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: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:59:33 -0600
----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 5:52 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: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:31:24 -0600 > > > >----- 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. > > I speak of his writing ability.
Oh? And Dickens is special exacly how? In his time Dickens was not especially respected........except by the general public and even then not by all. There were many writers who were thought to be of higher quality than Dickens, after all Dickens was pandering to the public, but the other writers are not as well known today.
What about todays standards Robert? Isn't it the general consensus that Dickens is a "great" writer?
And the general consensus is really of what I speak. Because that is the closest we subjective beings can come to objectivity.
> > > > > > > > >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> > > > > <lol> I bet. Speaking of writing, do you? (Fiction that is) >
Some here, would tell that is all that I write. <G> (Hi Yall!) Actually we had a little group here writing a sequal to Startide Rising ayear or two ago. Whatever happened to that?
I am currently stuck in the middle of a story for the [Janelle] mythos that I can't seem to get to progress. (Its about Brin-L in a parralel world more or less, something that Dr Brin himself actually started......quite by accident <G>)
Do you have anything online? I should truly love to read something if it is available.
> > > >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. > > True. Yet the fact remains that he is indeed "mediocre" in regard to his > writing ability.
Unfortunately you cannot make objective statements since you enter with preexisting prejudices. This makes the starting point for your argument a position of weakness. Of course I'm unable to be objective also, but knowing this, I only have to expose your arguments. I don't need to make any claims of my own.
Ah but I can.
> Let me draw out a little analogy. You are taught in school > that 2 + 2 = 4, and you tell all your friends about it. You are in fact > talking about it when along come Travis. Now Travis looks at you and says: > "That's not right. You're setting yourself up as an objective authority or > as a party who has access to objective reality. You aren't and you don't." > > Oops. There's the mistake Robert. You see 2 + 2 does in fact equal 4, and to > say otherwise is an easy avenue in which to base an argument. But an avenue > that's flawed because it denies the truth.
So you set up a strawman and then destroy it yourself. Who's side are you on anyway? <G>
> Of course I'm not the objective > king (pun intended), as it's impossible to be 100% objective, as we humans > are subject to exist within the confines of our own little minds, thus > rendering us subjective. It's all about perspective really; and when you > think about it, perspective is all we have. However, once again we, as > humans have to collectively agree upon things. Thus creating truth as we > know it. Take language for example. It's an agreed upon set of symbols. It > may not be an objective way to convey ideas, but it's the best we have, and > we agree (whether consciously or not) to use it and stand by it as a means > of communication. The same goes for law, math, what's funny, what's > not.......blah blah blah.....up to and including literature. That's where I > base MY argument; in truth, which yes, IS subjective due to individual > perspective, but at least it's a unanimously agreed upon principal.
What you have written in the above just proves that any statement you make about Kings mediocrity as a writer is purely subjective. It is an admission that such a statement cannot be proven to be objective.
I don't claim that King is a great writer, just a very good one, and one that may be remembered as "great" regardless of his actual comparative quality. The evidence is in the sheer numbers of books sold, in a genre of lesser popularity, King has made significant inroads into the mainstream of fiction sales. There is also the question of his quite large fanbase which dwarfs just about everything this side of Rowling. The man is a household name, known to a quite large number of people over the world. Like him or not, that is pretty hard to argue with.
Objectivity....You see we are all subjective and we all see the world through our own subjective eyes. Therefore it's pretty much impossible to be objective. But it's in understanding that fact that we can aspire to approach things in a collectively agreed upon manner, which is the closest we can come to our own definition of objectivity.
That is my standpoint. That is where I come from when I say that I base my argument on truth. There is no objective truth. There is however subjective truth. But this subjective truth, being collectively agreed upon is the closest we can come to our own definition of objective truth.
Therefore my statement about King does bear some relevance. Of course he isn't mediocre in the eyes of the masses. But in the eyes of lit junkies, he is. His writing is simply not that good. Do not take offense though, as I know you read king, and I accept that people, according to theit own tastes delve into what they want.
-Travis
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
