Many, many years ago, I was involved with a guy stationed in Turkey. We wrote many longs letters to each other. It's hard work! And we certainly weren't trying to be literary or deep or profound.

No, it's more what you said in your second posting: I keep thinking "Surely they can't be THAT bad." And then I get to page 20 or so and think "Yes, yes they can."

Oh, dear. Well, then - bad enabler of terrible fiction! No cookie!

CS made the Buffista rounds and is the only LKH I have read. I might read more, I might not. And I can be a really easy audience...I love Kinsey Millhone and thought "O is For Outlaw" was the shit. As a novel, not "just" as a mystery although that is totally not a just. But, it seems like Grafton pulled back from the emotionality in that one, and I wish she hadn't. P and Q were not as good.

when the client basically gave up because clearly Anita was too busy with the ardeur and the fashion and the ardeur to do any actual, you know, work.

• snerk* That's it, then, I think I'm officially done with her until I hear that she's reformed. But damn, I miss the fun of the earlier books. I remember when I first discovered her, with book six, and I immediately went out and bought the first five and couldn't read them fast enough.

Damn it, why don't more people write real letters?!?

They're all on the internet! Much more fun.

eta: no, I hadnt heard of her, msbelle, I'll check them out. Thanks.

amyparker, do you mean Possession? Such a good book, and I even read all the poetry (though I might not on a reread).

My friend just sent me Ayun Halliday's No Touch Monkey! And Other Travel Lessons Learned Too Late for Christmas, and I am all excited to read it.

What did I write? t going back to look Good grief. I am mixing up Austin and Byatt. Maybe I'm the one with the messed-up brain?

I am mixing up Austin and Byatt.

I did wonder - in fact, I'd made a note to see if Byatt had a new book out, maybe a riff on my favourite and One True Austen.

In between Bujold books, I just re-read Starguard by Andre Norton. This morning. I don't think I could tell you the main character's name. The book was more of a study on whether aggression is a racial trait rather than an individual trait.

Now, 30-40 years later, science fiction seems more about following a character rather than exploring an idea in metaphor. Any ideas why? Not saying one way is superior to the other, just wondering why consumer/author/publisher tastes have changed.

"New Wave" SF of the early seventies (Delaney, Tiptree) is where it started. "Why" might have to do with the gradual adoption of SF as a "legit" form getting underway. $.02