I agree that the application of this "law" can be lazy and
annoying. It becomes an excuse to ignore 90% of everything.
Even if the law was true, how would we know which 10% of
production to pay attention to? I am not saying that there
are no clues to help discrimate potentially quality work from
likely non-quality work, but you have to look at a lot of
stuff the find the good, and I honestly think it's more than
10%.
Mark
On 6/11/08, Juri Nummelin <
juri.nummelin@pp.inet.fi> wrote:
>
> --- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
<rara-avis-l%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "foxbrick" <foxbrick@...> wrote:
> > That's pretty much what Sturgeon meant--from
the ridiculously
> awful to
> > the utterly humdrum mediocrity.
>
> Todd,
>
> it would be really nice to know why mediocre is
crap. I think
> someone like Brett Halliday or Edward S. Aarons is
mediocre, but
> they are not crap in any sense of the word. Or maybe
someone like
> G.W. Ford, from the more recent writers. Or Sue
Grafton (okay, I
> haven't read that much by her, but I wouldn't say
she's great nor
> would I say she's crap). Mediocre can be very
entertaining, while
> crap is almost never entertaining. (Unless it's
something like THE
> MESA OF LOST WOMEN.)
>
> I've been pissed at Sturgeon's Law for some time
now. Okay, Sturgeon
> meant it as a joke (he was drunk, as Richard pointed
out) and we
> should treat it as such and not take it as a truth.
It's become sort
> of a lame excuse. Someone says: "Hey, crime novels
are crap, didn't
> you know that, read literary novels instead." And we
say back,
> smirking: "Hey, didn't you know that 90 % of
literary novels is
> crap?" And that's the end of discussion.
>
> Juri
>
>
>
-- Mark R. Harris 2122 W. Russet Court #8 Appleton WI 54914 (920) 470-9855 brokerharris@gmail.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 11 Jun 2008 EDT