Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 15:30:03 -0400
From: Ted White <tedwhite at compusnet.com>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Subtle Thoughts
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

Steve Smith wrote:

> "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.

Maybe they couldn't tell it from the general silliness in Jack's other books.

--Ted White