HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mfterman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Mutant for Hire)
Subject: Re: Who killed SF???
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu (Mutant for Hire)
Organization: Mutant for Hire, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:29:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.042013.16802@nwnexus.WA.COM>, elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>   Personally, one of the things that "killed" SF is the simple
>proliferation of technology.  We've split the atom and looked within to
>find the quark.  The "science FICTION" of H. G. Wells is no longer so
>unfathomable; we know, _in theory_, how to make nanotech work, we just
>ain't got the hardware to do it yet.  We know, _in theory_, what
>cyberspace _could_ look like, we just ain't got the hardware to do it
>yet.  But we're working on it.

Incidentally, this reason is one of the things that has severely damped
my SF reading list and shifted me over into fantasy. I've studied enough
physics that I have a hard time reading the clunkers of science that
appear in a large amount of SF. Especially any SF that takes place on
an interstellar level. In fantasy there isn't even any pretending that
the laws of science are obeyed which makes it easier for me.

And I agree that the bottom line of what is SF has been rising. Look at
it this way, _The Cuckoo's Egg_ would have been considered an SF book
only a few decades ago.

-- 
    Martin Terman, Mutant for Hire, Mean Ol' Top, Priest of Shub-Internet
    Disclaimer: Nobody else takes me seriously, why should you be the first?
mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu mfterman@pucc.bitnet terman@pupgga.princeton.edu
"Sig quotes are like bumper stickers, only without the same sense of relevance"
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Amber: Triumphant Conclusion?!
Date: 9 Jan 1993 05:36:30 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: uhad6.admin.uh.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1600@blue.cis.pitt.edu> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu writes:

[I deleted the original poster's stuff, which Sea Wasp was responding to]

> 	But, then, you're the same man who said that he hadn't seen a
> single piece of good fantasy since Tolkien. I felt that the Covenant
> Trilogies were original as hell, and that Mordant's Need was magnificent.
> (Both by S.R. Donaldson, but I don't like his latest...).

  Well, there are painfully obvious parallells between Covenant and LOTR, but
Donaldson took a different direction via characterization.  I loved them too,
but anyway...

> I think the first Amber series is the greatest thing Zelazny ever did.

  Tough call.  _Lord of Light_ is, IMO, his best indivudual novel.  Amber as
a whole may beat it, though.


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: arthurc@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Arthur Chandler)
Subject: Re: Piers Anthony: Victim of his own success?
Organization: California State University, Sacramento
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:04:35 GMT

  My 12 year old son and his friends liked *Spell for Chameleon* and the
Adept series very much. I think these tales are pretty well done; but I
think their level of sophistication (character depth, plot intricacy,
etc.) is suitable for middle school kids, and  not much beyond.
  I read his *God of Tarot* and found it just possibly the worst novel
by an established author I had ever read.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re:  Dilvish: Zelazny's other Fantasy
From: alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith)
Date: 10 Jan 93 01:09:10 GMT+12
Distribution: world
Organization: Muppet Labs

In article <C0Hwqq.MLy@root.co.uk> kieron@root.co.uk (Kieron Drake) writes:
>
>how about some real questions? Did anyone notice the dedication to
>William Hope Hodgson (among others) and the fact that one of the
>characters had that name as well? What did he steal from Hodgson?
>Where did the Hounds of Thundalos come from? Has anyone else slogged
>*all* of the way through "House on the Borderland"?

Yes; actually I quite liked it. Zelazny borrowed quite a bit from it in
"The Changing Land" -- the House itself, the pig-things, the trip through
time, the empty world of the distant future, the gods around the Arena...

The "Hounds of Thandalos" in TCL are based on Frank Belknap Long's story
"The Hounds of Tindalos" (note spelling) (it's in Volume 1 of "Tales of the
Cthulhu Mythos", edited by August Derleth, which I suspect is long since out
of print, alas).

--
...... 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)

--

Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.written:17429 rec.arts.sf.science:4056 sci.physics:22493 sci.skeptic:22301
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Davis Mechanics (was Re: John Woods Campbell)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 17:53:56 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

In article <GERRY.93Jan11101807@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>We have all (well almost all) agreed that the original question was
>silly because there is no such thing as an incompressible substance.

Well, I wouldn't call it silly; just self-contradictory.

>But is that true?  When a star colapses and becomes a black hole, what
>is the density of the material?  Isn't this theorectically a mass of
>nuclei smushed up against ecah other?  If so, how would one compress
>this any further?  Of course, it is probably meaningless to think
>about applying a force to such an object...

Because of the curvature of space in and around such
a thing, you can't really measure a "density."

Nuclei would be rent asunder, and protons and neutrons
would probably get squashed into quarks.  There would be
electrons (and if electrons, oxygen, which means air, so we
could breathe...oops; slipped into quayle-mode there for a
second...).

I guess the wavefunctions themselves could get squeezed
down to point-like objects (if they don't collapse ha ha :-)).

There's also the view that the innards of a black hole are
collapsing ad infinitum, and actually _decreasing_ in
density in its own frame, since space is being sucked into
the hole at a greater rate than matter is.  Inside the
hole, a particle observes the boundary to be receding; the
hole seems to be expanding; much like our own universe;
which now we can conjecture could be the innards of just
such a black hole.

What was the question, again?

				--Blair
				  "This posting needs more
				   CAPITALIZED words..."
From: cjd@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Christopher Dean)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Michael McCollum
Date: 7 Jan 93 04:34:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

Does anyone know if Michael McCollum plans to continue his _Antares_ series and
his _Life Probe_ series? Also, are there any other fans of his out there? I
don't see him talked about that much.
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Xenocide Sequel?
Date: 6 Jan 93 12:41:08
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1993Jan6.100145.26564@bnr.uk> <1433@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
	<jvessey.726348031@husc.harvard.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jvessey@husc11.harvard.edu's message of 6 Jan 93 19:20:31 GMT

In article <jvessey.726348031@husc.harvard.edu> jvessey@husc11.harvard.edu (Jonathan Vessey) writes:

> On a somewhat related note (and without wanting to spoil the plot for those
> who haven't read it, so I won't go into details): was anyone else out there
> somewhat disappointed by the ending of Xenocide? I really loved the first
> two books in the series and was waiting with baited breath for the third
> one. It was okay, but other than the fact that it concentrated too much
> (in my opinion) on the story of the girl (argh-can't remember her name),
> it seemed like a massive case of deus ex machina where OSC realized that
> there was no way out of the situation he'd written everyone into and just
> invented an easy way out.

In fact, I think that what Card did was even worse than that.  Again,
I won't go into details of Speaker for the Dead, but I think it's
rather clear what the two problems were at the end of that book.  And,
in fact, Card resolved one of those two problems by a deus ex machina
(almost literally a deus ex machina), and left the other one
unresolved.

Instead, Card set up new problems in Xenocide, and, again, resolved
some and left others unresolved.  (Just to be clear: by "resolved," I
do not mean "solved."  Some problems might not have solutions.  I mean
that some of these problems simply disappeared from the plot, and were
left hanging.)

I don't mind plot twists, and I don't mind when a story that you
thought was about one thing turns out to be a story about something
else.  I do, however, mind unmotivated twists.  I mind purposeless
complications introduced into a story for seemingly no reason other
than that the author got bored with the story that he was writing.

The part of Xenocide that dealt with Path was, for the most part, a
real, complete story; the part that dealt with Lusitania was a mess.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
From: ASATTERW@UCS.INDIANA.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: RE: SF-LOVERS Digest   V18 #1
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:56:56 GMT

signoff sf-lovers
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.books
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Forever War and Starship Troopers (was: Heinlein - Politically correct?)
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:27:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.194413.18935@ll.mit.edu> nanis@ll.mit.edu (Jeff Nanis) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.194109.10066@beaver.cs.washington.edu> barring@cs.washington.edu (David Barrington) writes:
>>Haldeman's "Forever War" had a coed infantry.  I recall hearing that
>>Heinlein liked the book, and a remark to the effect that "if Starship
>>Troopers were written today (1970's) the MI would be coed", but I don't 
>>recall who made the remark (don't think it was RAH).
>
>	Yes, but even "Forever War" isn't PC. Although it's still one of 
>my favorite books, it's never been the same for me since a female friend
>who had read it pointed out to me that the "mandatory promiscuity" orgy
>scene on Charon was essentially a gang rape. Shades of Tailhook, eh?

a.  I think that scene would be more accurately portrayed as 'mass
rape' (i.e.  they were paired off), and

b.  It's an interesting question of just who was being raped.  Not all
of the men were willing and some of the women were enthusiastic.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Amber: Triumphant Conclusion?!
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:02:40 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd3.cis.pitt.edu

In article <1993Jan6.151949.14365@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> (David Ingham) writes:
>> to the Amber series concluded nothing but the book.
>> A certain long-awaited reunion was pointless (except the teasers got my wife to
>> read the "new" Amber.  The plot was at best silly.

>There was a plot in this book???

	To each their own. I liked it. Sure, the new series hasn't been quite
as good as the original, but overall I've found it interesting, with some
neat new ideas and the usual Amber-complex plotline.

	I didn't expect a complete wrap-up, so perhaps that's why I'm not 
disappointed; after all, how much CAN you REALLY wrap up in a universe
that includes all possibility?


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: dstein@oak.math.ucla.edu (David Stein)
Subject: Re: John Woods Campbell
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 16:06:42 GMT

Bryant Durrell writes:
 
>>  Let it be clear though that in the post you quote I already explicitely
>>decided to drop my challenge of your view of Campbell and instead to
>>concentrate on the soundness of the specific definition of Campbellian SF 
>>you gave.
>
>This really isn't that complicated.  I'm not sure why you're
>making it so.

  Uh, given this post and a few previous ones, I'm beginning to wonder
if it is a custom among the net folks to turn their brains off before
they use the follow up command.

>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.

 - 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
Subject: Re: Who killed SF???
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Date: 9 Jan 93 13:44:00 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd1.cis.pitt.edu

In article <76306@apple.apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Crow's Friend Timmy) writes:
>frank@fnbc.com (Frank Mitchell) writes:
>>And I don't fault the chain stores for being mainly profit machines.

>I do, because they're the folks making it tough for the independent stores
>to survive. Of course, it's the readers who are in the chain stores buying
>TSR books and Conan instead of in the real bookstores buying decent books,
>but that's clearly not the reader's fault...

	Huh? Then just WHOSE is it? Do these "mighty chain stores" reach out
and drag in the reader, rip his wallet out of his pocket, and tie him to
a chair and make him read Conan?

	No. The readers make their own choices. Don't go trying to find
some kind of external demon to blame for the fact that other people have
different tastes -- ones that YOU don't happen to agree with.

>Yeah, because it's tough when all your customers are at the mall buying
>Stephen King at 35% off list.

	I happen to LIKE Stephen King myself, though I think Dean Koontz
is better with his plotlines.

>The recession is part of it. The stupiding of America is an even bigger
>part. All those 'horrible' books sell so well because that's exactly what
>the people our schools are churning out are asking for.

>You want to fix the bookstores? you want better, literary books in the
>stores instead of TSR, Gor and etc? Fix the schools, and bring up readers
>instead of folks who spend their money on TV, Beer, and Video games.

	Chuq, get off your high horse. I've read more than 99% of the 
people out there, and I don't drink beer, find Video games at best to be
temporary entertainment. And I happen to like a lot of the stuff you 
try to say could only be liked by a completely uneducated underclass.

	Schools don't make those kind of choices for you. Their influence
on the choices of readers is going to be minimal. The MEDIA has a larger
influence... and that, my friend, you can trace to the one single major
influence that almost ALL children have -- their parents. If your parents
use a television to babysit you, then you learn what your parents teach
you. If your parents read all the time, you probably start learning to
read. 

	And your choices in reading material just are NOT going to be
made by ANYONE. I read a lot of stuff that isn't stuff my parents read,
or that my friends read, or that was pushed on TV or... Come on. 

	PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES. Don't try to demonize some
exterior force in order to avoid the simple fact that people are responsible
for their own actions.


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: John Woods Campbell
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:13:22 GMT

In article <_5c=Dw@engin.umich.edu> rcj@engin.umich.edu (R o d Johnson) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.220727.11434@news2.cis.umn.edu>
>thornley@milli.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
>
>[On John W. Campbell:]
>
>>What would have been the effects if he had been shot by an angry
>>romance novellist in 1945?  1950?  1955?  1960?
>
>Now this, my friends, is an Idea.  "Alternate Campbells", the ultimate
>fan infra-dig alternate history anthology.  I hope someone gets to
>work on it, right after they finish "Alternate Elvises" and "Alternate
>Heinleins". 
>
>(Followed by "Alternate Leepers", of course.  :)

	Not  'Quantum Leepers'?

						James  Nicoll
From: dstein@oak.math.ucla.edu (David Stein)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: A sort-of apology to Mr. Stein
Date: 10 Jan 93 22:52:23 GMT
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department

Eric S. Raymond writes:
>In <1993Jan7.224832.17491@math.ucla.edu> David Stein wrote:
>>   All in all, I must say I would much rather see you going back to 
>> _Raymond's Reviews_ then playing a High Priest of SF.  Both the net
>> and you would gain, in my opinion.
>
>Part of the reason my reviews work is because I've studied the field in some
>depth and understand its history and development fairly well.  There is nothing
>"priestly" about either this or my defense of John Campbell --- a grasp of
>facts and evidence obtainable through sources I have cited repeatedly here
>would equip you for a debate I'd find really interesting.
>
>I'm disappointed in you, actually.  I thought you'd pick up the challenge.
>Instead, I'm hearing the typical academic forensic ploy of affecting
>"amusement" at one's opponent, and a bunch of petty sniping.  Screw it.  I have
>neither time nor interest in getting into what we native English speakers call
>a "pissing match" with you.  If that's your attitude, you can join Bret Jolly
>in my kill file.

  As you wish.

  Perhaps one of these days you will realise I was neither "affecting" 
amusement, nor doing any "petty sniping"--in fact, it was precisely the
petty sniping you did towards someone else in an article addressed to me
that I found objectionable.  But as you said, "screw it".  I'm rapidly
loosing interest in this exchange; it leads nowhere.

  I will make a mental note not to question your opinions.

 - 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: jroberts@morpheus.UWaterloo.ca (J. P. Robertson)
Subject: Re: Heinlein - Politically correct?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:53:04 GMT

In article <a6!39q-@rpi.edu> kasprj@operators.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak)  
writes:
> In article <MATT.93Jan8095814@physics2.berkeley.edu>,  
matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
> |> I'm not convinced that it's reasonable.  Is it realistic to
> |> imagine that 20th century white American culture is so compelling  
that
> |> every society in the world will adopt it?
> 
>  I'd say that the evidence today points even more strongly towards that
> conclusion than it did in Heinlein's day.
--
Bingo.

I wonder if Mr. Austern has been following events in Eastern Europe.
A rather striking vinication of Western philosophy, IMHO.

---
Jeff Robertson
4B Systems Design Engineering
University of Waterloo
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do  
nothing."
From: David.Dyer-bennet@f341.n709.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (David Dyer-bennet)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: ``the Gripping Hand'' Is Here!
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1993 10:18:22 -0600

 BHBJ> Prepare to be disappointed.  I spoke this weekend with someone who was
 BHBJ> asked to review it.  She found it barely worth reading.  Then she went
 BHBJ> back to *Mote* and re-read it.  Yup, it was a really good SF novel.
 BHBJ> Nothing wrong with her-- it's just that *The Gripping Hand* was dull
 BHBJ> and disappointing.

It's made Minneapolis as of yesterday.  I'm less than half-way done (taking it
easy) but so far I'm pleasantly surprised.  Of course, I was *expecting* to be
terribly dissapointed.

Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.written:17087 rec.arts.sf.science:3961 sci.physics:22203 sci.skeptic:22110
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Subject: Speed of gravity (Re: Davis Mechanics (was Re: John Woods Campbell))
Followup-To: sci.physics
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:48:14
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1992Dec30.031602.25533@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <18342@bcars664.bnr.ca>
	<C0Gq84.7Lz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <1ig87tINNc5i@spim.mti.sgi.com>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jackc@vermont.mti.sgi.com's message of 7 Jan 93 03:32:13 GMT

In article <1ig87tINNc5i@spim.mti.sgi.com> jackc@vermont.mti.sgi.com (Jack Choquette) writes:

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

This question comes up on sci.physics periodically.  A real expert
could doubtless tell you far more than you want to know, but I'll just
make a few comments:
	(1) Gravity is very weak, and it's hard to do precision 
	    measurements.  Thus nobody has measured the speed of gravity.
	    You can ask for the predictions of whatever theory of gravity
            you happen to believe in, but theories occasionally have a 
	    way of being wrong...
	(2) The most widely accepted theory, General Relativity, is quite
	    complicated.  You have to be careful to define the problem
	    carefully; the answer to this question depends on exactly
	    what question you ask.
	(3) In my opinion, the correct question is: "What is the speed
	    of gravitational radiation."  The predicted answer is that
	    gravitational radiation propagates at the speed of light.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written