty times, and I have all of the follow-ups to it (Unfinished Tales,
Letters, etc) in hardcover.  But, frankly, Tolkien's pros tend to be
sloppy.  He drags, his characters sometimes seem shallow (they actually
aren't when you push it, but you shouldn't have to push it), and the
book is loaded with, if not inaccuracies, at least things that push
your suspension of disbelief (relationship between the aristocracy and
the peasantry, the general lack of disease, errors in transportation)
when it comes to the European Middle Ages.  His triumph was the telling
of a magnificent tale in spite of these problems.

The reason that he is used as the standard is becuase he sold well.  If
you feel this is a valid standard, than the GOR books of John Norman
are equivelant of today.  I hope this is not the case.

Those who are into peotry don't think much of Tolkien's in many cases.  I
wouldn't know about that; I love his poetry.  I once did a dramatic reading
of Gimli's poem that--never mind.

As for LORD OF LIGHT--within the context of the story, there are no flaws.
After reading it about six times, I found a few plot holes.  After reading
it about nine times, I understood them to be statements on their own.  The
book reads well and is accessable.  It is a good story.  It is yet another,
different good story.  And a third.  At least three different stories (the
direct one, involving Sam, Yama, and their merry friends, the story within
the context of the Hindu Gods, and the story of the development of the
society).  And this is BEFORE getting into the real depth of the book.

At one level, he is dealing with the conflict between man's desire for
individual happiness and his need to improve the world around him.  At
another level, he is dealing with relationship between man and the gods
that he creates.  At another, he is making a statement about the
effect of technology on man--his own diefication.  At another, on the
process of maturation, individual and societal.  And at another, on
our perceptions of the world around us, and how this effects our
ability to change it.  Yet again, on the relationship between
knowledge and the need to act on this knowledge.  And on the nature
of pride--good and bad.

This is only a part of it.  I once made a list of the different levels
of the story and, while I don't remember the total list, it was quite
impressive.  I don't think I've read the book more than fifty times,
so I'm sure there are plenty that I missed.  Every time I read it I
come away with something new.  Each level is carried to full fruition
in a book less than 400 pages long.  And this, by the way, is without
getting into additional things he may be saying by obscure metaphor,
on which I'm not prepared to comment.

His characterizations are beautiful and powerful both in the sense that
characters are easily distingushable from each other by both content and
style of speech, and in the depth that each one has.  In the book, as in
life, there is not a single character who is on for more than three pages
who doesn't change throughout the book.

His prose and dialogue are perfect.  The mechanics of the writing are
without flaw.  And above all, he never for an instant forgets that his
job as a novelist is to tell an enjoyable story, and he does.  The first
two or three times I read it, I wasn't aware that there was anything
more to it than it.

It is incomperable.

			-- SKZB

 

Article-I.D.: hyper.142
Posted: Fri Mar 22 13:02:04 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Mar-85 07:07:01 EST
References: <980@topaz.ARPA> <448@edison.UUCP>
Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls., Mn.
Lines: 69

> > From: Alastair Milne 
> > 
> > 
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > 
> >    >Also who wrote THE SHEEP LOOK UP , ( an english guy ?) , the Best
> >    >SF Book of all time .
> >    >-Julian Long
> > 
> >    No.  The best SF book of all time is LORD OF LIGHT by Roger Zelazny.
> >    It is also the best English Language book written in the twentieth
> >    century.  An argument of best SF book of all time could be made for
> >    Twain's Connecticut Yankee.
> > 
> >                             -- SKZB
> > 
> > 
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> > 
> > 
> >   The best English language book of the 20th century is very probably 
> > Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings".  Absolutely masterful.  A work both of 
> > writing and creation that has become the standard by which such works are 
> > measured.  When a publisher really wants to turn heads for a fantasy book,
> > he puts on the cover something like "a new rival for The Lord of the Rings",
> > which is almost universally false, but eye-catching.
> > 
> >   Tolkien held the chair in English at Merton College in Oxford for many 
> > years, was a master of Middle English and a prolific writer.  His 
> > qualifications for use of English go far beyond those of any sf-author I have 
> > ever heard of, even my absolute favourites, and his writings and poetry prove
> > it.
> > 
> >   So I would want to see *very* convincing evidence of Lord of Light's claim
> > before I would even consider ranking Zelazny with Tolkien.
> > 
> > 					Alastair Milne
> 
> Since when does academia have a damn thing to do with a good book?
> Though Tolkien certainly was extremely imaginative and innovative.
> Personally, I find his writing ponderous and the characters a bit
> too black and white though certainly they are well above average
> books.  I enjoyed Lord of Light more than Tolkien but I am not sure
> I would say best book of all time.  Songmaster (Orson Scott Card)
> perhaps, Heritage of Hastur (Marion Zimmer Bradley) maybe, Creatures
> of Light and Darkness (Zelazny again) possibly, (Riddle of Stars)
> Patricia Mckillip Ahhh! I give up.
> But if I really had to choose I think I wouldgo with the Belgariad
> by David Eddings.  Though more recent the books blend real seeming
> and humorous characters with gripping fantasy.
> 
> David Albrecht

NOTE -- sorry to quote the whole thing for what won't be that a
long a comment, but I couldn't decide what to clip.

Anyway, I feel your choices are all goodones.  The reasons I wouldn't
agree with them aren't that they are bad, they merely aren't as
perfect as LoL.  SONGMASTER, in my humble opinion, falls apart
at the end, although it is tremendous up until then.  RIDDLE OF
STARS is very good, but not up their with the others.  Neither
Bradley or Eddings are quite good enough word-smiths, and CREATURES
OF LIGHT AND DARKNESS, while I love it muchly, isn't quite
accessable enough.

I tend to diferentiate "This is good" from "I like this."  Lord
of Light brings everything together.  It...oh well.  I'm glad
this discussion began.  I'm enjoying it.
			- SKZB

Article-I.D.: hyper.148
Posted: Tue Mar 26 11:33:51 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Mar-85 01:58:08 EST
References:  <216@unc.UUCP>
Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls., Mn.
Lines: 47

> >Also who wrote THE SHEEP LOOK UP , ( an english guy ?) , the Best
> >SF Book of all time .
> 
> >>No.  The best SF book of all time is LORD OF LIGHT by Roger Zelazny.
> >>It is also the best English Language book written in the twentieth
> >>century.  
> 
> >>>The best English language book of the 20th century is very probably 
> >>>Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings".  
> 
> Please, people, you're just begging for flames with postings like
> this. Each of us has books/films/songs that he or she is particularly
> fond of, but personal preference may have little to do with how well a
> particular work is received by other readers/viewers/listeners.  You
> can save yourself trouble by qualifying your claims with a simple "in
> my opinion" or "the best I've ever." Enough said.
> 
>                            -- Cheers, 
>                                        Bill Ingogly
>                                        University of North Carolina

There are several reasons more making a statement such as the above.
First and foremost, in my case, I felt like it.  I knew quite well
what I was getting into.  Another reason is that such comments are
quite good methods of starting the sort of discussion I've been
having with stever and some others.  I have been enjoying it a
great deal.

Yet again, it ought to be clear that the fewer qualifiers used, the
stronger the statement is.  Have read Strunk and White's THE ELEMENTS
OF STYLE?  It is the best book on English usage...never mind.

Another reason is that some of us like to "peg" ourselves.  As soon
as I made that statement, some alert people learned a great deal
about me.  More didn't, and still more couldn't care less, but
for those few it was a service.  "Oh," the said to themselves.  "He's
one of THOSE."

Another possible reason is as a "Turkey Detector."  That is, anyone
who doesn't see the implied In My Opinion in those statements,
and consequently Flames, is letting us know something about him.

Which of these applied to which comments I don't know.  There are
certainly some other reasons I missed, too, but I hope this gives
a general idea.

  			-- SKZB

Article-I.D.: edison.454
Posted: Tue Mar 26 10:53:52 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Mar-85 01:26:01 EST
References: <980@topaz.ARPA> <448@edison.UUCP> <142@hyper.UUCP>
Organization: General Electric Company, Charlottesville, VA
Lines: 76

> 
> ...  SONGMASTER, in my humble opinion, falls apart
> at the end, although it is tremendous up until then.
Let's pick some nits.  I have to disagree with you here.  All books
must end sometime (though I'm beginning to believe XANTH will go
on forever) and how the book ends quite diverse and varys a good
deal.  I found the end of SONGMASTER quite refreshing.  Its not
the "and everyone lived happily ever after", nor is it "and everyone
died and all was depressing and dark" nor "and Joe went home to grow
wheat, Same went in search of the mysteries of the Universe, me ..."
ala lol instead SONGMASTER had a delicately bittersweet ending and
end which though sad, didn't leave me sad.  A rather insightfull ending
in which a man with a rather unhappy life left his mark for posterity
not linked to his name but rather to the most important facet of his
life, his song.
The reason I have a hard time coming up with a "best" book is that
all these books have things about them unusual and outstanding.
> RIDDLE OF
> STARS is very good, but not up their with the others.
What I liked about RIDDLE OF STARS was not so much the writing which at
times was confusing and obtuse but, the very deep sense of a common but
very good man caught in the tempest and his hardening and alteration.
I was caught up by the majestic tone and feeling of his ascension to the
high one.
>  Neither
> Bradley or Eddings are quite good enough word-smiths.
>
Bradley tends more toward the world of the mind, the internal conflict.
Perhaps she is not in the same class but some of her later books are
awfully good.
Eddings is definitely not a heavy read, one simply doesn't get a mystery
or awe from any of his characters.  The reason I believe this to be true
is that he shows all his characters even the awesome ones as humans with
their foibles intact.  Elf equivalents are conspicuously absent (beings
with awesome powers that can do no wrong which many writers tend to use
as a crutch).  His characters are so accessible as to make it difficult
to see them as anything out of the ordinary but, I found this unusual and
actually quite pleasant.  Wonderfully funny, especially in his use of
anachronistic behavior by the characters.   Certainly vastly different
from Lord of Light and lacking much of its inner meaning, but then I'm not so
sure I'm that fascinated by inner meaning anyway.

I evaluate books by a more ad hoc scale.

a)  The book must grip and not let go.
b)  I don't care if the book was wonderful for its time, it must
    be wonderful for MY time, unreadable old-style english need not
    apply.  I think a book should be evaluated without regard for
    the place and position of the author and any acclaim the book
    may have received.
c)  Symbolism stinks, virtually always societal, culture, and time
    oriented, misplace any of these and you have an unreadable piece
    of trash.  No thanks.
d)  I want the book to move me, how or where it moves me will largely
    affect my feelings for the book.
e)  The characters should feel real and I should care about them (not
    always are requirement but it certainly helps).
f)  I don't go through a book with a notepad finding inner meaning.  If
    it's there it often adds depth to the book but in any case will
    not vastly affect my personal opinion on how the book rates.

Enough.

David Albrecht

David Albrecht
, and CREATURES
> OF LIGHT AND DARKNESS, while I love it muchly, isn't quite
> accessable enough.
> 
> I tend to diferentiate "This is good" from "I like this."  Lord
> of Light brings everything together.  It...oh well.  I'm glad
> this discussion began.  I'm enjoying it.
> 			- SKZB

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***

Article-I.D.: unc.292
Posted: Sat Mar 30 12:44:11 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 1-Apr-85 03:07:05 EST
References:  <216@unc.UUCP> 
Reply-To: wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly)
Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lines: 48
Summary: 

> Yet again, it ought to be clear that the fewer qualifiers used, the
> stronger the statement is.  Have read Strunk and White's THE ELEMENTS
> OF STYLE?  It is the best book on English usage...never mind.

Your appeal to Strunk and White as an authority is beside the point.
A statement can also be strong to the point of absurdity. Some writers
use this for comic effect (it's called hyperbole). The unskillful or
inappropriate use of hyperbole is defective style, pure and simple.

> Another reason is that some of us like to "peg" ourselves.  As soon
> as I made that statement, some alert people learned a great deal
> about me.  More didn't, and still more couldn't care less, but

And what exactly is it that we're supposed to learn about you? I
suggest you reread the statements I responded to (I've conveniently
reproduced them a little later in this response). One of the qualities 
that separates good writing from bad writing is CLARITY. You don't have
body language, voice intensity or pitch to convey information so all
the meaning in a sentence must be conveyed by its content and
structure. That's why we use smiley faces to indicate irony or
hyperbole in our postings to the net. Asking a reader to read your
mind or guess your meaning is just plain unfair.

> Another possible reason is as a "Turkey Detector."  That is, anyone
> who doesn't see the implied In My Opinion in those statements,
> and consequently Flames, is letting us know something about him.

Oh, come off it.  Where are the `implied In My Opinions' in the
following statements:

>Also who wrote THE SHEEP LOOK UP , ( an english guy ?) , the Best
>SF Book of all time .
  
>>No.  The best SF book of all time is LORD OF LIGHT by Roger Zelazny.
>>It is also the best English Language book written in the twentieth
>>century.  
  
>>>The best English language book of the 20th century is very probably 
>>>Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings".  

The semantic content of these statements is clear and unambiguous.
There's no information about the authors' intentions, so I'm totally
incapable of commenting on whatever it was that you `really' meant.
If you can show me ANYTHING in these statements that qualifies the
superlative `best,' please point it out to me. I'm always ready and
willing to learn.

                                   -- Regards, Bill.

Article-I.D.: tilt.259
Posted: Sun Mar 31 21:27:26 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 1-Apr-85 04:22:58 EST
References:  <216@unc.UUCP>  <292@unc.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton University EECS Dept
Lines: 24

Various "The Best x book is y statements" such as...

>>>The best English language book of the 20th century is very probably 
>>>Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings".  

> The semantic content of these statements is clear and unambiguous.
> There's no information about the authors' intentions, so I'm totally
> incapable of commenting on whatever it was that you `really' meant.
> If you can show me ANYTHING in these statements that qualifies the
> superlative `best,' please point it out to me. I'm always ready and
> willing to learn.
> 
>                                    -- Regards, Bill.

Sorry, Bill.  The statements all involved art works.  There are no
objective methods of judging one work of art (be it literature, music,
sculpture, etc.) to be superior to another.  One man's masterwork is
often another man's bird-cage liner.  Therefore, any statement "The best
English language book is ..." automatically implies that the sentence
should be interpreted as "I/We/Somebody/Most think the best English
language book is ..."

	Ray Chen
	princeton!tilt!chenr

Article-I.D.: unc.316
Posted: Wed Apr  3 19:38:50 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 02:26:34 EST
References:  <216@unc.UUCP>  <292@unc.UUCP> 
Reply-To: wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly)
Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lines: 64
Summary: 


>>>>The best English language book of the 20th century is very probably 
>>>>Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings".  
>
>> The semantic content of these statements is clear and unambiguous.
>> There's no information about the authors' intentions, so I'm totally
>> incapable of commenting on whatever it was that you `really' meant.
>> If you can show me ANYTHING in these statements that qualifies the
>> superlative `best,' please point it out to me. I'm always ready and
>> willing to learn.
>> 
>>                                    -- Regards, Bill.
>
>Sorry, Bill.  The statements all involved art works.  There are no
>objective methods of judging one work of art (be it literature, music,
>sculpture, etc.) to be superior to another.  One man's masterwork is
>often another man's bird-cage liner.  Therefore, any statement "The best
>English language book is ..." automatically implies that the sentence
>should be interpreted as "I/We/Somebody/Most think the best English
>language book is ..."

Aaaargh. First of all, I'd like to suggest that further discussion of
this matter be posted to net.flame; I really don't want to bore the
readers of this newsgroup with an endless series of postings and 
responses on this subject. We're here to discuss SF, right?

Perhaps I should explain why this sort of statement (i.e., 'the best X
in the last N years') bothers me. I've had a lifelong obsession with
literature and with the written word as a communication medium. My
career in computer science has exposed me to a great deal of bad
writing and faulty communication, both written and oral. It's
unbelievable how much money, time, and energy are wasted in our
society because we undervalue communication skills and overemphasize
technical specialization. As an undergraduate English major, I learned
to approach all literature critically. Written or oral statements that
began 'the best book' were simply not tolerated. In addition to
reading a great deal of literature, an English major is also exposed
to theories of criticism.  Few responsible critics I'm familiar with
would stick their necks out and label a work the best in its genre
since (say) World War II. I'm not saying strong statements of this
nature are not made by literary critics; it's just that flames in the
field of literary criticism can lead to lost jobs and ruined
reputations. As a result, professional critics make damned sure that
strong claims are backed up by strong evidence.

If I've hurt anyone's feelings in this newsgroup, I apologize. I will
not apologize for the intensity of my feelings about the use and abuse
of language even in a 'fun' newsgroup like net.sf-lovers. The latest
responder argues that all judgements about art are subjective (to avoid 
further flames, I quote: "...There are no objective methods of judging 
one work of art...to be superior to another..."). From this statement
he leaps to the conclusion that statements of a work's superiority
must of course be interpreted as qualified judgements: "...should be
interpreted as 'I/We/Somebody/Most think...'" Sorry, people, I still
don't see it. For some reason, I still want to read the statement
rerequoted at the top of this response as an absolute judgement about
the superior value of a work of fiction. And if you're going to claim
that Somebody thinks X is best or Most think X is best, please quote
your sources. Chalk it up to stubbornness, pedantry, or idiocy, if 
you will :-) , I still think my original judgement was on target.

Can we get on to other things now?

                                  -- Peace,  Bill Ingogly

Article-I.D.: hyper.160
Posted: Wed Apr  3 20:02:41 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Apr-85 02:43:19 EST
References:  <216@unc.UUCP>  <292@unc.UUCP> <259@tilt.FUN>
Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls., Mn.
Lines: 29

> Various "The Best x book is y statements" such as...
> 
> >>>The best English language book of the 20th century is very probably 
> >>>Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings".  
> 
> > The semantic content of these statements is clear and unambiguous.
> > There's no information about the authors' intentions, so I'm totally
> > incapable of commenting on whatever it was that you `really' meant.
> > If you can show me ANYTHING in these statements that qualifies the
> > superlative `best,' please point it out to me. I'm always ready and
> > willing to learn.
> > 
> >                                    -- Regards, Bill.
> 
> Sorry, Bill.  The statements all involved art works.  There are no
> objective methods of judging one work of art (be it literature, music,
> sculpture, etc.) to be superior to another.  One man's masterwork is
> often another man's bird-cage liner.  Therefore, any statement "The best
> English language book is ..." automatically implies that the sentence
> should be interpreted as "I/We/Somebody/Most think the best English
> language book is ..."
> 
> 	Ray Chen
> 	princeton!tilt!chenr

If there is anything I hate, its when somebody says in three sentances
what it takes me thirty to say.  *Sigh.*  Oh, well.  I probably had
more fun...
				--SKZB

Article-I.D.: hyper.156
Posted: Wed Apr  3 19:11:14 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Apr-85 02:44:51 EST
References: <980@topaz.ARPA> <448@edison.UUCP> <142@hyper.UUCP> <454@edison.UUCP>
Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls., Mn.
Lines: 39

> > 
> > ...  SONGMASTER, in my humble opinion, falls apart
> > at the end, although it is tremendous up until then.
> Let's pick some nits.  I have to disagree with you here.  All books
> must end sometime (though I'm beginning to believe XANTH will go
> on forever) and how the book ends quite diverse and varys a good
> deal.  I found the end of SONGMASTER quite refreshing.  Its not
> the "and everyone lived happily ever after", nor is it "and everyone
> died and all was depressing and dark" nor "and Joe went home to grow
> wheat, Same went in search of the mysteries of the Universe, me ..."
> ala lol instead SONGMASTER had a delicately bittersweet ending and
> end which though sad, didn't leave me sad.  A rather insightfull ending
> in which a man with a rather unhappy life left his mark for posterity
> not linked to his name but rather to the most important facet of his
> life, his song.

None of this was why I feel the ending weak.  Doing all of this is
fine, but it is not acceptable to tell ninety percent of a story within
a few weeks, then resolve the plot in a time-span of years in a single
short chapter.  This is sloppy craftsmanship.


The point is that, to get an absolute top-notch rating on my
own, quite personal, scale, a book must do ALL of the things
I was discussing, and do them well.  Your points about Bradly
and Eddings are well taken, and there are some good books here,
but I was speaking of absolute top-of-the-line.


> c)  Symbolism stinks, virtually always societal, culture, and time
>     oriented, misplace any of these and you have an unreadable piece
>     of trash.  No thanks.

Interesting.  To me, if the symbolism gets in the way (as happens all
too often with...never mind; I'd better not say), then I agree; but
using symbols to convey a deeper level WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THE
STORY--IN FACT ADDING TO THE STORY can be tremendous.  That is, on
my six or seventh reading when I start to pick it up.  I can be
awfully dense.

Article-I.D.: hyper.159
Posted: Wed Apr  3 19:55:38 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Apr-85 02:45:19 EST
References:  <216@unc.UUCP>  <292@unc.UUCP>
Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls., Mn.
Lines: 103

> > Yet again, it ought to be clear that the fewer qualifiers used, the
> > stronger the statement is.  Have read Strunk and White's THE ELEMENTS
> > OF STYLE?  It is the best book on English usage...never mind.
> 
> Your appeal to Strunk and White as an authority is beside the point.
> A statement can also be strong to the point of absurdity. Some writers
> use this for comic effect (it's called hyperbole). The unskillful or
> inappropriate use of hyperbole is defective style, pure and simple.

I'm sorry my style is defective.  But wait...how are you any more
of an authority on style, defective or otherwise, than I am on
Best SF Novel of all time?  Why didn't you say, "In my opinion"?  Did
you think it was implied?  Or do you feel yourself capable of making
this kind of judgement beyond question?  Or, perhaps, were you merely
making a strong statement of opinion; knowing, instictivly, that to
qualify it would weaken it unnecessarily, and that any reasonable
person reading would understand what you were doing?

> 
> > Another reason is that some of us like to "peg" ourselves.  As soon
> > as I made that statement, some alert people learned a great deal
> > about me.  More didn't, and still more couldn't care less, but
> 
> And what exactly is it that we're supposed to learn about you? I
> suggest you reread the statements I responded to (I've conveniently
> reproduced them a little later in this response). One of the qualities 
> that separates good writing from bad writing is CLARITY. You don't have
> body language, voice intensity or pitch to convey information so all
> the meaning in a sentence must be conveyed by its content and
> structure. That's why we use smiley faces to indicate irony or
> hyperbole in our postings to the net. Asking a reader to read your
> mind or guess your meaning is just plain unfair.
> 
In most cases when one is reading, one has little else to go on.  The
thing you left out, of course, is context.  The context of this statement
was following another, similar statement.  When two or three people state
"thus and so is the best", and thus and so is different in each case,
the alert reader will begin to understand that opinions are being
discussed here.

Many writers (Zelazny, to pick an example at random) have the habit
of assuming a minimal amout of intelligence and sensitivity on
the part of the reader.  Some readers consider this a flaw.  Where
do you stand, and why?
 
As to what I am letting the alert reader know about me--well, that
would be telling now, wouldn't it.  But I'll give you a hint.  From
the tone of your comments you appear to have formed an opinion of
me.  I would suspect that, from your perspective, it is a correct
opinion.


> > Another possible reason is as a "Turkey Detector."  That is, anyone
> > who doesn't see the implied In My Opinion in those statements,
> > and consequently Flames, is letting us know something about him.
> 
> Oh, come off it.  Where are the `implied In My Opinions' in the
> following statements:
> 
> >Also who wrote THE SHEEP LOOK UP , ( an english guy ?) , the Best
> >SF Book of all time .
>   
> >>No.  The best SF book of all time is LORD OF LIGHT by Roger Zelazny.
> >>It is also the best English Language book written in the twentieth
> >>century.  
>   
> >>>The best English language book of the 20th century is very probably 
> >>>Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings".  
> 
> The semantic content of these statements is clear and unambiguous.
> There's no information about the authors' intentions, so I'm totally
> incapable of commenting on whatever it was that you `really' meant.
> If you can show me ANYTHING in these statements that qualifies the
> superlative `best,' please point it out to me. I'm always ready and
> willing to learn.
> 
>                                    -- Regards, Bill.

Most people read from where they are.  That is, the process of reading
involves working out the relationship between the words, with all
connotations, denotations, etc, phrases made up of these words,
the context in which they appear, and the experience of the reader.  It
is the task of the writer to put the concepts where the reader has
access to them.  It is the task of the reader assimilate these
concepts in the light of his own interactions with the world around
him, and conclusions, ideas, and thoughts of his own.  A writer who
lays everything out in such a way that the reader need do no work
at all, is denying to reader the pleasure of bringing the writers
thoughts, based on his experience, into conflict with the readers,
based on his own.  This is essentially the process of cognition
itself.  Similarly, a writer who refuses to make anything clear,
or to give the reader enough to work with, is hiding behind his
own assumed cleverness.

However, in this one case I will lay this rule aside and say,
precisely and clearly, what I intend to convey: The above
comments were made with the understanding that those who
read them were capable of thinging.

			Best,

			Steve
 

Article-I.D.: unc.332
Posted: Sat Apr  6 11:56:18 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Apr-85 01:36:47 EST
References:  <216@unc.UUCP>  <292@unc.UUCP> 
Reply-To: wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly)
Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lines: 92
Summary: 


>>> Yet again, it ought to be clear that the fewer qualifiers used, the
>>> stronger the statement is.  Have read Strunk and White's THE ELEMENTS
>>> OF STYLE?  It is the best book on English usage...never mind.
>> 
>> Your appeal to Strunk and White as an authority is beside the point.
>> A statement can also be strong to the point of absurdity. Some writers
>> use this for comic effect (it's called hyperbole). The unskillful or
>> inappropriate use of hyperbole is defective style, pure and simple.

> I'm sorry my style is defective.  

I'm sorry you took my comments so personally. 

> But wait...how are you any more
> of an authority on style, defective or otherwise, than I am on
> Best SF Novel of all time?  
> Why didn't you say, "In my opinion"?  Did
> you think it was implied?  
> Or do you feel yourself capable of making
> this kind of judgement beyond question?  

I don't claim to be more of an authority. What I do claim is that 
styles can be compared but that statements about the best this or 
that are basically meaningless. My reference is several hundred 
years' of literary criticism. Try the introduction to Northrop
Frye's "The Anatomy of Criticism" for starters. Or are you suggesting 
that the people who have out of love devoted their careers to literary 
criticism are all social parasites who have wasted their lives?

> Or, perhaps, were you merely
> making a strong statement of opinion; knowing, instictivly, that to
> qualify it would weaken it unnecessarily, and that any reasonable
> person reading would understand what you were doing?

Hogwash. The whole point I've been trying to get across is that it's
NOT clear to 'any reasonable person' that a statement about the 'best
book of all time/the 20th century' contains an unstated qualifier.

> ...  When two or three people state
> "thus and so is the best", and thus and so is different in each case,
> the alert reader will begin to understand that opinions are being
> discussed here.

How do I know I'm not listening to two or three people who sincerely
and honestly believe the books they're referring to ARE the greatest
things since sliced bread and rubber chickens? Sheesh.

> Many writers (Zelazny, to pick an example at random) have the habit
> of assuming a minimal amout of intelligence and sensitivity on
> the part of the reader.  Some readers consider this a flaw.  Where
> do you stand, and why?

An 'alert reader' will realize that this question is a red herring. I
don't think this question has any relevance to the question we're
discussing.

> As to what I am letting the alert reader know about me--well, that
> would be telling now, wouldn't it.  But I'll give you a hint.  From
> the tone of your comments you appear to have formed an opinion of
> me.  I would suspect that, from your perspective, it is a correct
> opinion.

Again, I'm sorry you're taking this so personally. 

> ... A writer who
> lays everything out in such a way that the reader need do no work
> at all, is denying to reader the pleasure of bringing the writers
> thoughts, based on his experience, into conflict with the readers,
> based on his own.  

Great. The next time I write a User's Manual for a piece of software,
I'll make sure the reader has the pleasure of bringing my thoughts
into conflict with his own. Make the beggars work for it, I say!

The reader/writer interaction you describe makes the reading of
fiction and poetry pleasurable. It's not at all clear to me that this
sort of tension is necessary or desireable in other sorts of writing.
Or are you saying that your original comments were themselves
fiction or poetry? :-)

> However, in this one case I will lay this rule aside and say,
> precisely and clearly, what I intend to convey: The above
> comments were made with the understanding that those who
> read them were capable of thinging.

And I hope my comments on these matters have stimulated some readers
of this newsgroup to approach their reading of SF more critically.
Please realize, Steve, Ray, and all of you who have commented on my
postings, that critical comments are NOT intended as personal attacks.

                                     --- Cheers,  Bill Ingogly

Article-I.D.: hyper.163
Posted: Wed Apr 10 13:45:01 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Apr-85 01:09:12 EST
References:  <216@unc.UUCP>  <292@unc.UUCP>  <332@unc.UUCP>
Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls., Mn.
Lines: 21

> 
> And I hope my comments on these matters have stimulated some readers
> of this newsgroup to approach their reading of SF more critically.
> Please realize, Steve, Ray, and all of you who have commented on my
> postings, that critical comments are NOT intended as personal attacks.
> 
>                                      --- Cheers,  Bill Ingogly

This is an interesting subject.  In the (unquoted) example earlier,
I hadn't taken it personally at all; I was trying to illustrate a
point.  On the other hand, in another way, I take everything
personally.

Ah, well.  There was a plea to drop this discussion.  This seems a
wise idea.  Let the record show that I do not agree with you, and
let it be writ that I bear no anymosity, and let the net show
that I cannot spell for shit.

Subject dropped.

				-- SKZB

Article-I.D.: edison.461
Posted: Wed Apr 10 13:41:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Apr-85 04:16:40 EST
References: <980@topaz.ARPA> <448@edison.UUCP> <142@hyper.UUCP> <454@edison.UUCP> <156@hyper.UUCP>
Organization: General Electric Company, Charlottesville, VA
Lines: 51

>
> None of this was why I feel the ending weak.  Doing all of this is
> fine, but it is not acceptable to tell ninety percent of a story within
> a few weeks, then resolve the plot in a time-span of years in a single
> short chapter.  This is sloppy craftsmanship.
> 

I can see your point but I'm not so sure it is a hard and fast rule.
Both of us like Zelazny so let's pick on him.  Most of Zelazny's books
don't end in any more pages than "Songmaster" did but unlike Card's book
the ending is usually a continuum rather than a separate event.  Zelazny
virtually always just kind of dribbles to a halt and I don't know if there
are any of his books that couldn't easily have a sequel.

Assume then that "Songmaster" is a biography of a real man.  There are
two very important parts to this man, his life as a songbird with its
effect on the songhouse and his life as a ruler.  To me
Card wrote the first part and left out the second.  Anset's life as
ruler would to me have been a distraction rather than an addition to
the story so I am happy that it was left out.
That Anset's involvement as a Songbird and with the Songhouse was
concentrated in the beginning and the end of his life felt more real
than contrived to me, I can easily see a person that only does what
he really wants when he is young and when he is old.  I especially
thought that Anset arriving at the songhouse as an old man unknown
and unannounced telling no one who he is as very poignant,
wanting to be accepted on his own merit not as a
powerful man but rather as a former songbird.

To my mind must sf/fantasy that I have read doesn't end but rather
stops, leaving the story open for a sequel or just giving the "life
goes on" impression.  The rare story that actually attempts to terminate
a book with an ending that ties up all the loose ends often ends up trite
or stupid.  I felt Card wrote in those few pages a very fine ending
that was to me neither trite nor stupid.  He showed a man with one
task to do that was very important to him but even he did not exactly
know what it was.  You find a reiteration of Anset's first and last friend
in the songhouse.  Anset found he couldn't go back, blend in and be
ignored.  He soon found that he did have something to give and a
deep desire to give it. The tie-up showed Anset's gift as not just
a present to any one songbird but rather to all the songhouse and
reflecting most great artists desire for immortality Ansets
contribution in that direction through a living rather than
inanimate chain.  Perhaps Card could have filled out the ending
but I felt it said everything about Anset that need be said as a
Songbird and his affect on the songhouse.

Enuf, said

David Albrecht
General Electric