A sandwich ain't nothing but food

[Bill Nolan]

On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, "Hartwin Alfred Gebhardt" <hag at iafrica.com> wrote:

[ . . . ]

>On a slightly more serious level: the question of whether one can or 
>should distinguish between 'good' writing and 'bad' writing, or between 
>'literature' and 'pulp', always tends to come up. Personally, and 
>while not prescribing to any abolute notions of quality or the fixed
>meaning of adjectives, I certainly believe that Thomas Pynchon is 
>a better writer than Stephen King or Gore Vidal, that most romance 
>and fantasy novels 'suck', that by far the greater majority of all 
>publications are an absolute waste of 'innocent' trees, and that 
>there are entirely too many Major Marvy's in this world. In this 
>regard I am quite cheerfully exclusivist and even <gasp> elitist.
>
>What do others think about this?
>
>h(aughty)g(uy)
>hag at iafrica.com

Here's what I think:

Whereas I wouldn't lump Vidal with Stephen King -- I think Vidal as an essayist 
(I don't know his novels) raises pissiness to the level of high art -- 
nonetheless I welcome you as a brother in arms, "hag."

<soapbox>
Of course "one can or should distinguish between 'good' writing and 'bad' writing 
. . . ." Life is short, and books are many. The error -- the evil, potentially -- 
consists in imposing one's own judgment on others or in hindering publication of 
that 90 percent of every genre that is best characterized as dreck. To maintain a 
"writing space" in which Pynchon, DeLillo, Dick, Erickson, and other excellent 
writers can thrive, we have to tolerate (even if we can't welcome) Stephen King, 
James Mitchner, and John Grisham.
</soapbox>

--Bill
___________________________________________________________________________
Bill Nolan, Writer/Editor/Wiseguy            http://www.halcyon.com/bnolan/
Amid slender firs in the green and gray Northwest        bnolan at halcyon.com