----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 6:24 PM Subject: Re: Science Fiction In General
> > > > >From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: Science Fiction In General > >Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 18:24:15 -0600 > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 10:42 AM > >Subject: Re: Science Fiction In General > > > > >I've read every King book as they were published over the last 30 > >something years. And I chuckle a bit when I read statements like this. > >Remember Dickens was subject to exactly the same kinds of criticism > >you make and so were many books that are now considered "classics". > > > A nice, if not relevant comparison. Don't tell me however that King is in > the same league as Dickens. Sure, why not? A populist writer who reflects his times quite well, but was often lambasted during his life? I think you could make lots of comparisons. A lot of contrasts too, but that is only natural. > > > > >King, like most of us is a child of the television era, and like many > >of us, grew up watching horror movies. This is strongly reflected in > >his writing and the smell of matinee popcorn wafts from every page. > > Pure gold in words. I really like that. > Thanks, I learned how to write while reading Stephen Kings books. <G> > > >Most of the complaints concerning Kings writing come from people who > >aren't interested in the subject matter in the first place. "I don't > >really like this stuff, therefore it is inferior to the stuff *I* > >like, and that should be quite obvious to anyone who is not an idiot." > > If I personally, were not interested in the subject matter of Kings' work, I > would not have indulged myself in it in the least. Thats why I qualified the statement with the word "most". I recognise your position. There can be many reasons to like or to not like just about anything, because "liking" is a matter of pure subjectivity. My wife will only read "true crime" type books that feature serial killers, ax weilding maniacs, or dead movie stars. Utter trash in my mind, but it floats her boat. I have to listen to her discourse on the details of the Jeffry McDonald case at least once a month and PeeWee Gaskins is mentioned weekly. But do I claim that Ann Rule is the dregs? I'll give you one guess.<G> > > > >They say there is no accounting for taste. But it is just a fact of > >life that you *do* have to take taste into account. > > > >xponent > >Have I Seemed To Have Been In A Ranting Mood Lately? Maru > >rob > > > > And so I do Robert. I do not judge people who read King (I put in the whole > "people not being bright" thing to elicit a response which worked > wonderfully) as that is a matter of pure taste. Hmmmm....... >I do however judge King > himself, and render a verdict of which you already know. And it's more than > just pure taste or raw opinion. King is without a doubt a mediocre > writer.(See actual definition of "mediocre") Well, you are not in any way judging King "himself", you are judging his abilities and qualities as a writer, and that is not in any way the same thing. [Here, I take a swipe at Travis, but it is meant only as a criticism of the theme he presents and not as an attack of Travis personally or his abilities and qualities as a writer<G>] Travis, what I find objectionable in the above paragraph is that you set yourself up as an objective authority or as a party who has access to objective reality. You aren't and you don't. Each of us is tucked into our personal corner of the omniverse with a singular view of the complexity that is most often described as reality. It is our individuality. And it is purely subjective. And it cannot be any other way. None of us can ultimately decide for another what is valuable. We can form a concensus that places value on the things that are neccessary to continue, sustain, and nurture life, but matters of taste are out of bounds in regards to an enforced value. There *are* alternatives to this and many have been explored, but many of them risk pernicious authoritarianism, and we value our freedom. So we limit ourselves, intentionally, keeping within our minds those things we want to continue, that sustain us, that nurture us, in order that others will partake of the same in their own way and own time, thereby making room for everyones toes, big and little. You cannot decide what is good or bad for anyone else in regards to the realms of taste. And no one is likely to let you. When it comes to "taste", opinions are not additive. The opinions of 2 people are not of more value than that of one person. Nor are the opinions of 50. You cannot total opinions as if taste were an election. Taste is not a practical matter. Taste is amorphous and does not stack well. Opinions cannot be divided, even though opinions can divide. Taste does not have to taste good. But taste can be shared and should be, because it can often be nutricious and can lead to growth. > > -Travis "sometimes I am not to be taken 100% literally" Edmunds True of most of us I think. Our words are not always taken as they are intended. xponent Bought The Rantagra Patch Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
