Is MuD as good as GwaR???

[Sojourner]

At 10:09 AM 9/12/97 BST, andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk wrote:

>I think it's a stupid, pointless and irrelevant question. I'll note
>that my (partial) reading of the published literature suggests that in
>the early years academic criticism of GR was seriously sidetracked by
>comparisons to V and TCOL49, attempts to find what people had already
>seen and understood in the earlier novels. Much as I can see
>connections between M&D and GR I also see big differences and these
>suggest that comparison at such an early stage in the game is worse
>than odious. I'll also note that it took me a long time to understand
>what was good about GR and why it was so good and that such
>understanding came after much reading and rereading. I did not expect
>that M&D would be consumed at one sitting and current evidence
>indicates that there are many things yet to be understood and enjoyed.
>

I could not agree more.. I remember when Habakkuk came out, and
I was SOOOO disappointed.  I mean, after reading Daniel, and its delightful
parable of the lion's den, I was hooting, I mean hooting with gleeful
abandon, knowing how Daniel was screwing over the enemies of the
lord with such skill!  I mean, even Bel and the Dragon doesn't compare
to Daniel, but at least it was an excellent footnote to it.  Although I must 
say, Bel and the Dragon has a tendency to use the idioms and slang of
the Babylonians in a way I find altogether trite.  Way before Bel even
thought about fooling the King and his advisors, I was living in a desert
community, smoking hashish and living the good life.  I KNOW these
desert dwellers, and therefore I KNOW their idioms and manner of
speaking, and I feel as though the author didn't capture it accurately --
and I find that highly insulting!

But overall, I found Habakkuk to be slow, boring and preaching, whereas
Daniel and Bel and the Dragon to be tight, climactic and full of plot-driven
morality.  

Don't you agree?