Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:15:52 -0400
From: Steve Smith <sgs at aginc.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Subtle Thoughts
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

"Strong, Lee" wrote:
>
>         My attempts have certainly not always been appreciated, he said
> modestly.
>         Subtlety in science fiction and literature generally is an
> interesting subject (to me anyway).  On several occasions, I have read a
> review of a science fictional work in which the reviewer states that the
> author introduces a concept subtlely.  Then, I read the work itself and find
> that the author is pretty explicit about the concept.  Where's the subtlety,
> I wonder?  Never having questioned a reviewer about why he or she considered
> the basic work to be subtle, I am left wondering.  My outstanding example of
> this perceived subtlety versus author's actual statement occured in one of
> Gene Wolfe's Torturer/New Sun books in which a cyborg's "replacement parts"
> are revealed to be his fleshy parts, not his metallic parts.  Wolfe had his
> cyborg character state this explicitly, so I am left wondering why the
> reviewer -- whose name I have totally forgotten -- found this to be subtle.
>

Once Upon A Time, Jack Chalker mentioned that *not one reviewer*
realized that "The River of Dancing Gods" was supposed to be a spoof.
Joe the Barbarian?  Marge the Witch?  The great magic sword Irving?  To
me, the whole book was full of pie- in- the- face silliness.
Apparently, all the reviewers missed it entirely.

--
Steve Smith                                           sgs at aginc.net
Agincourt Computing                            http://www.aginc.net
"Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense."