Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!columbia!topaz!jdecarlo@mitre.ARPA From: jdecarlo@mitre.ARPA Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Criticism of SF Message-ID: <2400@topaz.ARPA> Date: Wed, 26-Jun-85 15:38:13 EDT Article-I.D.: topaz.2400 Posted: Wed Jun 26 15:38:13 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 1-Jul-85 05:59:00 EDT Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 25 From: jdecarlo@mitre.ARPA I think this whole issue has gotten out of hand, so I'm willing to put in by two cents worth to further muddy the waters. First, ever since this started, I have been racking my brains trying to remember a quote in a literature class (Comedy and the Novel) about the relationship between an author, a novel, and a reader. I believe it went something like this. The author (composer?) writes a novel (music work?) with an idea of how it should be read (performed?). However, the reader (performer? violin? both?) reads (performs?) the novel in his/her own way (depending on whether he/she is skilled, has practiced, know the music well, etc.). The implication being that there has to be work at both ends, writer and reader. How much work depends on the type of work involved. Another implication is that some works of music are written for a violin, and if you try to play it on a flute it won't sound the same. (Any people know what it is I am fumbling about here? If so, I would appreciate knowing who said it and the context in which it was said. Thanks.) John "Now what was that he said?" DeCarlo