From: JasonLee@yabbs
To: Natalie@yabbs
Subject: re: Mariusz
Date: Fri Apr 29 19:24:00 1994
In message re: Mariusz, Natalie said:
> 1. He|nle|n almost s|nglehandedly made sc|-f| a leg|t genre.  Pretty much 
>    before h|m, sc|-f| was relegated to pulp magaz|nes and |t d|dn't get 
>    the k|nd of d|str|but|on |t gets today.  True, some people may argue 
>    that |t was better that way, but | don't th|nk so...|f you're a wr|ter 
>    then *part* (not all, and th|s may be the t|nest part) of your reason 
>    for wr|t|ng |s to let other know what you th|nk and how you feel.  
>    Sc|-f| authors couldn't reach a w|de aud|ence before He|nle|n made |t 
>    okay, and you st|ll won't see a sc|-f| author be|ng g|ven the Nobel 
>    pr|ze, but th|ngs have come a long way...

Although he did a great service to sci-fi, it doesn't compare to the
abilities of Ellison.  It's hard to explain, but in the single novel he
published, Ellison demonstrated his complete understanding of the black
condition, the american condition, and the human condition.
I know what I've said seems a bit arrogant, but the difference between the
writing abilities of the two is fairly large.

> 2. You sa|d, "I don't know.  Is it just me, or is most of this poetry 
>    stuff just bullshit?"  |t's only bullsh|t |f you're nothonest |n your
>    |ntent|ons when you wr|te |t, and | really don't th|nk anyone around
>    here |s try|ng to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

I don't know that pure intention implies good poetry.  It's just that I
don't like that people think they can just throw flowery words together,
mention love, and feel deep.  I don't like the assumption that unstructured,
unreflective poems are just as good just because of honest intentions.

JasonLee