From: acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams)
Subject: Re: Piers Anthony
Organization: The Great Beyond
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 10:26:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.041848.18883@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> aaron@space.ualberta.ca writes:
>Has it ever occurred to you that for an author to become rich, he has to sell
>books?  I have never believe that a book can be sold in such quantities
>without having some at least slightly redeeming quality.  Presumably a large
>portion of those who buy the books are satisfied with their purchase--judging
>by the number that buy the next book.
>
Of course I know he has to sell books. What I object to is his "lowest
common denominator" philosophy. Sales mean nothing, as far as quality.
Three's Company was a top-rated show on TV for years, but it was nothing
but a lot of juvenile sexual humor. Quality and sales are not incompatible,
but Anthony doesn't care. As long as it sells, he writes it, factory-style.

Take Stephen Donaldson, as an example of Another bestselling fantasy
author. The first Thomas Covenant trilogy sold rather well. Rather than
do the 36th book in the Thomas Covenant trilogy, he did a sequel, but
in what was essentially a completely recreated world, with really
only the geography remaining the same. And, even though, the second
trilogy was on major best-seller lists, he hasn't gone back, even
though his alter stuff haasn't done as well.

>You, and many others who consider yourselves to have higher taste(I believe
>that way back when I used "intelligentsia", to much controversy), dismiss it
>as hackwork.  But it fills a need--a niche.  If there weren't a Piers Anthony,
>somebody else would be filling that need.
>
Though I like to read "intelligent" literature, its not just that. 
Like I said, Anthony just grinds 'em out, factory style. 

He doesn't do much good for the industry, either. Xanth sells
well with younger readers, high school types. For a lot of them,
I fear, that's what they think fantasy is. I myself started with Tolkien.
Just think of the difference in viewpoints. Yeah, I admit, when
I read fantasy, Tolkien is my ideal. Better that than Anthony.

>But more importantly, you shouldn't consider someone lesser because they can
>still appreciate books written to fill those needs.  This is like Heinlein's
>attitudes that anyone who can't understand mathematics is a lesser animal--in
>a word, bullshit.  If you think that you must be superior because you can
>appreciate "better" SF work, then that's as wrong-minded as an Anthony reader
>feeling superior because he can appreciate Anthony's work while you dismiss it.
>This arrogance is why I originally proposed warning off the latter type from
>rec.arts.sf.written, which is dominated by the former, people who suppose their
>taste must be better than others because what they like is judged somehow more
>worthy.

I don't view myself as superior, and I apologize if I sounded that
way. But I do view what I choose to read as superior, and vastly
so, to Anthony. 

Oh, and you never really said: do _you_ like Anthony, or just
dislike his critics?
-- 
The world is not analog. The world is digital,
with an incredible number of bits.
Arthur C. Adams (not the comic-book artist)                        <fnord>
E-Mail acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written