On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Jim Boutcher wrote: > --- David Silberstein <davids at kithrup.com> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Feb >2003, Jim Boutcher wrote: >> >> >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". >> > >You may not be trying to be snarky, but that sure as anything is what >this is sounding like. I read, as should have been clear, all of his >earlier works up to Lords and Ladies. Should have been clear from what? You didn't say, in earlier posts, just where you had given up on the books. But I thank you for now satisfying my curiosity. > I tried again with Feet of Clay. Picking one book and then >'snarking' someone who has already suggested that they had given up >with the author for the present hardly seems reasonable. I wasn't snarking. Honestly. I thought you might have read the ones which even *I* feel are not his best. But I can't argue from that premise anymore, since I think "Lords and Ladies" & "Feet of Clay" are both quite good. > >> 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. >> > >Whereas I see it as a very effective satire. If you think that the abovementioned books are not good, and the movie of "Starship Troopers" *was* "effective satire", then I don't think we can have a meaningful discussion at this point. Our tastes are simply too dissimilar. I suppose we could debate what makes a good satire and/or story, and point out where one or the other works meets or fails those criteria, but I haven't the energy at this point in time.