HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Bertrand Russell and the Mad Hatter
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:55:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.191352.9454@sophia.smith.edu> orourke@sophia.smith.edu 
(Joseph O'Rourke) writes:

   >There is some resemblance between the the Mad Hatter as depicted
   >in the original drawings (by Tenniel?) from Alice's Adventures
   >in Wonderland, and Bertrand Russell.  But the timing seems
   >wrong, since Dodgson died before Russell became famous.
   >Does anyone know if there is a connection nevertheless?

  Russell wasn't born until 1872; Alice was published in 1865. Quoting
from Martin Gardner's Annotated Alice:

      "It is impossible to describe Bertrand Russell," writes Norbert
      Wiener in Chapter 14 of his autobiography Ex-Prodigy, "except by
      saying that he looks like the Mad Hatter...the caricature of
      Tenniel almost argues an anticipation on the part of the artist."
      Wiener goes on to point out the likenesses of philosophers
      J.M.E.McTaggart and G.E.Moore, two of Russell's fellow dons at
      Cambridge, to the Dormouse and March Hare respectively. The
      three men were known in the community as the Mad Tea Party of
      Trinity.

      
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.written
From: qvortrup@inf.ethz.ch (Michael Qvortrup)
Subject: Re: Canonical Genre Fiction:  SF
Organization: Dept. Informatik, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 06:47:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.213911.23543@hellgate.utah.edu> speterse%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (soren--Ms. Jackson if you're nasty) writes:
>
>Just to prove that I can be as anal retentive as the next guy, I just
>typed in three would-be canonical lists of 100 best books.  There's one
>list of science fiction books, and two of fantasy books.  All three lists
>were inspired by Anthony Burgess's *99 Novels: the Best in English Since
>1939*, and were published with essays about each of the choices.

Thanks a lot for the effort!

>For someone who is looking for an introduction to SF and fantasy, one
>could do worse than to use these lists as a guide.  I hope that someone 
>or other finds them useful.  

I think I shall find them helpful, although after a cursory glance they
seemed to be rather on the older side. I guess that is natural, since a
newer work has had less time to make an impression.

I have a couple of questions about the lists.

1) The entries are numbered. Does that imply some kind of good/better/best
   ordering, or is the numbering artificial?
   (I am not trying to dispute the order, merely asking whether one is 
   implied and, if that is the case, perhaps the criteria used).

2) What criteria were used to include the books on their resepctive lists
   (i.e. how was SF and Fantasy defined)?
   (Again, I don't want to argue how the genres *should* be defined, but
   rather *how* they were defined for the purpose of the lists).

Greetings,
--Mike

-- 
#include <std-disclm.h>--"... and there is a small flaw in my character."---
Real Life: Michael Christian Heide Qvortrup      A Dane         ETH, Zuerich
e-mail   : qvortrup@inf.ethz.ch                  abroad         Switzerland
Institut fuer wissenschaftliches Rechnen  /  Inst. of Scientific Computation
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Eco Rumours
Date: 14 Aug 92 15:08:52 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <24778@castle.ed.ac.uk> gu@castle.ed.ac.uk (G Ushaw) writes:
>rgasch@nl.oracle.com (Robert Gasch) writes:
>
>>I have recently heard rumours that Umberto Eco has finished a new 
>>novel. Does anybody know any detail about this (Title, Subject ??).
>>Is this true or was I mislead. 
>
>yes
>
>but, according to my local book shop it's only available through an
>Italian clothing company. The book shop can't get copies, so who knows
>when it'll be on general release.


To tell you the truth, I found The Name of the Rose quite disappointing.
Not a good sign, in my view, that all the loose ends get tied together
in one paragraph of dialogue in which a character has to 
explain the linkages, rather than having them unfold by plot.

(Don't ask me where this happened, but I remember it as a serious flaw
in the story's structure: it appeared in the film version as well.)

Frank.
From: dstein@rhea.math.ucla.edu (David Stein)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Reading books in a foreign language
Date: 12 Aug 92 05:48:36 GMT
Reply-To: dstein@rhea.math.ucla.edu (David Stein)
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <WARKENT.92Aug11174840@ltisun9.epfl.ch>,
warkent@ltisun9.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug10.055358.1619@math.ucla.edu>
dstein@dione.math.ucla.edu (David Stein) wrote:
|> >   I suspect I was the only one in the whole 
|> >  class (the teacher included) who fully understood the
|> >  historical connections [of ANIMAL FARM].
|> 
|> What, the relation between the characters and events in the book and
|> those of the Russian Revolution?  Come, come.  Or do you mean some
|> particulary subtle aspects that have escaped the average bourgeois?

   I mean such `subtle' aspects as the difference between Stalin 
   and Trotsky.  Yes, all knew about the bolshevik revolution, but
   that was about it.

   Note I'm not implying they were stupid (just ignorant), nor that
   knowledge of the history is needed to read _Animal Farm_.

 - David

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not a native speaker of English, so I'm not sure what I wrote.
Flames will be ignored unless you post them in perfect Czech.
================================ - David (the metamathician) - ===
From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Liberals, Little Girls, and Boolean Logic
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:16:18 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <-d9m5qn.tmaddox@netcom.com> 
tmaddox@netcom.com (Tom Maddox) writes:

>In article <1992Aug16.135756.14792@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>>>Whether he chooses pen or pistol, keyboard or cutlass, Mr Cramer has
>>>>all the chances of a fart against a hurricane.

TM:
>>>	A very bad smell against a bunch of hot air blowing very strongly--
>>>what does it matter who triumphs?

MZ:
>>How characteristic of Mr Maddox' bloated, dyspeptic, cheesy public
>>persona to conflate a malodorous byproduct of bodily decomposition
>>with an irresistible force of nature!

TM:
>	There was no conflation--as the word "against" would show a competent
>reader in the language.  As to "an irresistible force of nature"--Zeleny's
>megalomania puffs and struts again but is still simply hot air, not a tropical
>storm.

Deontic conflation is still conflation, as would be evident to a competent
thinker, regardless of language.  As for the charming attribution of
megalomania, Mr Maddox is evidently intent on rising to new heights of
unintended self-reflective hilarity.  Far be it from me to check or censure
his ascent.

>-- 
>				Tom Maddox
>		    	    tmaddox@netcom.com
>		   "I swear I never heard the first shot"
>                Wm. Gibson, "Agrippa:  a book of the dead"

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: chucks@uars2.acd.ucar.edu (Chuck Smythe)
Subject: Re: Canon in an Altered Key
Organization: Ntl Center for Atmospheric Research, Atmospheric Chemistry
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:00:28 GMT

In article <78032@ut-emx.uucp> jzimm@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Joann Zimmerman) writes:
>perhaps we ought to look at lists which *start out to be* descriptive.
>One such is _The Harvard Guide to Influential Books_, in which 113
>Harvard professors list books which have had some sort of major
>influence on their thought or field of study.
>
>In other words, here we have a list of books that come with the label
>"useful to somebody" already attached. There is a fair diversity, both
>in choice of faculty member (although I recall an emphasis on the
>liberal arts).....

This emphasis on the liberal arts is probably appropriate.  It was interesting,
reading the various canonical lists posted in the past few days, to reflect
on the scientific and mathematical entries.  I observed that 1) most of the
20th century titles were rather dated by now, and that 2) even the classic
titles (Euclid, Newton, Darwin, etc.) are not considered required reading for
students of the sciences.                     

A recent writer on the relationship of the arts and sciences (sorry, name
escapes me at the moment) observed that the greatest difference is that in
the arts The Text is all; in the sciences the original texts can be, and
in fact always are, recast by later writers to consider earlier ideas in
the light of later knowledge and to translate them to current terminology.
The original texts are read by historians to understand the context in which
important ideas arose, but this is not considered at all necessary to the
education of a working scientist.

Thus a Canon of Scientific Literature doesn't really exist, and if it did
would be ignored by most scientists (and by most liberal artists).  This is
sometimes a good thing; Koestler assures us that the writings of Copernicus
are absolutely unreadable, for instance.  On the other hand Darwin is an
excellent read, as are Newton's _Optics_ and Einstein's _Understanding         
Relativity_.

			Chuck Smythe
From: barclay@RAIL9000.gatech.edu (Barclay Blanchard)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: African American women authors
Date: 16 Aug 92 03:04:42 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute

I've been hearing Terry McMillan recommended by many of the same people who like
Alice Walker and Toni Morrison.  Has any of you read any of her books, and 
what did you think of them?


-- 
Barclay Elizabeth Blanchard    barclay@rail9000@gatech.edu
"I've been laughed at by some of the funniest people."
--Lissie, Alice Walker's _The Temple of My Familiar_
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mason@dante.uucp (Mason Jones)
Subject: Re: Harlan Ellison
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 22:12:02 GMT
Organization: Charnel House

trey@leland.Stanford.EDU (Clarence Gordon) writes:
: does anyon know who to get Harlan Ellison books.  none of the book
: stores around here (Palo Alto, CA) carry his books. i find this strange
: since he is such an acclaimed writer. please help and let me know either
: by posting or by e-mail. thanks. trey@leland.stanford.edu

Head straight for Dark Carnival in Berkeley, certainly the best
bookstore in the Bay Area for science-fiction, fantasy, and general
odd books.


  VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
             Mason Jones           Charnel House Productions
             P.O. Box 170277, San Francisco 94117-0277 U.S.A.
   ...{uunet,sun}!hoptoad!dante!mason   or   dante!mason@hop.toad.com
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Liberals, Little Girls, and Boolean Logic
From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:10:07 EDT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal
Summary: Clayton Cramer cries "uncle!"

In article <11817@optilink.UUCP> 
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <1992Aug16.184132.15114@sics.se>, 
>torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:

>>In article <4484@news.duke.edu> 
>>bigham@acpub.duke.edu (Scott Bigham) writes:

SB:
>>>Cramer versus the Z-man!  This oughta be interesting!  Bets, anyone?

TF: 
>>   Sure. I bet the usual garbage will be forthcoming.

CC:
>Nope.  I do not have the time to waste arguing with Zeleny.  Besides,
>Twain's aphorism: "Never argue with a fool.  People may not be able to
>tell the difference," comes to mind.

Given that this revelation comes on the heels of not one, but two of
Mr Cramer's vain attempts to argue with yours truly, it constitutes as
explicit an admission of defeat as could be hoped for.  Ladies and
gentlemen, time to collect your winnings!

>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
>disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
>homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Un de mes plus grands plaisirs est de jurer Dieu quand je bande."
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Liberals, Little Girls, and Boolean Logic
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:32:17 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Aug16.184132.15114@sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
> In article <4484@news.duke.edu> bigham@acpub.duke.edu (Scott Bigham) writes:
> 
>    >Cramer versus the Z-man!  This oughta be interesting!  Bets, anyone?
> 
>   Sure. I bet the usual garbage will be forthcoming.

Nope.  I do not have the time to waste arguing with Zeleny.  Besides,
Twain's aphorism: "Never argue with a fool.  People may not be able to
tell the difference," comes to mind.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,alt.satanism,bit.listserv.fnord-l
From: amartell@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alex Martelli)
Subject: Re: Robert Anton Wilson (Was: Satan)
Keywords: and still is...:)
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 15:48:54 GMT

majcher@acsu.buffalo.edu (Salamander~) writes:


>petruz@uqbar.cirfid.unibo.it (Petruz Boonenkamp) writes:

>>In article <1992Aug11.150433.29253@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>>>>(unless you read R.A.Wilson's books which I doubt)
>>>
>>>Titles/ recommended reading?

>>He he.  I STILL think the idea of an alt.wilson group or something would
>>have been good.  Anyway:

>	Try bit.listserv.fnord-l (or FNORD-l@ubvm.bitnet).

Signal to noise ratio close to 0, IMHO.  Which is why I had once proposed
an alt.fan.raw, but it fell flat.  So now I'm haunting r.a.b - after
all if ALL books are to be discussed here, why not Wilson's!
--
Alex Martelli - preferred email alex@am.sublink.org
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: francis@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir)
Subject: Bang, BANG, B-A-N-G! Was: Re: The Literary Canon
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 14:28:51 GMT

I am just back from a week in Big Sky, Montana to find 531 postings
in rec.arts. books alone. Helas! The one book I took to read and read
three times was MFK Fisher's last novel, or set of short stories, or
reminiscences, or travel book, or food book, or whatever other genre
label is to you fancy. I cannot remember when I have last enjoyed a book
so much, and Miss Fisher, alas, a Dead White Woman, now finds herself
in my Pantheon as a Lit Big Gun. The book is *THE BOSS DOG: A Story of
Provence* and is published in paperback by Pantheon Books of New York
for $10. It does not hurt that the cover is one of my favorite paintings
by Andre Derain, "Hyde Park". here is the Great American Writer of times
just gone by.


						Fido
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey)
Subject: Re: Anybody Else Read History?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 23:25:07 GMT

In article <14AUG199208224838@portal.lasc.lockheed.com> le01167@portal.lasc.lockheed.com (Ron Nadel (x2025)) writes:

>> 
>And while the topic is on the table, what do you history readers think of 
>Historian Peter Gay and his thesis in _Freud for Historians_ ?
>

	I haven't actually read _Freud for Historians_, so I can't really 
comment on his thesis there.  
	I've read some of his stuff on the Enlightenment (_The Party of 
Humanity_, _Voltaire's Politics_, and bits of _The Enlightenment: an 
Interpretation_.)  I've also read snippets of _Freud: A Life for Our
Time_ and _The Education of the Senses_.  

	I was actually going to suggest Gay in my previous post, but I
decided against it because I have rather mixed feelings about his work. 
Normally, I like to praise historians who write clearly, precisely, and 
compellingly and deride those who do not.  Gay is a historian that makes me
pause and re-evaluate my criteria.  He is an extremely readable historian--
his works sometimes read more like well-crafted fiction than historical
research.  However, I sometimes can't help but wonder whether his clear,
catchy, and persuasive prose isn't just a little bit _too_ sleek.
	His scholarship is sound and many of his points are insightful, but
I am led to think that he is more concerned with style than with substance.
Sometimes I think he oversimplifies things, leaves out nuances, and even
makes over-reaching generalizations simply because he has a catchy or clever
phrase that he wants to use.  
	All in all, I would rather write more like Gay than like, say, Derinda
Outram (the author of _The Body in the French Revolution_).  But, Gay's
incredibly sleek prose is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.   As I said before,
I dislike academics who use ponderous, unwieldy, and obfuscating prose.  I
like to think that even the most complex, nuanced argument can be made
using clear and simple language without having to simplify the argument.
Gay uses clear and simple language, but he also simplifies a bit too much
for my taste.  I still would like to think that there is a middle ground that
one can occupy--  where one can write about complex things in simple language
without sacrificing any of their complexity.  


	Jim C. <jchokey@leland.stanford.edu>

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,rec.humor,talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 02:38:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.072753.3908@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <sbuckley.714031443@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>>>Oh really?  So creating something automatically gives one the right to
>>>do anything at all with the created!  Really, if we managed to generate
>>>life in the lab, would you then conclude we could do anything we wanrted
>>>with it?  Or would you say that we should treat it like any other living
>>>thing?
>>
If one goes by the definition that "creation" means making something out
of nothing, it becomes very hard to visualize man ever creating anything,
no matter how advanced she becomes.
-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     hfsi!ata@UUNET.UU.NET
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet.uu.net!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
From: lm8637@tnessd.sbc.com (Lou Montgomery (214+464-1049))
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Robert Anton Wilson
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:50:04 GMT
Organization: Southwestern Bell

In article <uHTNPB1w164w@amigans.gen.nz> ed@amigans.gen.nz (Edward Kitto) writes:
>Dartanyan the Witchling writes:
>
>>    As long as we are on the subject -- What are the general
>>opinions expressed here regarding the use of recreational
>>pharmaceuticals, particularly psychedelics, and most notably
>>lysergic acid diethylamide, in ritual.

    [Sound and responsive narrative deleted.]

>
>Sorry to sound so negative but what you are considering is
>
>extremely dangerous.
 ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^

         If I may interject; Take it from one who KNOWS, Edward has
     given "extremely" excellent advice.
         My unsolicited advice? Run like HELL Witchling. The trap
     has been set. Do not enter.


                                           Later......



Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: msmorris@watsci.waterloo.edu (Mike Morris)
Subject: Re: The Literary Canon
Organization: University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:21:11 GMT

                              Wednesday, the 12th of August, 1992

Barclay explained to Crawford that she was probably had been reacting
adversely to Crawford's consistent use of the third person.

Mark Taranto explained that we often use the third person
around here.

Mark also noted:
  Several of the r.a.b.id address another in the second person.  Mike Morris
  does this frequently, for example.  I've always found this a little odd,
  as if I am reading something private.

I guess now that you mention it, Mark, I suppose I do use second person
alot. Probably because I like it informal, personal, and personable.
But, there is a bit of a schizoid effect. Because one always knows
one is writing in public, and so I said ``Mark also noted:'' above,
rather than ``Mark, you noted:'' as I might in email. So when I
do use second person in posting, I feel like I'm always
shifting to it from out of an overrarching third person.

I wonder what people might think of the flame potential of using third
person v. second? Crawford I think was writing with an almost formal
politeness, pointing to places where he was agreeing with Barclay before
turning to discuss disagreement, and yet Barclay reacted negatively to
the formality of seeing herself in third person. On the other hand, I
might fear that second person strikes closer to home, as it were. If
there's disagreement, there might be more temptation to resort to
being stagey with personal insults.

                Mike Morris
       (msmorris@watsci.uwaterloo.ca)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The Literary Canon
From: john@csufres.CSUFresno.EDU (John Q. Generic)
Date: 15 Aug 92 21:14:59 PDT
Organization: California State University, Fresno

In article <JMC.92Aug15184604@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>I will repeat my much earlier contention that there is a world culture
>today that is predominantly founded on Western culture.  Western
>culture itself is partly founded, before say 1450, on non-Western
>cultures, but until say 1950 ran autonomously.  Therefore, Western

What about the massive interest in the East that drove exploration
during the first half of the period you mention?  Are you denying any
influence from the New World?  I think autonomous is too strong of a
word. 

>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>
I agree with your .sig file. 

--
+----------------------------+   ||| | || |   
| -John  (The Generic John)  |   ||| | || |   
| john@csufres.csufresno.edu |   ||| | || |   
+-----------"Moo"------------+   666 1 13 0   
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.written
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The Literary Canon
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:30:44 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

On the issue of slave narratives--perhaps we should cast our nets a little
wider. The black populations of Latin America were always large and often of
critical influence...surely someone in the black Republic of Palmares, in
Brazil, must have written about that extraordinary place. Or the
English-speaking blacks who settled the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua...did you
know that Pizarro nearly blew the conquest of Peru when the Incas had him and
his buddies holed up in Cusco and set the roof of his house on fire? A black in
the Spanish company put the fire out. Too bad he didn't just say, "Quema, bebe,
quema!" and let history take a different course... :)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books