On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Jim Boutcher wrote: >Okay, clearly a fan. "How can you tell?" he asks ironically. > Depth of philosophy would be a personal perception based on whether >someone appeared to be repeating something they'd read in a book, or >heard someone mention down the pub. I am not aware of any of the philosophical points in the books as being "pub-fare" *except* when they are being satirized. >I've not read Jingo. Then which ones *have* you read? I am not trying to be snarky, but it appears you are tarring his entire corpus of works based on your opinion of his later relapses to "mere whimsy". > As a satirist I believe he lacks a sharpness to his vision >which works fine in fantasy, but the parallels are not sufficiently >piercing to stand up next to, for example, Swift or Flann O'Brien. Or >even Harry Harrison if you want a satirist on militarism Perhaps. I will have to read Harrison & O'Brien. Which works of theirs did you have in mind? I've read some Harrison, but nothing that seemed to be an explicit satire on militarism. >As for the content, again my opinion, I'd say that he could easily >become a single idea author - one per book - milking to its logical >or illogical conclusion. I'd rather see him take longer, mix more >ideas in, run them through each other And yet above you complained about lack of sharpness of vision. Now you seem to be decrying that his vision *is* sharp? Satire that is over-complicated runs the risk of diluting or confusing its own message. I recently re-watched the movie of "Starship Troopers", which is an example of a satire on militarism that fails miserably. > and possibly reduce the humour. Perhaps you mean "whimsy" here. Some of the overly-silly stuff might indeed turn people off. > As I have said, his use of language seems to be improving with the >years, and I'd say a masterpiece would be well within his reach. I would be showing my bias if I were to say that he has one or two already. >Fair? Oh, I suppose. De gustibus non est disputandum.