HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Heinlein - Politically correct?
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:35:05 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd3.cis.pitt.edu

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

>My rule of the thumb is:  If you stay clear of anything involving
>Lazarus Long, you'll be ok.

	I *HOPE* you will make an exception for LL's first appearance, in
Methuselah's Children, one of RAH's best.

>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...

	First, I think it's made pretty clear that RAH considers using women
in combat a rather silly thing, but...
	Even today, with lots and lots of women in the service (which there
weren't when ST was written), the groups are kept segregated to a great
extent. It's not unreasonable to assume that in the ST universe, even if there
WERE female infantry units, they were trained and deployed in entirely separate
camps.


				Sea Wasp
From: prestonm@cs.man.ac.uk (Martin Preston)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Xenocide Sequel?
Date: 6 Jan 93 15:00:20 GMT

In <1993Jan6.092912.21804@mfltd.co.uk> sts@mfltd.co.uk (Steve Sherwood) writes:

>In article <TOMW.93Jan5214525@orac.asd.sgi.com>, tomw@orac.asd.sgi.com (Tom Weinstein) writes:
>|> In article <YAMAUCHI.93Jan5134817@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu>, yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>|> 
>|> > Does anyone know whether a sequel to Orson Scott Card's _Xenocide_ is
>|> > planned, and if so, when it is expected to be published?
>|> 
>|> I certainly hope not.

Seconded.

The first two of the series were nicely focused, but the last just got
ridiculous, "only 50 pages to go and i've ~still~ got to invent
instantaneous travel, discover the meaning of life etc etc".

Surprise surprise they did it all, oh and just to ensure the series didn't
end there copies of Ender and his sister appeared, sorry did someone
say "extraneous to the plot"?

However according to the new introduction to Speaker it seems there will be
at least a fourth book in the series.

Martin
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Martin Preston,        (preston@uk.ac.mcc.cgu)       | Computer Graphics |
|Computer Graphics Unit, Manchester Computing Centre, |    is just        |
|University of Manchester,                            |  a load of balls. |
|Manchester, U.K., M13 9PL     Phone : 061 275 6095   |                   |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: djdaneh@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Subject: Re: Hugo from... 
Reply-To: djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:17:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.155346.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.190325.22720@pbhyc.PacBell.COM>, djdaneh@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
>> ..."scientifiction" was too unwieldy a term even for a German.  
                    ^^^^^^
>Luxembourger.

Sorry, incautious writing on my part.  I didn't mean to imply that HG was
a German; only that "even a German" would find "scientifiction" an unwieldy
word.  It was a swipe at the accursed German language, not a reflection on
the origins of Gernsback.


			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.
From: hunt@oils.ozy.dec.com (Peter Hunt)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Covenant/LotR parallels? (Was Re: Amber: )
Date: 12 Jan 93 06:09:40 GMT
Reply-To: hunt@oils.ozy.dec.com (Peter Hunt)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1710@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
|> 	As I pointed out, though, the presence of a Ring wasn't unique to
|> Tolkien, and the NATURE of the rings was almost completely opposite. 
|>
|>	[ stuff deleted ]
|>
|> >	- Bad guy living in a remote and difficult-to-access tower.
|> 
|> 	Necessary for a Quest that he be remote. He'd hardly be living
|> in the middle of the town square.
|>
|>	 [ stuff deleted ]
|> 
|> >	- Orcs vs Ur-viles. Both are products of breeding programs by
|> >	  Foul/Sauron.
|> 
|> 	True enough, though you couldn't get much different characteristics.
|> 
|>	[ stuff deleted ]
|>
|> >	- Giants vs. Ents. While their backgrounds and physical appearances
|> >	  are different, their personalities, and the roles they played, are
|> >	  very similar, IMHO.
|> 
|> 	I'll actually give you this one -- I didn't notice it myself, but
|> it is pretty interesting as a parallel. 
|> 
|>	[ stuff deleted ]
|>
|> 
|> 				Sea Wasp


	Ho, Sea Wasp, your toxin is a little over-potent. I agree with all
your points; I think the similarities are superficial; they exist, but
the differences are far more significant than the similarities.

	Nor do I consider the similarities to indicate that Donaldson
ripped off Tolkien; my mentioning them should not be construed as a
criticism of the Covenant series. I'm just doing a comparison, not
passing judgement. Stay cool, I'm on your side :->.

	The Giant/Ent thing didn't really hit me until after I'd read
Donaldson, and then gone BACK and reread Tolkien.

	But all in all I consider Donaldson to be up there among the best
that SF/Fantasy has to offer. You couldn't read Covenant and think it was
a Tolkien rip-off - there's just too much orginal stuff there, and the basic
themes are completely different. In fact, in some ways I prefer Donaldson
to Tolkien in terms of technical skill and characterisation. The man can
write.

--
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Peter Hunt                | I'm digging in the dirt,                       |
| Networks and Comms (Aust) | to find the places I got hurt,                 |
| Digital Equipment Corp.   | to open up the places I got hurt.              |
+---------------------------+--------- Peter Gabriel, "Digging in the Dirt" -+
From: curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Author Polls: QUESTION
Date: 5 Jan 93 02:13:41 GMT
Organization: CS Dept. Snakepit - Do Not Feed.
NNTP-Posting-Host: cobra.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan04.205213.5510@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>People on USENET are notoriously non-participatory in polls and surveys.

Perhaps.

>Every time somebody posts a "survey for the whole net" or "If you read
>this, please mail me" they will get back perhaps 50 responses from 100,000
>readers --

Bwa.  USENET readership figures, as you know quite well, are notoriously
over-inflated.

I would be surprised if 10,000 people actually read this group.

c
From: 8912669@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA ("MICHAEL LONERGAN, MCMASTER, 525-0722")
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Barker, C.
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:02:52 GMT

I don't know if any of you people consider him an author worthy of review
in these forums of yours, but I'd be curious what commentary I could garner
on his works.  Too many of my friends recommend I drop everything to READ
all of his published works, for me to ignore the clarion call.

I hear his latest novel is more in the "fantasy" vein than the previous 
bloody works, and at least he's a more intellectual writer than the 
the tripemeister himself, Stephen King.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: barring@cs.washington.edu (David Barrington)
Subject: Re: Heinlein - Politically correct?
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 19:32:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.181750.16016@julian.uwo.ca> jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>	In  'Tunnel in the  sky',  wasn't the protagonist's sister
>a combat-experienced  soldier?
>
>							James Nicoll

Yes, she was in an all-female "Amazon Corps" which also reappears in "Cat",
I believe.  Of course, it's at least consistent to argue that coed units are
disruptive of morale while believing that either type of single-sex units are
not.

My favorite quote on this was the suggestion that Tailhook, etc., shows that
heterosexuality is incompatible with military order and discipline and thus
that _only_ gays should be allowed in combat (cf. Alexander, etc.).

Dave MB






Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: louzon@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Louzon ronald g 410-765-4049)
Subject: Re: KSRobinson _Red Mars_... When?
Summary: hardcover, softcover
Organization: Johns Hopkins Continuing Professional Programs
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:15:51 GMT

In article <C0Jtpx.JMr@panix.com> pnh@panix.com (Patrick Nielsen-Hayden) writes:
>mkr@fid.morgan.com (Mike Rosenberg) writes:
>
>>but just try to find it in hardcover...i have been to 6 major bookstores in
>>new york city. not one had the hardcover. only one admitted that a hardcover
>>even existed. i'm afraid that the increasing practice of releasing simultaneous
>>hardcover & trade pb editions is flawed. bookstores seem to have the opinion
>>that they may as well only order the pb, since no one wants to pay up for
>>a hardcover science fiction novel. i would be interested to here what our friends
>>in publishing think about this.
>
>What I think about this practice is that I'm not wild about it, and that
>there's a pretty substantial market for hardcover SF these days.  But it's
>always easy to back-seat-drive someone else's publishing program.
>
>-----
>Patrick Nielsen Hayden       :      senior editor, Tor Books
>pnh@panix.com * CIS: 72701,1344 * GEnie: PNH * opinions mine

I had the same problem.  However, I just ordered the hardcover from
Waldenbooks on a Monday and it came in the following Friday afternoon.
Haven't read it though.  I'm debating whether or not to wait for the
trilogy to be complete like I am with Dave Duncan's A HANDFUL OF MEN or
to go ahead and start reading it now.  Time will tell.

As for the hard/trade cover question?  From recent postings in LOCUS, it
appears that Bantam is modifying their schedule to were they are cutting
back to 3 new books a month as opposed to 5 or 6 and soon will be dis-
continuing the hard/trade cover package.  They will either be hardcover
or trade, not both.  Some books like the new Zelazny/Sheckley book have
already been changed to just a trade version, no hardcover.  Bantam 
feels that the market just cannot continue to absorb the ever increasing
fight for shelf space and that all publishers need to cut back or they
will be hurting themselves.  They also feel that only publishing 3 books
a month is pleny since they are publishing such authors as Ian Banks,
Dan Simmons, Ian McDonald, etc. who take a while to develop new stories
which is why you don't see Bantam producing fantasy trilogy after 
fantasy trilogy.

Now back to that RED MARS book, do I read it now or wait?  Some 
decisions in life are so difficult!!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: pnh@panix.com (Patrick Nielsen-Hayden)
Subject: Re: Who Killed Sf???
Organization: fwa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:48:59 GMT

David.Dyer-bennet@f0.n2074.z0.tdkt.kksys.com (David Dyer-bennet) writes:

>I think it's rather worse than you describe.  Because of the great
>success of lots of SF and fantasy, *the expectations of the publishers
>have gone up*.  They're less willing than they used to be to continue
>to publish people who only sell 20,000 copies.  They have, in fact,
>contracted the same "bestseller syndrome" which has dogged mainstream
>publishing for years.  All the editors are off on a fantastical quest
>for the holy grail of publishing, a New York Times bestseller, and
>nothing else is of much importance.

Absolutely; that's why I _never_ buy anything by writers like, say, Pamela
Dean.  Wouldn't dream of it.  Probably get fired on the spot if I tried.

>Okay, so maybe I exagerate some.

Yeah, just a touch.

-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden * pnh@panix.com * CIS: 72701,1344 * GEnie: PNH


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Subject: Re: The Gripping Hand
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:12:16 GMT

BECKS@TAUNIVM.TAU.AC.IL (Sara Beck):
>...loyal fans of Niven and Pournelle may not want to read this.  

I'm not a loyal fan, but neither did I recognize "The Mote in God's Eye"
in your review.

>"The Mote.." was...offensive and demeaning to Jews and Arabs alike.

I wasn't offended.  But then, the only reference to Jews that comes
to mind was an opinion, from an Arab character, that Jews had great
influence and an anti-Arab bias.  One of the villains of the piece 
was an Arab who wasn't a good man or a good Moslem, but I can't speak
to the question of whether this is offensive to Arabs.  I'll grant a
certain triteness, but that's a literary sin, not a political one.

>It also had yet another example of Niven's quite extraordinary misogyny.
>...if EVERY alien species this writer can find in his imagination has either
>profoundly defective females, great threats in child-bearing, or both...

Many of Niven's 'known space' species have unintelligent females, true.
It's quite a leap, though, to call Mote "another example of...extraordinary
misogyny" because it features hermaphroditic aliens who can't control
their population.

>I intend to read this sequel, or any other book by N and P [not real soon]

I have the impression that if the book had contained undotted i's you
would have identified them as evidence of the authors' profound contempt
for the English language.  

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

   God helpe the man so wrapt in Errours endless traine  -- Edmund Spenser
From: jvessey@husc11.harvard.edu (Jonathan Vessey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Simmons' Shrike (spoilers)
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:25:48 GMT

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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: dstein@oak.math.ucla.edu (David Stein)
Subject: Re: John Woods Campbell
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 09:29:50 GMT


[On my alleged mistaking Verne/Wells/Huxley/Capek SF with pulp SF:]
>But in a sense you are.  You tried using them to refute the
>idea that Campbell raised the quality of writing in the
>SF genre.  

  I simply did no such thing.  

  I was very directly speaking of Raymond's definition of Campbellian SF.

>You on one hand say that Campell was not a pivotal influence
>on the field. Then, when someone says something like

  I did not say Campbell was not a pivotal influence on the field.
  Quote me to the contrary.
 
>"he raised the quality of writing in the genre" you reply by
>saying you never said he didn't.   Which is it?  If he
>raised the quality of writing in the field, he was a pivotal
>influence.

  Maybe, but this has little to do with my exchange with Raymond.

 - 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) - ===
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: thornley@milli.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: John Woods Campbell
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:07:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.040007.19098@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.130240.1991@math.ucla.edu> dstein@charon.math.ucla.edu (David Stein) writes:
>>  Second, the comparison does not prove that Campbell _did_ influence the 
>>  quality of SF decisively and positively.
>
>Actually, influence is a fuzzy concept.  Suppose I grant that Campbell was
>responsible for many positive things about science fiction today.  But suppose
>I also consider some of the things he brought to science fiction negative.
>How do I balance those off?  Does scientific accuracy count as much as human
>supremacy?  Can I trade you two real-world psi stories and an early Dianetics
>for one quantum of plot and characterization, like baseball cards?
>
Actually, some of the psi stories were pretty good, but I'll grant your
complaint about the European-American-culture human supremacy (to be a
bit more specific).  When I read Brin's _Startide_Rising_, it seemed like
a story Campbell would have loved, and I felt sorry that he was dead and
couldn't enjoy it.

Another question, perhaps more fruitful, is the contribution Campbell made
at various times.  During the 40s or so, he was a powerful positive force
with powerful negative influences.  The last Analogs of his editorship, 
however, had bad didactic short stories and were not as good as the magazine 
became when Schmidt took over.  The 50s are a different matter, with the 
rise of Gold's Galaxy and Boucher's F&SF.  He certainly didn't have the
same power to limit as he did in the 40s, but how much of a contributor
was he?  What would have been the effects if he had been shot by an angry
romance novellist in 1945?  1950?  1955?  1960?

DHT

Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.written:17314 rec.arts.sf.movies:9731
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Who killed SF???
Date: 9 Jan 93 13:22:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: blue.1602
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.written
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd1.cis.pitt.edu

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.  

	'Cause you're obviously a pretty sick puppy, Curtis -- though
I mean that in the nicest possible way.

	It WOULD make for a stupid series, though; such an ending would
contradict the thrust of both prior movies and ruin the effect. I don't
agree with the apparent attitude of some people which seems to hold that
dark makes better movies than light just BECAUSE it's dark.


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
From: sk2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Seth D. Kadesh)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: across realtime (was Re: Anarchy in S.F.)
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:25:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.8fHIVxe00WAtIg73kd
	<1993Jan7.192133.26526@cybernet.cse.fau.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

michaelb@cse.fau.edu (Michael Rogero Brown) writes:
> In article <1i68ggINNlu2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
> cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen) writes: 
> >
> >The story that comes between them, "The Ungoverned", (found in _True Names
> >and Other Dangers_) deals with it more directly.
> >
> ALL three of these works have been collected into one volume entitled
> _Across Realtime_ published by Baen Books recently.

i just purchased _true names_, and prior to reading "the ungoverned", i
re-read _the peace war_.  other than the fact that the two stories take
place in the same universe, i saw no connection between the two.  in
addition, what i remember of _marooned in real time_ has little in
common with "the ungoverned" (other than the character will).  there
doesn't seem to be any continuity between "the ungoverned" and the two
novels.  am i missing something obvious?

  seth ---> sk2f@andrew.cmu.edu
and his amazing signature!
From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: John Woods Campbell
Date: 5 Jan 93 06:19:06 GMT

In <1993Jan3.065523.15176@math.ucla.edu> David Stein wrote:
>    Sounds reasonable, but it seems that Raymond, to whom I was responding, 
>    would go significantly beyond this opinion.  As I understand him he 
>    thinks Campbell had such a unique, lasting and revolutionary effect 
>    on SF as to redefine it into the form that we know today.

Correct.  And not merely as a matter of my opinion, but as the informed
consensus of the writers, critics, and readers who were there to see it happen.
The Campbellian revolution is about as well-established a fact as one ever
finds in literary history.  (This is one reason why I am refusing to debate
the matter on the level of opinion, instead referring you to sources.)

>                                                             And that
>    without Campbell important things that happened would not happen. 
>    It's the "Without Columbus we would not find the New World" argument.

Wrong.  Someone else might have done it.  It's even possible to argue that
someone else inevitably would have (I am sympathetic to this argument).
Neither observation detracts from JWC's greatness in the least --- unless you
also think Newton's lustre is dimmed by the effective certainty that "someone
else would have"?
-- 
					Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: smb@research.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Subject: Re: Who killed SF???
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:03:02 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1ii93mINN8s9@agate.berkeley.edu>, cozzlab@garnet.berkeley.edu () writes:
> In regards to (a), I have a question for Mr. Williams.  Is there any fantasy,
> recent or antique, that you do like?  Do you like any fantasy at all?

I can't speak for Mr. Williams, but speaking for myself -- yes, I like
fantasy, but I have a much lower tolerance for bad fantasy than for bad
SF.  Why, I couldn't say.  And for whatever reasons, the ratio between
SF and fantasy seems to have shifted of late, to my regret.  My consumption
of either is off sharply, for various reasons, but even when I want to find
something good I have trouble.  (Mumble -- I bought the hardover of ``The
Gripping Hand'' -- and even that was a Big Disappointment.)
From: David.Dyer-bennet@f0.n1599.z0.tdkt.kksys.com (David Dyer-bennet)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com