Thanks to Nautiyal ji for putting the argument in its context and showing it in the right light. As you said, I might have over-reacted due to the use of the word "verdict."
When I used the term Reader, I used it in its broader sense -- critics and "experts" are also readers. I certainly agree to your point about soap operas and the same can be said for such bad SF as star wars etc. But this kind of popularity does not sustain for a long time -- who will remember the stories of the soap operas for generations? The test of readership over long periods of time is what I was hinting at -- a test that holds good for works from the Bhagvad Gita to Asimov. But I am at fault here-- I did not state things clearly.
Just a footnote: it is better to use the plural form of the pronoun "they" to avoid using "he" for the common people or readers; it can get cumbersome to write "he/she" again and again while writing. But I'm sure it was a slip and you did not mean to use sexist language.
-reema.
On 6/6/07, CHANDRA MOHAN NAUTIYAL <cmnautiyal@...> wrote:
Happy to find that my view is shared by Reema jee(or vice- versa), principle- wise. Actually our respect for a person increases when we agree with the person on the strength of what that person says and not because of stature.However, I think Arvind jee's spirit was also similar but for the use of the word 'verdict' which actuually is a carry- over from previous posts. And there is no doubt that a word from authority carries the weight of the person's experiece, talent and wisdom (nothing to do with official position).Even when some of us may be holding sightly differring opinions, we stand together for the cause.CMNI certainly did not intend any disrespect to a great sf writer and thinker and I'm sorry if my response sounded rude. With all due humility, I just want to bring attention to the very "principle" of the thing. In this case, Greg Bear's statement is completely in conjunction with my own views, so there is no question of my not accepting his statement.But what I object to is the use of the term "verdict" which implies a final judgement or at least something more important than other statements simply on the basis of who the person stating his/her views is. Again, this is not just in reference to this particular case but to the general principle of critical and ideological debates. I am happy to pay heed, but not to be subservient, because that would defeat the whole purpose of science fiction or any other imaginative enterprise.-reema.
On 6/5/07, CHANDRA MOHAN NAUTIYAL <cmnautiyal@... > wrote:The credentials of Mr Greg certainly add gravity to his statement. But if I will agree, it will be on the strength of the statement made by the writer. In this context, I agree with Reemajee and disagree with dear friend Arvindjee (at last one opportunity to agree with a dear friend!). Having said that I agree that Mr. Greg's statement has merit but I stick to my earlier statement that environ (societal or otherwise) will be naturally refelected in any sensitive writer's creations some time or the other. However, it can not be either essential or suficient condition for a writing to qualify as Sci-fi, and that if our (Indian) Sci-fi lacks it's more serious in lack of S& T than in sensitiity to the surrounding.CMNarvind mishra <arvind_drmishra@yahoo.co.in> wrote:I welcome Srinarahari ji to this forum who is an authority in sf
criticism.His views on the genre is noteworthy.I wish his support is
avialable with us on a continued basis.
Reema ji, we have this cultural gene amongst us to pay humble
attention and respect to our elders and that is all.We as practitioner
of science and sf know it very well that nothing is final under the
descipline and we are always in search of the ultimate truth.We are
not fundamentalists but WHAT MAKES YOU SKEPTICAL IN ACCEPTING THE
GREG'S VERDICT? You see how eloquently he has summarized the issue
with a synthetic approach.He is presently a top most sf writer with
already 30 books to his credit including best seller Darwin's
Radio.WHY CANT WE PAY HEED TO SUCH PEOPLES'S VERDICT?
ALL THE BEST,
ARVIND
--- In indiansciencefiction@... , "Reema Sarwal"
<reema.sarwal@...> wrote:
>
> Zillions of thanks to Swapnil ji for the very warm praise...
>
> I just want to add here that Greg Bear's or anybody else's "verdict"
is not
> the final word for me, nor should it be so for anyone else. The
Reader is
> the supreme "authority" if we are looking for an authoratative reply and
> readers of science fiction and fantasy have always upheld the best
in the
> genres -- because the "best" touches their (contemporary) lives and
> thoughts.
>
> -reema.
>
>
>
> On 6/3/07, swapnil.bhartiya <arnieswap@...> wrote:
> >
> > Greg Bear has given me a titanium support with his verdict that
> > contemporary issues can be weaved together in the SF stories. But, the
> > credit goes to Reema ji who called for a paper and I found no such
> > work done in India. I discussed the issue with Arvind ji and he gave
> > permission to raise issue in the group.
> >
> > Reema ji thank you for opening my eyes, even if I advocated inception
> > of contemporary issues in SF, I rarely did that. To some extent the
> > real inning of my SF journey will start now.
> >
> > So, credit goes to Reema ji....hats off!
> >
> > Regards
> > Swapnil
> > Assistant Editor
> > EFYTimes.com
> >
> >
> >
>
Dr Chandra Mohan NautiyalScientist-in- ChargeGeochronometry (Radiocarbon) and Isotope LabBSIP, 53, University Road, Lucknow- 226007. INDIAPhone : 0522-2712218 (Res), 2740008, 2740011 (Off), Mob : 091-09415107078
http://www.geocities.com/cmnautiyal/cmnautiyal.html
Download prohibited? No problem! CHAT from any browser, without download.
Download prohibited? No problem! CHAT from any browser, without download.
Offline 
Send Email