Re: Zelazny, Re: DAW 1992

In article <K4n4i.4090$4Y.774@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:

"William December Starr" <wdstarr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote

[ re Zelazny's "A Rose for Ecclesiastes" ]

I know I've read it about three times, but it's never made enough
of an impression on me to more than only vaguely stick to my
memory. (I'm just not a Literature person, I guess -- give me
_storytelling_ instead any day of the week.)

I've never before heard anyone accuse Zelazny of not being able to
tell a story.

Well, I didn't think he did a very good job there, obviously.

What _was_ the Big Reveal, anyway?

<spoiler space>
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....

That the Martians were dying out because their men were all
impotent. No babies anywhere would have been a clue.

Oh, right. I'm not sure how much of a clue it would be in dealing
with an alien society, though. Do they have no children, or do they
just keep them sequestered somehow until they reach adulthood, or
are they hiding them from us because they aren't sure they trust us
yet, or...?

As a side issue, how advanced does a society's medical science and
tech have to be for them to be able to both extract vital semen from
impotent human males (note: it's not mandatory that the donors
survive the procedure) and use it to artificially inseminate their
women with it?

(Why yes, I *am* engaging in exactly the sort of engineer-driven
"See a problem? Figure out how to fix it!" thinking that drove the
we-want-literary-sf types up the walls circa 1963. Nyah nyah nyah.)

--
William December Starr <wdstarr@xxxxxxxxx>

.

Relevant Pages
Loading