From: dac@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au (Andrew Clayton)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Go to alt.fan...we don't want you(was Re: rec.arts.sf.written FAQ)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 11:41:19 GMT
Reply-To: munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac
FollowUp-To: rec.arts.sf.written
Keywords: 
Organization: More like Dis~, really.

In article <1992Aug20.172402.6995@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>, Aaron Humphrey writes:

> dac@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au (Andrew Clayton) writes:
> : In article <Bt8voI.Dz0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, Eric Chris Garrison writes:

etc.etc.

> : Please, feel free to wax lyrical on your very special subject
> : "Why I think Piers Anthony deserves to win every literary prize
> : in existence, and then some." Or perhaps compose a heartfelt

> I won't concede that(yes, I know I'm not Eric, but I >did< start this thread)
> Anthony should win literary awards, but I don't think he's at the bottom of
> the slime-bucket either.  And I found the first nine or ten Gor books mostly
> readable...

You really were sore when you posted your original advice,
weren't you? I have a truckload of books written by Piers
Anthony. His _On a Pale Horse_ was perhaps one of the finest
books I read that year. I won't go into the well known details of
how Anthony starts off a series with a bang, and then never
finishes it. 

As for Gor - smirk. It's just too silly to even contemplate. Did
you also like E.C. Tubb's 'Dumarest' saga? P a t h e t i c. All
MHO of course.

> : Admit to a fetish for Jack L. Chalker's never ending
> : shape-changing series. 
> 
> I admit it.  I love Jack L.  Chalker.  I have all his books.  I
> especially love his Well World books, although the Quintara
> Marathon seems quite good from the

Yeah, Opie the computer is cool. I even liked the Four Lords of
the Diamond. I came unstuck from my 'liking' of Chalker after
beating my brow against one of his series [the one after G.O.D
incorporated] - he's really playing the same tune, on different
instruments, all the time. Even the most raving loony fan will
tire of 'more of the same' eventually. [Star Trek fanatics are
zombies, and therefore excluded from my little aphorism]

> : Go whole hog and put up in LARGE FRIENDLY LETTERS how WONDERFULLY
> : INNOVATIVE you find Douglas Adams' work, especially the bits

> Douglas Adams' work >was< innovative when it first came out.

But heck, that was the early eighties! No frood who's really hip
to where his towel is would publically state that Adams is
swutting innovative in the nineties! At least noone worth noting.

I'm sure you get my point. And hopefully you understand that I
have liked the efforts of authors that have been panned. [And no,
I'm not talking gargleblasters {Perhaps BLAZEMONGERed?}]

> : What Aaron stated is mostly true - formula authors are generally
> : dismissed.
> 
> I'm not condoning the fact, just stating it as a sad truth.

The point is currently a fact of life in r.a.sf.*, whether you or
anyone else likes it or not.  Your original message was quite
amusing, and the reaction by Eric, our eructing friend was
somewhat out of kilter with your original intent.

> ---Nysinra(n.x.n. Alfvaen, ebg13 Cflpub)

Uhuh.

[which has it's own ROT13 applications. :-)]

Dac
--
munnari!labtam!eyrie!prolix!dac      David Andrew Clayton.           // _| _  _
  prolix!dac%eyrie@labtam.oz.au      Canberra, Australia           \X/ (_](_](_
        dac@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au      I post .
prolix!dac@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au            . . I am.             +61 6 290 2215
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written