On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 04:28:20PM -0500, Gaertk at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 2/28/2003 8:34:25 PM Eastern Standard > Time, David Goldfarb <goldfarb at OCF.Berkeley.EDU> writes: > > From: GaertK at aol.com: > >> In a message dated 2/28/2003 2:47:02 AM Eastern Standard > >> Time, David Goldfarb <goldfarb at OCF.Berkeley.EDU> writes: > >> [Jo Walton's great novels] > > As opposed to all of her terrible boring novels? :-) > Okay, the "great" was redundant. :) > You know, I think the quality of her novels is the first > topic here that's received unanimous agreement. At least, no > one has disagreed, which is as close as we'll ever get. OK, I'll step in and disagree. I've read only one of Jo's novels (the first one of the King's Name series, the pseudo-arthurian one). I didn't think it was great. (Sorry, Jo). It certainly wasn't bad, and it was one of the better arthurian reinterpertations out there. But I didn't like it enough to get the sequel, and I haven't had reason to pick up anything else >from her. Let this be a lesson to you... never assume lack of comment means uniformity of opinion. :) -- Matthew Hunter (matthew at infodancer.org) Public Key: http://matthew.infodancer.org/public_key.txt Homepage: http://matthew.infodancer.org/index.jsp Politics: http://www.triggerfinger.org/index.jsp