RAGING DIATRIBE FROM OUR NEW YORK CORRESPONDENT

Our New York correspondent, one of a globe-spanning network of CHEAP TRUTH shills and xerox pirates, sends us these pertinent comments:

"At the Forbidden Planet SF Convention (New York, July 2-3-4 1983), Jack Chalker remarked that before he became well known, no one reviewed him, whereas now, he's reviewed everywhere -- unfavorably. He claims this is because fan critics are failed writers, which makes them jealous of Chalker's success. I'm tired of the 'jealous critics' line that hacks like Chalker trot out to justify their awful work and their giant egos. The fact is that, so long as a mediocre writer remains obscure, critics see that there is a certain degree of justice, and they feel no comment needs to be made. But if that writer's trashy, derivative, ungrammatical, garbled prose, and second-hand, second-rate ideas start selling widely, critics feel a justifiable sense of outrage. They vent this outrage in their reviews. Jealousy has nothing to do with it.

"The success of BATTLEFIELD EARTH is easily explained (one million Scientology readers can't be wrong -- or right) but 2010 and FOUNDATION'S EDGE are more baffling. Bearing in mind hardcover prices and the juvenile readership... how many copies of these incredibly dull books were bought by parents as presents for their children? Market research would be illuminating. And how many young readers were disappointed? For that matter, how many people who buy SF novels actually FINISH them? How many mediocre, unoriginal, boring books will a reader tolerate, and still keep buying, in hope of finding one to stimulate his imagination? At what point do readers become disgusted and give up? Any other industry would have researched such factors long ago. The cost would quickly be recovered in increased efficiency and responsiveness to real market patterns."