Steve Simmons <scs at lokkur.dexter.mi.us> writes on 30 May 2004 at 23:27:06 -0400 > On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 07:22:05PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > > > "Howard Brazee" <howard at brazee.net> writes: > > > > I disagree. Sturgeon's law worked then and it works now - but now there > > > are tremendously more educated writers. Even applying Sturgeon's law to > > > the 10% gives us an elite 1% that is vastly larger than the 10% of the past. > > > > Not by my standards. > > > > And when I looked at the 2003 novels and such nominated for the > > retro-hugo, it was *amazing* how much first-rate stuff was published > > in 1953. > > No offense intended David, but the retro-hugos are exactly the wrong way > to look at it. The nominated books are the top 1% or so of their year > *after having stood the test of time*. A better test would be to grab > tend random books published in those years. IMHO the result would be > a very large percentage of really bad books. But the point is the total amount of good stuff, not the proportion. And the reference to the retro-hugos is pretty tangential -- what I think means somthing is the number of great things published that year; which I happened to noticed because of an RH list, is all. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b at dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>