Single Comment

Charles Gilman has some very good material. That is the dilemma of proliferation. Look at the mechanism of Princess piece in Irwell. My first comment here analyses it 1 1/2 years ago, and since Gilman clarifies my partial misunderstanding. Unusual Princess changes sides upon crossing the river. I started to give prolificists an over-all rating for their 15 or 30 or 150 (Betza) or now 180 (Gilman). With Good 6.0 to 7.9 and so on, I had Gilman around 6.3 with only Gifford and Lavieri (Roberto with 22 CVs is indeed also prolific by definition) definitely higher around 6.8, all excluding Betza (offhand estimate 7.3 with high entertainment value); but I never got to everyone. It is very hard to sustain over 6.0 out of 10.0 over many, many CVs. Gilman has a few such as AltOrthHex, worth 9.9, to raise his average. And Gilman generally meets our criteria, preconceptions for good work, of appreciating others' past efforts with citations, thus understanding the milieu of the units or mutators he employs. Keep producing, Charles, as artwork unlikely to be played. Actually, though I am well familiar with 40 or 60 ''Gilmans,'' more than anyone else than himself, percentagewise that is still lower than most CV-prolificists, that I know inside-out over 50% of their products, or even 100% in cases like Lavieri, Aronson, Betza (in spite of nearly 200 articles latterly). These precise numbered ratings, occasionally appearing, are within different conceptual structure than scattered courtesy 'Excellents' adhering rather to CVP loose acceptance standards. On full treatment an 'E' there may turn out to be only 6.5 within a developed comment or mathematical design analysis. My first comment says 8.0 out of 10.0 for Irwell, right on the G-E cusp. A generic 'Good', first approximation, may become Average to Excellent 5.0 to 9.0 once thought through, for the run-of-the-mill, the artwork, or the Track One candidate alike.