HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: djdaneh@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Subject: Re: Davis Mechanics (was Re: John Woods Campbell)
Reply-To: djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:14:21 GMT

In article <18342@bcars664.bnr.ca> Henry.Troup@BNR.CA writes:

>This is one I can't figure out.  Consider a steel bar, in free space, a
>long way from anywhere, one light-year long.  place a large rocket
>against one end, and turn it on.  Let it run for 364 days.  Turn it off.
>What has happened?  Try it again with an incompressible rod - if the rod
>moves, the message reached the far end faster than light.  If the rod
>doesn't move, where'd the momentum go?

It's real simple.

There's no sech kind of animal as an incompressible rod.

The far end of the rod will not have begun to move at T+364; indeed, it will 
probably not begin to move until T>>+365.  Momentum will be dispersed along
the length of the rod in compression waves.  What is the speed of sound in
the material the rod is made of?  Divide C by that speed and you've got the
factor for how long it will be before the far end of the rod moves.

			I'm your only friend.  I'm not your only friend,
			but I'm your little glowing friend, but actually
			I'm not your friend.  But I am
				--TMBG

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, Net.Roach
My opinions do NOT represent Pacific Bell,
Professional Development, or anyone else.
But I'm willing to share.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: msmith@beta.tricity.wsu.edu (Dragon Lord)
Subject: Re: Ambiguous Covers
Organization: Washington State University Tri-Cities, Richland
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 06:02:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.041326.6524@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>smb@research.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:
>
>>I have a Niven book that has a cover depicting a story from a different
>>Niven book.  The title of either escapes me at the moment; however,
>>the story shown on the cover was the one where Nessus kicked the
>>Kzin captain.
>
>I gotta see this cover!  BTW, the story is _The Soft Weapon_.
>
From the book _Neutron Star_  it's a short story collection.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: harit@kripalu.com
Subject: Re: Review of the Gripping Hand
Reply-To: harit@kripalu.com
Organization: Kripalu Center
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 12:17:02 GMT

In article <1ifm9gINNq8n@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan  
Swartzendruber) writes:
> 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.
> 

In theory your respect for an author's ability to write about a position not  
his/her own is valid.  If Heinlein had written from other perspectives I would  
grant you that point without question.  My problem with his books is that they  
reflect only one perspective on such issues.  From that I conclude they are his  
perspectives.
-- 
Michael Allen Latta
Kripalu Center
harit@kripalu.com
(413)448-3288
From: David.Dyer-bennet@f341.n1146.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (David Dyer-bennet)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Dune the movie
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1993 10:35:20 -0600

 DZ> 16. I was told that the director's cut of DUNE was seven hours long,
 DZ>    and did a much better job of portraying the novel.  Where can I
 DZ>    find it?

 DZ> As Jerry Boyajian
 DZ> (boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com) explains (hopefully for the last
 DZ> time [but of course it wasn't]):

 DZ> There is *no* "director's cut" of DUNE of *any* length.  The existence
 DZ> of one is a complete myth.

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....)
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Hugo Nominations (my suggestions)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:56:56 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

In article <1993Jan12.144111.1@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu> parmentier@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu writes:
>> Since the Hugo nominations are due in a couple of months, I thought I'd
>> post what I think are good choices.  If other people have works they
>> want to recommend, it might help people who haven't been keeping
>> lists all year.

My choice for best novel of the year:

     Steve Perry: Aliens, Earth Hive (Book 1)
       Skillfull handling of the problem of invading aliens. Manages
       to avoid common cliches by taking over the Earth in about
       two or three pages.

-0rab
     
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: durrell@pinball.arcade.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell)
Subject: Re: John Woods Campbell
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:40:50 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa

In article <1993Jan6.160642.6766@math.ucla.edu> dstein@oak.math.ucla.edu (David Stein) writes:
>Bryant Durrell writes:
>>Campbell, by his nurturing of new (and old) writers, raised the
>>general level of quality of the field.  Period.  Before him, 
>>most writers worte pulp crap.  After him, the standard was raised
>>to what Eric has defined as Campbellian SF.  What, exactly, is so
>>complicated about this?

>   Tell me!  All I know is that this barely touches the original matter 
>between me and Eric, and that it completely misses the boat when applied 
>to "what Eric has defined as Campbellian SF" to which I was refering.

No, it doesn't.  Eric's defining Campbellian SF as the type of SF that
Campbell tried to get out of his authors.  It is true that there were
scattered instances of people writing this kind of thing before 
Campbell, such as the ones you mentioned.  So why does Campbell get the
honor of having such stuff named after him?  Because he was the person
who made it the standard instead of the exception.

The person who names something does not have to be the person who first
does that something.  Sometimes, it's the person who made it widely
accepted.  I'm actually not sure where the thrust of your argument
lies -- are you asserting that this reasoning is not sufficient to
justify dubbing the style we're talking about as Campbellian?

Apologies for getting overly heated last message, btw.  And thanks to
everyone in this thread who's brought forward nasty little details
about Campbell I didn't know.

-- 
Bryant Durrell					   durrell@chop.isca.uiowa.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 I feed on the flesh of the living, and I vote.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: robertm@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (MONTGOMERY ROBERT PH)
Subject: Editor that hated Chalker ?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:00:59 GMT

In the introduction to _Dance Band on the Titanic_, a collection of
short stories, Jack Chalker speaks of a particular SF editor who hated
his work.  He says the editor began in the fanzines and wanted to be a
Big Name Writer, but had only one good story in him.  The editor had
"vilified and mocked" him and other successful SF/fantasy writers by
name at a gathering of SF writers out west. (Chalker and the others
weren't there.)  That editor is dead now, but Chalker said he "spent
7 years gratuitously attacking [Chalker] in person and in print."
He was a "good editor" and died young, but Chalker thought he was
an "asshole."

Questions:
1) Who was that editor?
2) What was the editor's "one good story"?
3) Who else did the editor criticize at the gathering of SF writers?
...

(I'm not really interested in how much other people dislike Chalker's
work; I've not read any of his stories/books yet, and have heard that
some people love them and others hate them.)

Thanks,

Rob
From: roten@cuba.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Roten)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Amber: Triumphant Conclusion?!
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:21:19 GMT
Organization: /cuba_b/dirbe/roten/.organization
X-Newsreader: GNU Emacs 18.59.1, GNUS 3.13, NNTP 3.10

In article <1993Jan6.141031.23013@syma.sussex.ac.uk> 
baps0@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Nicole Marie Craig) writes:

>Sorry I know this has been done to death but I've only just read a copy
>of Prince of Chaos - the american import with the words THE TRIUMPHANT
>CONCLUSION TO THE AMBER SERIES written in large letters on the cover.

>I only have one thing to say.

>HAH,TRIUMPHANT CONCLUSION MY *!@*.

>where's the next book? I don't want all the details wrapped up - well I
>do but I'll settle for most of them. Please, please grovel, grovel etc.

OK, I know I'm about to start a flamewar .. but IMO, the triumph is that 
the blasted thing will no longer take up more and more room in the 
bookstore shelves !!!!    

I read the first five books in the series, more than 20 years ago.  The 
first two were _interesting_.  First, Zelazny played with the reader's 
reality in a fascinating way.  Then, in the second book ('The Guns of 
Amber'), just as it had become clear that this was another sword-and-
sorcery series, albeit more well written than most, Zelazny broke _all_ 
the rules of the genre by injecting modern firearms into the plot.  But 
once he had so conclusively broken with convention, the whole idea was 
dropped in the succeeding novels, and never reintroduced, and the Amber 
books _DID_ degenerate into an increasingly badly written sword-and-
sorcery series.  Feh !!  

It isn't often that you can really PINPOINT the time in an author's 
career when he sells out on his talents.  But for Zelazny, the Amber 
series was that point.  Sigh.  :-(  

--
Charles Roten | Hughes-STX, Incorporated | 
  roten@cuba.gsfc.nasa.gov               | 'Use the Source, Luke!'
  7601 Ora-Glen Dr., Greenbelt, MD 20706 | 
  301-513-7805 (w),  301-317-0872 (h)    |            Obi-Wan Stallman
From: Alexandra_Haropulos.ADFMcLean_CSD@XEROX.COM
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V18 #21
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:34:09 GMT

I must agree that MHO agrees with Charles Roten, except that I believe that
Zelazny's sellout dates to CREATURES OF LIGHT AND DARKNESS, which was the
succeeding book to LORD OF LIGHT (which was the Hugo winner in its year and a
great book).

I met him at the '73 Worldcon, and was sort of examining him to determined what
had turned a major talent into an okay writer. It appeared to me that his
falloff occurred about the time his first child was born. Some other creative
force had been satisfied, I guess.

Alex H.
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: John Woods Campbell
Date: 4 Jan 1993 13:56:13 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan2.150849.12185@math.ucla.edu>  
dstein@oak.math.ucla.edu (David Stein) writes:
> 
> Jim Mann writes:
>  
> |> The overwhelming consensus in the SF field is that Campbell
> |> was a major contributor, and vital to the founding of
> |> "modern SF."   If you don't think that he is, perhaps YOU
> |> should present some evidence to show this.
> 
>   PLEASE do leave what I write in the context in which it was  
written.

Hmm. Since you just quote me without showing how much of your
post I quoted, I can't tell what you mean here.

> 
>   I pointed out to Raymond that his sweeping assertions -- MUCH 
>   stronger than the "consensus" you mention -- could use some
>   argument, evidence, and sound logic.
> 
>   I did not *argue* that Campbell had no influence on SF.  Your  
last
>   sentence is uncalled for.


[some stuff deleted, since my newsreader won't let me post
  more old material than new material ]

> 
>   Yet when I ask a few specific questions in order to comprehand 
>   how the quantity of Campbell's influence turned to quality and
>   singularity, the only answer I hear is "read so and so".

I think the reason is that you've taken a stance that is so
at odds with all the major critics and historians of the field
(including some like Aldiss who in no way were "Campbell writers"),
that it seems you haven't done your homework.  It seems that
if you make a statement that is so at odds with the overwhelming
opinion of those who have studied the field in detail, that 
it is up to you to refute the fact that he was a major
force in the field.

Second, people have provided some evidence, such as the fact
that many of the major writers of the 1940s and 1950s credit
Campbell with helping them, the fact that the average quality
of stories improved a lot (read Before the Golden Age, then
read Adventures in Time and Space or The Astounding/Analog Reader).

> 
>   Why is it so difficult to communicate just what did Campbell do
>   beyond the lifting of general literary and plausibility 
standards?

That's not enough??  That alone was a pivotal contribution to
the field.

>   Even Gharlane of Eddore's tribute does not go much beyond this.
> 
>   The only specific examples I've seen come from those who dislike
>   Campbell's influence.
> 

Define "specific"?  You seem to dismiss as non-specific lots
of facts brought in favor of Campbell. One person, for
example, listed some typical pre-1939 SF writers and compared
them to those who came after 1939.  (I expanded on this
earlier in this post by mentioning specific anthologies.)  Others
cited specific writers who credit Campbell.  And so on.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
From: sa121@cl.cam.ac.uk (S. Arrowsmith)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Red electrons (was Re: easy-to-confuse author names (was Re: New...))
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:09:21 GMT
Reply-To: SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk
Organization: Glad to be Sad

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.
>
Yeah, and the ones going sideways are green-shifted, which is how you get
to turn them off so easily.  You could always go straight for the purple-
shift -- spin something so fast that one edge is red-shifted and the other
blue-shifted (-8

--
\S
SA121@phx.cam.ac.uk | "Internet is so big, so powerful and pointless that for
        ___         |  some people it is a complete substitue for life."
        \X/         |     -- Andrew Brown, The Independent
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: eric@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Goldstein)
Subject: Niven and Female Aliens
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:01:50 GMT

Speaking of Niven, Sara Beck wrote:

> But if EVERY
>alien species this writer can find in his imagination has either
>profoundly defective females, great threats in child-bearing, or
>both, phrases like "deep-seated authorial neurosis" begin to come to
>mind.

And Markus Stumptner reponded:

>>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.

This sounds like a fun game!  Ignoring the question of whether Niven has a
deep-seated authorial neurosis, how many of Niven's alien species do NOT 
have non-sentient females?    

Dani Zweig, for example,  pointed out that the Moties are
Hermaphroditic.   

How about the Grogs?  Weren't the females the only intelligent ones?  (I think
this was even cited as evidence of a coverup in the farcical Down In Flames....)

How about the Martians?  Did Niven ever mention any sexual characteristics?

How about the Kladato(sp) -- the race that "cleverly" used the water hole 
    frequency to discover the Kzinti.  Any reference to unintelligent females? 

How about the Bandersnatch?  Or the Outsiders?  Any sexual reproduction at all? 

What about the Protectors?  There were intelligent female protectors, but do
protectors count as a seperate species?  Presumably they do, as the breeders 
from the Protector's home world couldn't breed with humans. 

For that matter, I suppose all of the hominids on the Ringworld are
examples of species which have intelligent females.  (In addition, here we
have females who can take on the same roles as the males -- witness the
female Nighthunter guard in the floating city in The Ringworld Engineers.
Oh, and how about the female chief of the small red carnivourous species
we meet at the beginning of the same book?  In fact, I think The Ringworld
Engineers may have featured females in the majority of the powerful or
authoritative roles...but I really didn't want to get into politics!)

Seriously, please don't consider this to be a flame on Sara Beck. 
I'm not even arguing that Niven isn't a misogynist.

Politics aside, can anyone else think of any other Niven species which do
not have non-sentient females?

    -- Eric            (eric@ils.nwu.edu)

Eric Goldstein 
Institute for the Learning Sciences
Northwestern University
Evanston, Il.  60201
-- 

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: kasprj@vccnw03.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak)
Subject: Kingsbury(was Re: Who killed SF???)
Reply-To: kasprj@rpi.edu
Organization: The Big Wedge 
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:50:59 GMT

In article <ROTEN.93Jan8155155@cuba.gsfc.nasa.gov>, roten@cuba.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Roten) writes:
|> 
|> ** WHEN IN FLAMING HELL WILL DONALD KINGSBURY PUBLISH AGAIN ?!?!? **  
|> Please .. I'm going into withdrawl .. my copy of 'Courtship Rite' is so 
|> dog-eared the pages are falling out ... :-)  
 
 You could check out his contribution to the Man-Kzin Wars series, if you 
haven't found it already. I believe it's in the fourth volume, entitled,
appropriately enough, _Man-Kzin Wars IV_. Less than novel-length, and it
suffers somewhat from trying to include references to every previous story
in the series, but the concept is quite good and well executed.
------------------------------------------------------------------
     __  Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
 ___/  | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *|          he who refuses to do nonsense  
     \_|          is doomed to talk arithmetic.
      ====  e-mail: kasprj@rpi.edu or kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: user@computer.uio.no (PC Jorgensen)
Subject: Re: John Woods Campbell
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.written
Organization: UiO
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:16:00 GMT

Is there a good JWCampbell biography out there? And could someone give
me details about it?

Thanks,

PC
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Dilvish: Zelazny's other Fantasy
From: alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith)
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:59:40 GMT+12
Distribution: world
Organization: Muppet Labs

In article <1993Jan5.191453.18814@caeco.mentorg.com> phatch@solstice.slc.mentorg.com (Phill Hatch (CONTRACTOR Documentation)) writes:
>
>ObCommon Universe: Is the Castle Timeless in Dilvish analogous
>to the Keep in the later Amber stories where Merlin battles
>the two magicians?  Sorry I can't remember the names from the
>Amber books...

To properly understand "The Changing Land" in general and Castle Timeless
in particular, you need to have read "The House on the Borderland" by
William Hope Hodgson. TCL is sort of a sequel.


--
...... 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)

--
From: ben@st-canard.spc.edu (Ben Cohen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: R.M. Meluch: Recommended Books?
Date: 12 Jan 93 00:07:08 GMT
Reply-To: ben@st.canard.spc.edu
Organization: St. Peter's College, USA

In <1993Jan11.195749.15009@crd.ge.com> meltsner@crd.ge.com (Kenneth J. Meltsner) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.085717.15932@netcom.com>, noir@netcom.com (Noel
>Ang) writes:
>|>I've just finished reading _The_Queen's_Squadron_, by Rebecca Meluch, and was
>|>wondering if anyone would recommend any of her previous works.  I've
>|>read one previous work of hers, _War_Birds_, and I find both of these books
>|>quite good.  I've heard mention of five other novels from her, _Wind_Dancers_,
>|>_Wind_child_, _Jerusalem_Fire, _Sovereign_, and _Chicago_Red_.  Are all of
>|>these Science Fiction?  Any recommendations are appreciated.

[Just to add my $0.02, having read all of her books and feeling quite
strongly about them...]

>They're all SF.  Rebecca Meluch is a fine writer, but I felt _Chicago
>Red_ was one of her weakest.  I particularly enjoyed the _Wind_ books.

Agreed. During _CR_, I kept getting the feeling that she really wanted to
write another book but just never got around to it.

>For those of you who haven't read _War Birds_, please give it a shot.
>It's the most intelligently written military SF book I've seen for a
>long time.  My wife, no fan at all of most military SF, was quite
>impressed with the depth of characterization and excellent
>storytelling.

Agreed, again. _WB_ is a _very_ thoughtful book about the military, space
warfare and the _people_ who wind up in such situations. [It's been a while
since I read it - probably ought to go back and re-read it...]

I have to say though, that her "2nd round" of books, being _Jerusalem Fire_
and _Sovereign_ are her (to date) best work, with _JF_ being the best of
them all.
   Her strongest point is that she has _excellent_ characters and really
gives you the feeling of being able to get into their heads. [I have yet to
meet anyone who reads JF and can't step into Alihad's (?sp) head and see
exactly what he's seeing and feeling.]
   I'd suggest running right out and finding JF and Sovereign. They may be a
bit hard to find (I know that I rarely see them on the shelves), but they're
worth the hardship to acquire them. They're a joy to read, being both well-
written and well-_crafted_.

>Meluch is another writer on my short list of "automatic must-reads."

Speaking of which, does anyone know when her next book is due out? It's been
a while so there should be another one due out shortly. [Shouldn't there?
:-)]
-- 
Ben Cohen		ben@st.canard.spc.edu, ...!rutgers!spcvxb!ben
St. Peter's College	Jersey City, NJ  USA -or- 40-42-57 N/74-03-54 W
   You can't kill a man born to hang! -- Dick's Last Resort, Chicago