HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nicolas@stam.nl (Nico Veenkamp)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom
Subject: Re: Film/video room
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 13:04:56 +0100
Organization: Stam Tijdschriften bv, Rijswijk, The Netherlands

In <1992Dec31.200527.15037@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>I see little point
>in a video room that runs Star Wars or the Back to the Future videos, or
>for that matter anything that you can get in a typical video store.

>Today, if there is to be a video room, it should concentrate on the
>obscure -- what is not found in video houses. 

I agree there Brad. I try to run a videoroom with as many unknown
and old stuff as possible. Especially because in Holland the old
and the wierd has almost never been seen. 

On the other hand though people still want to see the classics like
Star Wars so why not go for a mix of old and relatively new and shorts
like Bambi meets Godzilla. (I have never seen that one). So a 
24 hour programming should be able to cope with all of this.


-- 
      *================================================================*
      |  Nico Veenkamp	        | You write, we publish                |
      |  Stam Tijdschriften bv  | -------------------------------------|
      |  P.O. Box 235           | Internet : nicolas@stam.nl           |
      |  2280 AE  Rijswijk      | FidoNet  : 2:281/1.7                 |
      |  The Netherlands        | BIX      : nicolas                   |
      *================================================================*
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: KSRobinson _Red Mars_... When?
Date: 12 Jan 1993 18:50:53 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan12.154136.22792@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>  
ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
> A full review will follow eventually, but I would say you could  
read it
> now.  While there's clearly room for more after the end, I think  
RED
> MARS stands sufficiently on its own.  (Of course, I think KSR's  
stuff
> is the bee's knees, so this is only MHO.)
> 
The "bee's knees"?

One note on Red Mars (which I'm reading now, by the way): it
is eligible for the Hugo THIS year (at SF, for the year 1992), not
next.  The British version came out a couple of months ago.  
So, Hugo nominators in the US: ignore the 1993 copyright
in the book. This one belongs on this year's ballot, not next
year's.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Subject: Re: THE GRIPPING HAND by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:12:45 GMT

Alexandra_Haropulos.ADFMcLean_CSD@XEROX.COM:
>I'm afraid I don't understand the reference to "Heinleinesque speeches about
>sex and morality" and "1950's sexual mores" in the same breath.

There are two tie-ins, both relevant.

a) When sf readers say "just because character X does/says Y, doesn't mean
that the author believes/condones/advocates it", the odds are they are
talking/arguing about Heinlein.  A reference to Heinlein is often a shorthand
for this whole line of argument.

b) There is a strong tendency to consider a book dated if it portrays a
society of however many centuries from now as being like that of the 1920s
(or 30s or 40s or 50s) rather than like that of the 1980s or 90s.  Heinlein
made the point that this is a naive attitude.  (Of course, there *is* a
difference between a book in which the authors have *chosen* to portray a
society with mores we regard as regressive and a book in which the authors
just assumed their own mores to be universal.)

>My problem with Niven/Pournelle, as evidenced in LUCIFER'S HAMMER and MOTE IN
>GOD'S EYE, is that they always manage to torture or torture/murder women in
>these books with a little too much loving detail.

MOTE?  You must have read a different edition than I did.

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

  The surface of the strange, forbidden planet was roughly textured and green,
  much like cottage cheese gets way after the date on the lid says it is all 
  right to buy it.--Scott Jones


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: The Gripping Hand
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:31:27 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <j5!39a-@rpi.edu>, by kasprj@isaac.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak):
>  Horace Hussein Bury was a slimy individual who just happened to be
> an Arab.

...who just happens to be the only prominent Arab in the book (do I
err here?) and certainly is the most slimy individual in it.  You're
missing the point here.

> Hey, welcome to the world of multiculturalism! If he'd been
> Greek, would you argue that the book was offensive and demeaning to
> Greeks?

Actually, why not?  If there is one character of type X in a book, and
that character is described as thoroughly Y, whereas no others in the
book behave like Y, then, yes, the assumption that their being non-X
has bearing on the matter will be there in the background, whether you
are aware or not.  It does not even mean the author was aware of it -
he may have just thought he created a well-rounded, complete character
that "fitted".

Actually, I realize the problem that every time you portray some
fictional person as particularly bad, some reader will recognize
traits of *some* group in that person and assume that group is being
targeted.  But this will happen easier if the association between
those traits and the group, wrong or not, is or was widely held.  And
the notion of Arabs as slimy individuals is not all that alien to
western literature (no, dammit, I'm not being PC here.  I'm completely
convinced that every culture on Earth has the same kind of problem, if
not much worse).  It's a sad fact that if a topic is sensitive, a
small stimulus will suffice to bring it up.  But it's also true that
if the trend exists, a small indication may indeed indicate something.
First prove that Niven and Pournelle can really deal with
"multiculturalism" before you rule that possibility out.  Personally,
if I look at Oath of Fealty or Lucifer's Hammer, I'm not convinced.  I
don't know the rest of their common works except for Inferno, which
certainly doesn't fit.

(I can't believe that I'm here, looking as if I argued that Niven and
Pournelle are a pair of Arab-or-whatever-degrading misogynists - I'm
not.  But those counterarguments just don't cut it.)
-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: abl@cybill.inesc.pt (Antonio Leal)
Subject: Re: Heinlein - Politically correct?
Organization: INESC - Inst. Eng. Sistemas e Computadores, LISBOA. PORTUGAL.
	<1ik53bINNjkj@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
	<ABL.93Jan8201842@cybill.inesc.pt>
	<1ikvvtINN17e@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:04:25 GMT


ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig) writes:

   Also, try reading the "History and Moral Philosophy" lessons with a view
   to current events in Yugoslavia, and tell me wether "ethnic cleansing"
   would be justified under these principles.

abl@cybill.inesc.pt (Antonio Leal) writes:

   Any point in particular ? 

ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig) writes:

   "All wars are the result of population pressure" sounds a bit like that
   [...]

I see what you mean, but I'd point out that a diagnostic is not a moral
justification.  The moral decision is that one's growth should be done
at the expense of another.  Usually someone's moral fortitude (if any)
breaks down, and excuses are conjured.  Unpleasantness follows.

That Heinlein didn't believe in pacifism, it's obvious.  That he also
didn't advocate agression, I think it's clear.  He did point out that
survivors have to successfully resist agression, and humans _were_
the nastiest animals around.

--
Antonio B. Leal		| IST / INESC
+351.1.310 0300		| R. Alves Redol 9, 1000 Lisboa
abl@inesc.pt		| Portugal
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: steinarb@idt.unit.no (Steinar Bang)
Subject: Re: Dilvish: Zelazny's other Fantasy
Organization: Norwegian Inst. of Tech./University of Trondheim, Trondheim,
	Norway
	<1993Jan8.071741.21561@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
	<1993Jan8.081330.27447@netcom.com>
Date: 8 Jan 93 11:26:45

> qvortrup@inf.ethz.ch (Michael Qvortrup) sez:
>>I am getting curious. Could somebody please tell me where I can find
>>these stories? Are they novels or short stories?

>>>>> To which dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) replies:

> "Dilvish, the Damned" and "The Changing Land", two of Zelazny's
> lesser efforts, both books out of print (I think) but not hard to
  ^^^^^^...hmm,...:-)
> find.

"lesser"? I've always thought it was some of his better stuff...:-)
Oh Well! Tastes differ. The books are actually collections of short
stories and novellas orginally published in magazines (I think, I
don't have the books at hand so I can't check). 

- Steinar
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: charles@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Charles Jacob Cohen)
Subject: Re: Heinlein - Politically correct?
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:41:50 GMT

In article <6287@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>From article <ABL.93Jan8201842@cybill.inesc.pt>, by abl@cybill.inesc.pt (Antonio Leal):
> 
> [Haldeman's Forever War did have mixed outfits;  then, over the centuries,
> first homosexuality became the moral standard, and then Earth became the
> province of a single "perfect" genotype, cloned a million fold.  That's
> probably an object lesson ;-]
>
>Could you elaborate on that?  Basically, I'd say it proves Haldeman
>was more flexible in his assumptions than Heinlein was.  Nothing in
>that book says the trend is inevitable.  Nothing in that book suggests
>that enforced homosexuality (quite as repulsive as enforced
>heterosexuality, and indeed portrayed that way) has anything to do
>with mixed combat units.

I don't think (IMHO) it proves that Haldeman was more flexible in his
assumptions than Heinlein was. It just proves that they extrapolated
their modern times in different ways.  Homosexuality wasn't as open
during RAH's Starship Trooper's time as it was when Haldeman wrote
The Forever War.  And both are equally valid predictions of what the
future could be, and that doesn't mean that either of them is what
the authors would *like* the future to be. - Chuck


-- 
"I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense,
reason, and intellect, had intended for us to forgo their use." - Galileo
"I'm an engineer, not a dictionary!" - Me
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From:  (David Ingham)
Subject: Re: Simmons' Shrike (spoilers)
Organization: Beer R Us
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:16:24 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.written

In article <jvessey.726348348@husc.harvard.edu>, jvessey@husc11.harvard.edu
(Jonathan Vessey) wrote:
> 
> Having just read the _Hyperion_ series (and thought it was great), I 
> still have one question: did he ever deal exactly with just what the
> Shrike was? I know that it was a creation send backward by the Core's
> AI to attract Empathy by causing pain. Did he ever (in the book somewhere
> that I missed or elsewhere) mentioned more specifically what it was? I'm
> assuming it was a machine creature of some sort, but it seemed to have so
> many varied powers and abilities that it would be interesting to know exactly
> how Simmons envisioned it (or if it was just sort of an entity that could
> do whatever Simmons thought necessary to further the plot). I hope this 
> makes sense, and I realize that there's probably no firm answer out there,
> but -- even though the books were great -- I still found myself wondering
> exactly what the damn Shrike was/could do and how it was created.
> 
> Jon
> 
> -- 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
> Jon Vessey -- jvessey@husc.harvard.edu
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I also enjoyed both books, but while the first books was one of the best I have read in a while, I though the second was just ok.  It was such a let down that he didn't really explain things.  

For example:
1: Why was the Kassad (sp? you know the military guy) so important anyway,
he fought some battle but why did it need to be him?  The battle didn't
seem important to the story.  
2: What the heck were the time tombs anyway and why did they need to go
backward in time?
3: Did I miss something or was the Yeats guy just there so Simmons could
use a different way to narrate the story (i.e Yeats telling it to someone)?

Oh well, maybe I should just re-read them both.... 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: F&SF, Asimov's
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 09:51:17 GMT

In fact, while Analog has traditionally had the largest circulation of
the digests, I think Locus reported that of late they have been back and
forth, with Asimov's leading on a couple of surveys.

Of course, Omni and Playboy, which also publish SF, far exceed either of
them.   SF Age's grand plan is to exceed them soon as well.

Analog has the hard SF market to itself, while Asimov's shares the softer
SF market with other large magazines such as F&SF.

Of course, no magazine is entirely pigeonholed, and each one has published
stories that vary far from whatever theme they loosely hold to.

The Hugo voters have certainly been following Gardner Dozois' tastes most
of all.  Even Analog's winners, like Barrayar, do not match the mold
of "An Analog Story" if there is such a mold.  I'm sure that Dr. Schmidt
simply couldn't turn a book like Barrayar down, whether it had focus on
a scientific problem or not.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: jet@boxer.nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend)
Subject: sf writers on tv (was Re: William Gibson's Most Famous Quote Ruined By Technology...
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation, NASA Ames
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:03:22

"elf" == Elf Sternberg <elf@halcyon.com> writes:

elf>    You know what the color of television, tuned to a dead
elf> channel, is in the future?

elf>    Clear sky blue.

Not always.  Even within a manu, the color isn't consistent.  My Sony
27" ('bout 8 months old) goes to a *really* nice video black.  My Sony
SLV-R5UC (S-VHS deck) goes to a color, but *you* get to choose which
one: nice sky blue, far-too-bright-green, or really-amazing-hot-pink.

ObWrittenSF:  Did anyone catch the *amazing* line-up on RAVE's show
about "sci-fi"?  Ballard and Octavia Butler on the *same* show.  I
was stunned to see her interviewed (she's brilliant, IMHO) along side
folks like Silverberg, Gibson and Ballard.  Does she have a big
following in the UK (it was a BBC or ITV produced show).


--
J. Eric Townsend --  jet@nas.nasa.gov -- 415.604.4311 (DoD# 0378)
"It is the cunning of form to veil itself continually in the evidence
of content.  It is the cunning of the code to veil itself and to produce
itself in the obviousness of value." -- Baudrillard
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: mueller@b30news.b30.ingr.com ( Phil Mueller )
Subject: Re: SF starter kit
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:49:38 GMT

In article <1ic97sINN5jt@agate.berkeley.edu> chuahl@ocf.berkeley.edu (Chua HakLien) writes:
>A friend of mine recently asked me for 7-10 books that would give a
>good overview of science-fiction. I haven't really read that much SF,
>but managed to comb through my memory to suggest these titles to her:-
>
>_Dune_, by Frank Herbert. SF as an anthropology of the amazing. =)
>
>_Foundation_, by Isaac Asimov. Had to include the good doctor somewhere...
>
>_Neuromancer_, by William Gibson. As an intro to the cyberpunk genre.
>
>_Stranger_In_A_Strange_Land_, by Robert Heinlein. 
Instead of SiaSL, _The_Moon_is_a_Harsh_Mistress_

>
>_Flowers_For_Algernon_, by ??. SF as an exploration of the human psyche.
                            Daniel Keyes.

_Nine_Hundred_Grandmothers_ by R.A. Lafferty.

>I also suggested she pick up _The_Essential_Ellison_, and a Connie Willis
>anthology. 

It does seem to be a little light on shorter works.  How about
_Neutron_Star_ by Larry Niven.

-- 
Phil Mueller                  Telephone:  (205) 730-3231
Intergraph Corporation        FAX number: (205) 730-3453
Mailstop: GD3000              Internet: mueller@b30news.b30.ingr.com
Huntsville, AL 35894-0001     UUCP address: bogus.dont.use
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: Heinlein - Politically correct?
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:58:20 GMT

In article <1ik53bINNjkj@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de writes:
>In article <1992Dec24.180756.24259@genie.slhs.udel.edu> nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>
>>I think it might be fair to say that Heinlein falls somewhere in the
>>middle range on PCness, for whatever that's worth. I will say that there
>>are some writers I used to like that I've stopped reading because I can
>>no longer put up with the way they write about women (Anthony and 
>>Zelazny), but Heinlein has managed to stay off the list.
>
>My rule of the thumb is:  If you stay clear of anything involving
>Lazarus Long, you'll be ok.
>
>As far as PC goes:  Where are the women in Starship Troopers?  Were they
>ALL unfit for infantry duty, so that not a single one could make it into
>a base camp of 10000 recruits?  Sounds a bit suspect to me...
>
As I said, Heinlein is middling--there may not have been any women infantry,
but there were women starship captains, and that's good enough for me. 

>Also, try reading the "History and Moral Philosophy" lessons with a view
>to current events in Yugoslavia, and tell me wether "ethnic cleansing"
>would be justified under these principles.

Good question--I think that the idea of infinite expansion of population
being the safest strategy is one of the most dubious ideas in Heinlein--
I prefer the evolution of cooperation idea that the safest move is to
start by cooperating.

Nancy Lebovitz
nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Women in Starship Troopers (was Re: Heinlein - Politically correct?
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:45:48 GMT

kasprj@operators.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes:

>In article <1ik53bINNjkj@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>, ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig) writes:
>|> As far as PC goes:  Where are the women in Starship Troopers?  Were they
>|> ALL unfit for infantry duty, so that not a single one could make it into
>|> a base camp of 10000 recruits?  Sounds a bit suspect to me...

> One thing that Heinlein understood was that men and women are _not_ the
>same, and are better at different things. Almost all of the starship 
>captains were women in the setting of _Starship Troopers_. Still, I do
>find it rather hard to believe that Johnny Rico would meet zero female
>MI's. Perhaps the vast majority of women weren't fit for MI duty, but 
>surely there would be a few who qualified.

What seems to be overlooked is that Rico wound up in the MI because
he wasn't qualified for anything else - not even the K9 corp!

Now this could have been the assigning sargent's sense of humor
(totaly useless, put him in the MI), and it could have been a
realistic evaluation of a romantic idealistic youth.

As to the 'Superiority of American Culture' - when the book was
written the author (and editors) knew that anything less was not
sellable. Again - in other stories it definately isn't the 
America I grew up in (Which one had the boys wearing hats at
dinner because it was the mores of the time?).

On the question of the ethnicity of the characters: who cares?
Those who buy books using evaluation parameters with plot and
story down on the list.  Yeah - Manny was 'dark' but he was
culturally a Loonie: Australian Ruskaya frontier mix.  He's
the most ethnic of Heinlein's main characters.  On the other
hand - most of his protagonists are drawn in such wise that
the average reader could identify with them.  If most of the
readers are white juvenile males (his juvenlies were wrtten with
them in mind) - well, they have the cash.  And if there is any
other reason to write - the claimant is fooling themselves.

my two cents.
chus
pyotr

-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Next Month's Panel: Us and Them - Eliminating Them.
America: how Dan Quayle spells 'amerika'.
EOF
-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Next Month's Panel: Us and Them - Eliminating Them.
America: how Dan Quayle spells 'amerika'.
EOF
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith)
Subject: Re: Review Of The Gripping Hand
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:39:26 GMT

In article <726713445.AA04746@tdkt.kksys.com> David.Dyer-bennet@f0.n2492.z0.tdkt.kksys.com (David Dyer-bennet) writes:
>
>The Gripping Hand takes place about 25 years after Mote; 25 years ago
>in our society, some people had detected a women's rights problem
>(and there had been episodes of it being noticed and worked on back
>in the 30's that were quite significant).  We've advanced some today.
>On the other hand in Mote it didn't seem to be promoted as a societal
>problem; a couple of individual characters perceived it as a problem,
>but there was no indication that it was an issue in society at large.
>That attitude seems (so far) to carry straight through in the next
>book.  I suspect that that is also what bothers people; Sure, society
>could be that way.  But if a few individual characters have perceived
>it as a problem, shouldn't it be an issue in a larger sense in
>society?  Surely the only two people who notice aren't the ones we
>meet in the book?
>

Twenty-five years?  These are authors who routinely cast their politics
over _millenia_.  You are incorrect in your belief that women's rights as a
concept came into being in 1967, or even 1930.  Individual thinkers, often
powerful women, have attempted to raise it as an issue probably since the
dawn of time.  Certainly it's not difficult to find proto-feminist writings
in the Middle ages.  As a comparison, search for the earliest anti-slavery
writings you can find, and then realize that slavery was in existence in the
West (well Russia) until the 1890's, and exists in parts of the Third World
even today.  Twenty-five years is almost nothing in the history of the
world. 

Niven and Pournelle are pretty consistent in their belief that societies 
do not advance.  They change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the
worse, but always in response to temporary environmental factors and never
because they are heading for some sort of global optimum.  The Pak and the 
Moties are prime examples of this, maintaining stable societal cycles over
geological time spans.  The Kzin were similarly stable until the Puppeteers
found them.  Human societies in N/P's writings also show this stability,
often cycling through forms that those with shorter time scales view as
obsolete.

We live in a period of rapid technological change.  It has lasted a little
more than three hundred years.  Unless Vernor Vinge is right, this period
is _temporary_.  To accomodate these changes, we have had to change our 
social mores quite rapidly.  This has created the illusion of progress.
Niven and Pournelle seem to like playing with the idea that this illusion
is false.

-- 
Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
Department of Surgery                       dave@alex.bsd.uchicago.edu
They cut, I hack.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written