Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site hyper.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!hyper!brust
From: brust@hyper.UUCP (Steven Brust)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Metropolis and Brunner
Message-ID: <159@hyper.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Apr-85 19:55:38 EST
Article-I.D.: hyper.159
Posted: Wed Apr  3 19:55:38 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Apr-85 02:45:19 EST
References:  <216@unc.UUCP>  <292@unc.UUCP>
Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls., Mn.
Lines: 103

> > Yet again, it ought to be clear that the fewer qualifiers used, the
> > stronger the statement is.  Have read Strunk and White's THE ELEMENTS
> > OF STYLE?  It is the best book on English usage...never mind.
> 
> Your appeal to Strunk and White as an authority is beside the point.
> A statement can also be strong to the point of absurdity. Some writers
> use this for comic effect (it's called hyperbole). The unskillful or
> inappropriate use of hyperbole is defective style, pure and simple.

I'm sorry my style is defective.  But wait...how are you any more
of an authority on style, defective or otherwise, than I am on
Best SF Novel of all time?  Why didn't you say, "In my opinion"?  Did
you think it was implied?  Or do you feel yourself capable of making
this kind of judgement beyond question?  Or, perhaps, were you merely
making a strong statement of opinion; knowing, instictivly, that to
qualify it would weaken it unnecessarily, and that any reasonable
person reading would understand what you were doing?

> 
> > Another reason is that some of us like to "peg" ourselves.  As soon
> > as I made that statement, some alert people learned a great deal
> > about me.  More didn't, and still more couldn't care less, but
> 
> And what exactly is it that we're supposed to learn about you? I
> suggest you reread the statements I responded to (I've conveniently
> reproduced them a little later in this response). One of the qualities 
> that separates good writing from bad writing is CLARITY. You don't have
> body language, voice intensity or pitch to convey information so all
> the meaning in a sentence must be conveyed by its content and
> structure. That's why we use smiley faces to indicate irony or
> hyperbole in our postings to the net. Asking a reader to read your
> mind or guess your meaning is just plain unfair.
> 
In most cases when one is reading, one has little else to go on.  The
thing you left out, of course, is context.  The context of this statement
was following another, similar statement.  When two or three people state
"thus and so is the best", and thus and so is different in each case,
the alert reader will begin to understand that opinions are being
discussed here.

Many writers (Zelazny, to pick an example at random) have the habit
of assuming a minimal amout of intelligence and sensitivity on
the part of the reader.  Some readers consider this a flaw.  Where
do you stand, and why?
 
As to what I am letting the alert reader know about me--well, that
would be telling now, wouldn't it.  But I'll give you a hint.  From
the tone of your comments you appear to have formed an opinion of
me.  I would suspect that, from your perspective, it is a correct
opinion.


> > Another possible reason is as a "Turkey Detector."  That is, anyone
> > who doesn't see the implied In My Opinion in those statements,
> > and consequently Flames, is letting us know something about him.
> 
> Oh, come off it.  Where are the `implied In My Opinions' in the
> following statements:
> 
> >Also who wrote THE SHEEP LOOK UP , ( an english guy ?) , the Best
> >SF Book of all time .
>   
> >>No.  The best SF book of all time is LORD OF LIGHT by Roger Zelazny.
> >>It is also the best English Language book written in the twentieth
> >>century.  
>   
> >>>The best English language book of the 20th century is very probably 
> >>>Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings".  
> 
> The semantic content of these statements is clear and unambiguous.
> There's no information about the authors' intentions, so I'm totally
> incapable of commenting on whatever it was that you `really' meant.
> If you can show me ANYTHING in these statements that qualifies the
> superlative `best,' please point it out to me. I'm always ready and
> willing to learn.
> 
>                                    -- Regards, Bill.

Most people read from where they are.  That is, the process of reading
involves working out the relationship between the words, with all
connotations, denotations, etc, phrases made up of these words,
the context in which they appear, and the experience of the reader.  It
is the task of the writer to put the concepts where the reader has
access to them.  It is the task of the reader assimilate these
concepts in the light of his own interactions with the world around
him, and conclusions, ideas, and thoughts of his own.  A writer who
lays everything out in such a way that the reader need do no work
at all, is denying to reader the pleasure of bringing the writers
thoughts, based on his experience, into conflict with the readers,
based on his own.  This is essentially the process of cognition
itself.  Similarly, a writer who refuses to make anything clear,
or to give the reader enough to work with, is hiding behind his
own assumed cleverness.

However, in this one case I will lay this rule aside and say,
precisely and clearly, what I intend to convey: The above
comments were made with the understanding that those who
read them were capable of thinging.

			Best,

			Steve