HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jroberts@morpheus.UWaterloo.ca (J. P. Robertson)
Subject: Re: The Gripping Hand
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:44:45 GMT

In article <6281@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at  
(Markus Stumptner) writes:
> Now, personally, I'm not convinced the trend she refers to in Niven's
> work exists, but arguing that a book is not an outrageously obvious
> example does not prove that it is no example at all.  Go dig up races
> in Niven's work that dispute the trend.  I seem to remember that the
> puppeteers are a counterexample.
> 

O.K.  The obvious species to consider are the Kzinti and the Puppeteers.
The Kzinti evolved with both species sentient, however the males of
the species chose to bread in such a fashion that the females became
unitelligent.  [I can't recall where this tidbit came from, though
it might be from Man-Kzin Wars, which might not be canon.]  One must
decide for oneself how this reflects on the author, but the point is
the "impossible evolution" arguement does not hold.

Puppeteers repropduce in a rather complex fashion, as I recall.  I think
it was in Ringworld Engineers we learn that there are three sexes, one
of which is non-sentient.  Call the two sentients male and female.  The
female somehow implants an egg in the non-sentient, which is then
fertilized by the male.  I would suggest that this is a rather
improbable method of reproduction, but would not call it misogynistic.

Niven has had plenty of female characters who are not "stupid", or
otherwise inferior to his male characters.  Off the top of my head is
the main female in "Inconstant Moon", who caught on faster than the
male, from whose viewpoint the story was told.  Teela Brown was far
from helpless, though her luckiness may be a special case.  The female
characters in Dream Park were just as "effective" as the men, both
in the sense of the story itself, and the game they were playing.

Larry Niven is NOT a feminist author, but niether is he a misogynist
author.  IMHO, I would rather read him than any so-called feminist
author, and people who would criticize him in this fashion have a
chip of their shoulders.

---
Jeff Robertson
4B Systems Design Engineering
University of Waterloo
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do  
nothing."
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.written:17412 rec.arts.sf.movies:9742
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Use The Dark Side, Luke! (Was: Re: Who killed SF???)
From: alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith)
Date: 10 Jan 93 15:40:13 GMT+12
 <C0KrM4.2uJ@news.ucs.mun.ca> <1im3ss$fog@agate.berkeley.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: Muppet Labs

In article <1im3ss$fog@agate.berkeley.edu> curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
>In article <C0KrM4.2uJ@news.ucs.mun.ca> jfarrell@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (James Farrell) writes:
>>
>>How would you feel if in the end of a Sci-Fi movie like "Return of the
>>Jedi" Luke joined the Empire and wiped out the Alliance.
>>It would make for a stupid series.
>
>Au contraire, mon frere!  I find the idea simply delightful.
>
>Luke Skywalker as a latter-day Hermann Goering, utterly corrupted in
>the flesh, hunting down his erstwhile comrades with the fury of a man
>who knows he is doing absolute evil and enjoys every last bit of it...
>or perhaps more of a Rudolf Hess figure, broken and confused by the
>world's misunderstanding of his heartfelt treachery, ending his days
>white and hunched in an Imperial Spandau, bisecting rats with
>Bergeracian flicks and twirls of his sharpened cabbage spoon.
>
>c
>but would the thirteen-year-olds go for it?

Dunno, but I would! What a neat idea! But I can't see him as a Hess figure
-- after all, with *both* of the surviving Jedi on their side, I can't
really see the Empire losing...

Watching Luke and the stormtroopers exterminate those terminally cute teddy
bears would be worth the price of admission by itself :-)

(Did anyone else see "Slipstream"? Crap movie, but Mark Hamill plays the
villain and makes a very good job of it...)

Plot suggestion : Luke switches sides at the end of TESB, after he finds
out Darth Vader is his father. Yoda (and Ben's ghost) trains Leia as the
rebellion's substitute Jedi. Then we can have a second revelation scene
on Endor ... Luke and Leia fighting, then, "Leia! I'm your brother! He's
your father, er, our father! Join us! Together we'll destroy the Emperor
and take his place!" Etc...

--
...... Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) ...... alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ......

"I blame you for the moonlit sky and the dream that died with the Eagle's flight
I blame you for the moonlit nights when I wonder why are the seas still dry
Don't blame me, sleeping satellite"                              (Tasmin Archer)

--

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: schumach@stortek.com (Kurt Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Dave Duncan
Reply-To: schumach@stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 17:27:33 GMT

Jim,

Another thought: if you can't find Emperor and Clown locally, we have a
large independent bookstore here in Denver that you can call to order the
book.  They have a huge in-store stock, and can get just about anything
in print (even foriegn publications if you can wait 6 months for them to
come in).  The have an 800 number, and take credit card orders.  The
store is:
		Tattered Cover Book Store
		2995 East First Avenue
		Denver, CO 80206
		1-800-833-9327
		1-303-322-7727 (Colorado)
		1-303-399-2279 (FAX)
From: steinarb@idt.unit.no (Steinar Bang)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Dilvish: Zelazny's other Fantasy
Date: 6 Jan 93 12:34:16 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.written
Organization: Norwegian Inst. of Tech./University of Trondheim, Trondheim,
	Norway

>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:14:53 GMT, phatch@solstice.slc.mentorg.com (Phill Hatch) said:

> Anyway, what do the rest of you think about Dilvish?  How
> does he compare to other Zelazny or other similar heroes?

I have always liked the Dilvish stories. Amber bored the hell out of
me on my first try so I have stayed pretty much clear of that for the
last 10 years or so...

> I felt that Dilvish and Elric share many traits: Both are separate
> from the cultures they operate in; they both have access to extreme
> extraplanar powers, though limited control of them; both are driven
> towards a final confrontation creating a world neither belongs in.
> Though similar, Dilvish is somehow more than Elric.

Dilvish has a sense of humor which makes him far more human, and much
more of a person than Elric can ever be.

Elric's sense of humor is non-existent (though other incarnations of
Moorcock's eternal hero have had a sense of irony at least, notably
Corum).

- Steinar
From: cozzlab@garnet.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Sturgeon's Law (was Re: Who killed SF???
Date: 11 Jan 1993 21:02:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <C0p0Bv.953@sci.kun.nl> gip207@sci.kun.nl (gip2 course) writes:
>
>OK, you asked for it: WHAT IS STURGEON'S LAW? (seriously, I really don't
>know, only thing I've ever read of Sturgeon is some of his short-stories).

OK, let me be the first on my block....

Seems Sturgeon was at a cocktail party oh, many many years ago, and he
was conversing with somebody who said, "Oh, you write *science*fiction*...
y'know, I read some of that stuff, and I actually enjoyed some of it,
but y'know, ninety percent of it is crud."

To which Sturgeon replied, "Yes, ninety percent of science fiction is
crud.  Ninety percent of EVERYTHING is crud."

That is Sturgeon's Law, more properly called Sturgeon's Revelation:

	NINETY PERCENT OF EVERYTHING IS CRUD.


Dorothy J. Heydt
UC Berkeley
cozzlab@garnet.berkeley.edu

Disclaimer:  UCB and the Cozzarelli lab are not responsible for my
opinions, and in fact I don't think they know I have any.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Subject: Re: Michael McCollum
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:34:36 GMT

rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu:
>I haven't yet read _Thunder_Strike!_, _The_Clouds_Of_Saturn_ or
>_The_Sails_Of_Tau_Ceti_ yet, though.

I'd say those are McCollum's three weakest books.  Either someone's been
giving you good advice, or you are a very astute interpreter of cover blurbs.

-----
Dani Zweig
dani@netcom.com

   'T is with our judgements as our watches, none
   Go alike, yet each believes his own
		--Alexander Pope
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: John Woods Campbell
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:21:11 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan6.233922.10256@math.ucla.edu>  
troly@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) writes:
> In article <1ien73INNcjd@transfer.stratus.com>  
jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
> >>     Let's compare them to a sampling of pre-Campbell
> >> saifai writers: Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Karel Capek,
> >> Aldous Huxley, John Collier, Olaf Stapledon, Stanley G.
> >> Weinbaum.  These poor fossils had to get by without the
> >> benefit of Campbell's literary wisdom.  How do they
> >> compare in literary merit to the Campbell crowd?  (I
> >> repress a snicker.)
> 
> >Verne, Wlls, Huxley, and Capek were NOT part of the field. 
> 
>    Obviously we are not speaking the same language if you
> assert that _Mysterious Island_, _The War of the Worlds_,
> _Brave New World_, and _War with the Newts_ are not part
> of the saifai field.

Yep, we're not speaking the same language.  

Wells, Verne, et al were in a real sense mainstream writers
(in that they and their reading public did not consider them
writers for a separate genre).  What they wrote was science 
fiction but they were not writers who were part of the field,
which grew up (mostly) out of the magazines.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: gmills@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (MILLS G - CHEMICAL ENG.)
Subject: Dune the movie
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:43:46 GMT


>From: David.Dyer-bennet@f341.n1146.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (David Dyer-bennet)
>Subject: Dune the movie
>Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1993 10:35:20 -0600
>
>Furthermore, in my opinion the flaws of the movie were primarily in
>the complete inversion of the moral point of the film, and the
>tremendously stupid interpolations.  I doubt that a longer cut would
>remove the stupid interpolations  (Weirding modules?  Rain on Dune?)
>
>It was really pretty; but it was stupid!  Stupid, stupid, stupid!
>
>(I suspect I'm responding to a fragment of an FAQ posting; something
>locally munched on it enough that I can't be sure.  I know of no rule
>against starting a discussion from something in the FAQ, though, so
>out this goes....)

I'm afraid I have to agree.  While I have my own copy of the film and
watch it regularly for the sets and the effects (gotta love the worms...)
it certainly was dissapointing in its departures from the book.

I particularly liked the sets' "Victorian" (?) flavour of decor.  A nice
touch.  I like it when authors, and film makers (in this case) remind us
that society is constantly changing, and in the future not everyone will
have a living room which looks like a NASA control room.  The same with
societal attitudes; their evolution also swings wildly.  One on the
reasons I liked "Mote".

Greg Mills
(got no sig)




Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.written:17003 rec.arts.books:23977
From: al@iris.claremont.edu (ere i am, jh)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.books
Subject: Guy Kay's _A Song For Arbonne_ is out!
Date: 5 Jan 93 23:02:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

Joy!  Beutiful package, but I can't comment on the content, other than
to state how long I've waited for this; uh, a real long time.
-- 
Michael L. Medlin  al@iris.claremont.edu
"There's a man on the shoreline with a white parrakeet
 Trying to make his bird go home"
 --Peter Jefferies, "On An Unknown Beach"
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Review of the Gripping Hand
Date: 6 Jan 1993 22:25:52 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

My only quibble with Evelyn's review is that (at least as written), she seems to
have fallen into the trap many of the Heinlein bashers have in years gone by.
Example: author X writes about a society in which slavery is practiced, without
soapboxing about how evil it is; so he is accused of being a closet slaveowner,
nazi or worse.  As I recall, the original book explained why women's rights had
taken such a beating in the second Empire - namely that regression to a more primitive
soeciety made this inevitable, as women were relegated to the role of child-bearing.
If you disagree with that thesis, we can argue about that...

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
From: jackc@vermont.mti.sgi.com (Jack Choquette)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Davis Mechanics (was Re: John Woods Campbell)
Date: 7 Jan 93 03:32:13 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: vermont.mti.sgi.com

In article <C0Gq84.7Lz@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tbmg9061@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas B MacIukenas) writes:
|> hwt@bcarh11a.BNR.CA (Henry Troup) writes:
|> 
|> Well, there's no such thing as an incompressible rod.  No matter what you
|> build your rod out of, you can never get shock waves to travel faster
|> than the speed of light within it, so the rod will compress.
|> -- 
|> ___-Tom_Maciukenas_(tbmg9061@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu)______________________________
|> 
|>                            Computers hate you.
|>                            Do not trust them.


This reminds me of a question I came up with a while ago.  Is the
effect of gravaty instantaneous or is it also limited by the speed
of light?

/jack

C, not just a good idea, it's the law.
From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: John W. Campbell would laugh...
Date: 5 Jan 93 10:14:22 GMT
Distribution: world

...at the recent attacks on him here.  Whatever his faults may have been (and
he was as fallible a human as any of us) no report of him paints him as a petty
or spiteful man.  Would that the same could be said of his detractors.

He might have taken some pride at being labelled a crank.  I never met him,
but it's easy to imagine the man grinning and observing that `crank' conjugates
irregularly --- you know, "I have strong convictions.  You are opinionated.
He/she/it is a crank".

John Campbell's vision of what "scientifiction" could become created modern
SF --- the very *term* `SF' was his invention, displacing `scientifiction'
as thoroughly as Campbellian writing obsolesced what had come before!

His tough-minded, daring, individualistic, optimistic, stand-for-no-bullshit
attitude shaped the attitudes of generations of fans --- fans who went on to
put human beings on the Moon, pioneer the digital computer, and doubtless to
create numerous other technologies in which Campbellian SF's inspiration of
the movers and shakers is less well attested.

And that influence is still powerful even in genres outside SF.  Robert
Heinlein has been called "the hand of John Campbell's mind" in one major
history of SF, and there is truth in this.  When John Clancy says (as he often
has) that he learned how to write from Heinlein, he's declaring himself John
Campbell's grandchild.

No amount of revisionism, second-guessing, might-have-beens, or petty sniping
can take John Campbell's achievements away from him.  Those who try diminish
only themselves in the effort.
-- 
					Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Who killed SF???
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:49:22 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd3.cis.pitt.edu

In article <C0I2qK.3Jw@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> cstringe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Chuck Stringer) writes:
>williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
>| I go to book stores.  I go to the library, and only rarely do I find anything
>| worth buying and reading.  What is all this crap that clogs the shelves???
>| Here is my list of suspects:

	[typical "oh, crap is taking over" rant deleted]


	Come on. Every few weeks someone posts this kind of thing, and
forgets the two basic points:

	1) Taste. Some people obviously LIKE all that so-called crap, and
would consider a lot of what you worship as crap. Me, I find PKD in general
to be boring. He's okay, but I'd trade any 3 PKDick books for one Niven-
Pournelle. Star Trek has been a cult for over 20 years now, you can't blame
IT. Some people like fantasy, and if *I* was the author of a successful
fantasy series that people wanted more of, you'd damn well know *I* would
be cranking out the sequels as fast as my little fingers could type
them. No one is forced to buy the stuff, so obviously your tastes are
not dominant forces in the market.

	2) Change in market. After Star Wars came out, SF and fantasy 
suddenly became MARKETABLE. Did that mean that less GOOD SF would be
published?
	No, not at all. HOWEVER, it  DID mean that SF finally caught up
with the regular fiction market in the crap/gold ratio -- in other
words, the same amount of "good" stuff is likely being published in
any given year, but since there is a bigger market and bigger volume
that is able to be sold, there APPEARS to be less "good" stuff out
there because there is a lot MORE filler.

	Who killed SF? 

	No one. It's alive and well and doing better than ever. There
was ALWAYS horrendous stuff being published. Now that it's popular,
there's a lot more crap being published... but no less good stuff.


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: jsahasi@aisun2.ai.uga.edu (Jayesh Sahasi [MSAI])
Subject: THE MODULAR MAN? IS IT WORTH PICKING UP???
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:25:46 GMT


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: jlpicard@austin.ibm.com (Craig Becker)
Subject: New Iain M. Banks?
Originator: jlpicard@woofer.austin.ibm.com
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:31:25 GMT
Reply-To: jlpicard@austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Object Technology Products


The inside back cover of my paperback copies of _Use Of Weapons_ and
_The Player Of Games_ say something like 

"Coming in Fall 92! Iain M. Banks' new SF novel, _Against A Dark Background_"

Has this book indeed made an appearance anywhere? Has anyone read it?
Is it another (keeping my fingers crossed) Culture novel?

Craig
-- 
-- "You will have the tallest,    Craig Becker, Object Technology Products --
--  darkest leading man in               Internet: jlpicard@austin.ibm.com --
--  Hollywood."                     IBM TR: jlpicard@woofer.austin.ibm.com --
--   - Merian C. Cooper to Fay Wray               VNET: JLPICARD at AUSVM1 --
From: tomw@orac.asd.sgi.com (Tom Weinstein)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Xenocide Sequel?
Date: 7 Jan 93 02:40:28 GMT
	<1993Jan6.100145.26564@bnr.uk> <1433@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
	<jvessey.726348031@husc.harvard.edu> <1993Jan6.182830.9934@ac.dal.ca>
Reply-To: tomw@asd.sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: orac.asd.sgi.com
In-reply-to: hyde@ac.dal.ca's message of 6 Jan 93 22:28:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.182830.9934@ac.dal.ca>, hyde@ac.dal.ca writes:

> 	I found it to be poor, not simply as compared to its.
> 	excellent prequels, but on its own.  There were just too many
> 	errors in the logic of the story, while the character
> 	development - usually Card's strength - left me cold.

> 	A word of warning, however.  I'm beginning to be bored by
> 	Card's work in general (Yawned through the last Alvin Maker)
> 	so perhaps it's just me, and Xenocide is fit to stand with
> 	its predecessors (except for the logical flaws).

> 	He's strained his universe past the point of plausibility
> 	for me, and I'm not interested in the characters.  I rather
> 	doubt I'll buy the sequel.

I agree completely.  I liked _Ender_, and _Speaker_ was pretty good too,
but _Xenocide_ just left me cold.  I found it boring, and the ending
seemed very contrived.

--
Love is a conveyor belt of   |   Tom Weinstein  tomw@orac.esd.sgi.com
warmth  -- Jackie Chan       |                  tomw@bears.ucsb.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack)
Subject: Re: Red electrons (was Re: easy-to-confuse author names (was Re: New...))
Organization: Lockheed ESC, Houston
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:19:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.231453.21195@netcom.com> dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) writes:
>higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey):
>>>>Right.   Without green, only red electrons and blue electrons will hit
>>>>the screen. The image is rendered in reds, blues, and shades of purple
>>>>(maroon is somewhere between red and purple).
>>> 
>>>"Red electrons" and "blue electrons"?!  How did you ever get a job there?
>>
>>When did the Naval Academy start hiring faculty with no sense of humor?
>
>I don't see where humor comes in.  Obviously the electrons which move
>towards the screen will be blue-shifted while those which hit it while
>moving away will be red-shifted.

And of course, the ones that move sideways are green-shifted.  (This is
explained by Lazlo's Theory of Bozosity.)


-- 
Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
hack@aio.jsc.nasa.gov - I speak only for myself, unless blah, blah..
"You know, I think we're all Bozos on this bus."
"Detail Dress Circuits" "Belt: Above A, Below B" "Close B ClothesMode"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: kogoma@triton.unm.edu (Taki Kogoma)
Subject: Re: Start alt.fantasy-- was Who killed SF?
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 06:40:00 GMT
Organization: Nit-Pickers for a Better Tomorow Afternoon

In article <76267@apple.apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Crow's Friend Timmy) writes:
>jahb@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JENNIFER A. HEISE) writes:
>>However, it seems the Science Fiction Inquisitors are
>>back.  Shall we retire to another newsgroup?
>
>No, I suggest we just enjoy life, and if they can't handle it, they can go
>create their own monastery where they can be miserable together. 
>
>Running off when they moan not only encourages them, it make sthem think
>they're winning.

Emminently well stated.  Seems that we need yet another tolerance
booster...

>
-- 
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk  (Known to some as Taki Kogoma)  kogoma@triton.unm.edu
 I'll get a life when someone demonstrates that it would be superior to
                          what I have now...
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written