HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Diamond-hard SF
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:59:27 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

In article <1992Nov22.170328.20584@yang.earlham.edu> jessec@yang.earlham.edu writes:
>   So I have a major antagonism towards fiction of this sort.  Was 
>cyberpunk a reductively ideological fiction?
>   My short answer would be Nope.
>   My god, their harshest ideological criticism came from people like 
>Samuel R. Delany, who said that they *had* no ideology!  And even that was 
>too big a generalization, to my mind, to cover everyone affiliated with 
>that circle.  Sterling sets out the c'punk stance so well in the 
>introduction to *Mirrorshades*, where he says that the movement denies 
>utopias *and* avoids making jeremiads through dystopia.  Gibson and 
>Sterling don't preach in their fiction.  They don't offer solutions or 
>reductive formulas for understanding the world.  There *is* no cyberpunk 
>"ism"; those who've made the literature into a fashion trend have grafted 
>on the politics.  Who, in cyberpunk fiction, is a hero? What is the heroic 
>action that will solve everything? No one; nothing.  If that is not the 
>antithesis of reductive ideology, then tell me what *is*.

No, it's not the antithesis of reductive ideology.  The idea that there
cannot or need not be heroes is pretty durn ideological, to my mind.
"Denying utopias" is an ideological position.  The consistent vision of the 
world in _Neuromancer_ etc., coupled with the lack of moral judgment on 
that world, *is* an ideological statement.

So what is the antithesis of reductive ideology?  I think you'd have to
look for it in authors who are willing to accord a bit of truth, but not
absolute truth, to any ideology-- who have an eclectic and fantastic view
of the world, where because there is no dogma nothing can be completely
ruled out.  I'd tentatively offer some of R.A. Lafferty's stories as
exhibiting this condition.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,alt.cyberpunk
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Subject: Re: Diamond-hard SF
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:31:45 GMT

szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo):
>Characters and plot are the exemplar components of mundane fiction.  I do 
>not care to see them at all, unless they are important to the technology 
>or to the artistry of the story...

I think you're missing a point here:  If you're going to read a story
or novel that focuses on technology, wouldn't you rather it also be
well-written?  That's where characters and plot come in.

>* What are the best works in this diamond-hard style?

As you define diamond-hard science fiction, it seems that Golden Age
and pre-Golden Age science fiction was created with you in mind.

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

Roses red and violets blew
  and all the sweetest flowres that in the forrest grew -- Edmund Spenser
From: rmcgover@phakt.usc.edu (Rob McGovern)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: DRACULA
Date: 20 Nov 1992 18:44:02 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: phakt.usc.edu

In article <BxvG5n.3q1@ciss.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> root@ciss.DaytonOH.NCR.COM writes:
>
> Also if you like the vampire type books with a slight twist, try F. Saberhagen's
> series.  Three titles that come to mind are -Friend of the Family-, -The
> Holmems/Dracula File-, and -Thorn-.
> 

There's also _Dominion_ and _A Matter of Taste_  I personally think the
vampire stuff is Saberhagen's best writing.  Much better than the 
Berserker stuff, and less predictible than the swords books.  Just my
$.02.


Rob McGovern                 rmcgover@phakt.usc.edu
From: rsholmes@rodan.syr.EDU (Rich Holmes)
Subject: Re: What is Deckard (was Re: Are *YOU* Human?)
In-reply-to: frank@fnbc.com's message of Tue, 17 Nov 92 22:35:34 GMT
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 14:08:32 EST

In article <1992Nov17.223534.22029@fnbc.com> frank@fnbc.com (Frank Mitchell) writes:

>In article <1992Nov17.191001.22127@ugle.unit.no> oscar@Lise.Unit.NO (Rune  
>Aasgaard) writes:
>> In article <1ea0g0INN9er@gap.caltech.edu>, ojvind@chagall.cns.caltech.edu  
>(Ojvind Bernander) writes:
>> > Spoiler below:
>> > 
>> > In the recent (last month) release of the "director's cut"
>> > director Ridley Scott got it his way:  D is a replicant.
>> > The evidence for this was an added scene where D dreams of
>> > a unicorn.  In the end, D finds an origami (paper) unicorn
>> > on his floor, suggesting not only that the cop had been there
>> > and allowed Rachel to live, but also that he knows what
>> > D is dreaming, just like D knew about Rachel's dreams.

I think (*think*) you're reading too much into it. The cop is observed
several times earlier in the movie making origami animals (and I think
they were all unicorns). I interpreted that scene as meaning only that
the cop had been there.  The other implication may be correct but not
necessarily. BTW, that scene *was* in the original release if I
remember correctly.

>I'd recommend seeing it if you really like the movie and want to see it 
>without the %$#&@!@*@!#! voice-overs.  (Like I did.)  Otherwise wait for 
>video.

Second the recommendation. It was an excellent movie the first time
around, and far better the second.

>Also, Tyrell's explanation of Rachel's memory implants implied that they were
>relatively new and experimental; Deckard had been around awhile, as his first
>conversation with the police chief (M. Emmett Walsh's character whose name
>escapes me) implies.  Both these facts seem inconsistent with Deckard being an
>android.  

How do you KNOW Deckard was around awhile? He could have been
manufactured the day before. Rachel thought she'd been around awhile,
too.

Question, perhaps frequently asked: How many people (and creatures)
have eyes that are seen to glow in BR? At various times we see this
glow (of reflected light from the retina, we presume) in the eyes of
the android owl, Rachel, at least one or two of the escaped
replicants... and Deckard. Coupled with the fact that the test to
determine if a subject is a replicant involves pointing a device at
the eye, I find this rather suggestive.

All in all, I think the question of Deckard's replicanthood is still
left wide open in the Director's Cut, and that it should be -- knowing
he's a replicant, or isn't, would be far less thought-provoking.

I don't see, though, how he could be the "missing replicant", a
continuity glitch (?) Scott mysteriously failed to fix in this
version.

--
- Rich Holmes
"In general, the dance music of P.D.Q. Bach -- although we have no
 documentary evidence of this -- suggests that one of his legs was
 shorter than the other." -- Prof. Peter Schickele
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: farrell@coral.cs.jcu.edu.au (John Farrell)
Subject: Re: Stephen Brust's best
Organization: James Cook University
Date: 17 Nov 92 02:10:43 GMT

In <1992Nov10.011721.28438@reed.edu> jkiparsk@reed.edu (Jonathan Kiparsky) writes:
>Personally, I think The Sun, The Moon, and the Stars is far and away his best.
>Considering how good the Taltos series is, that's saying a hell of a lot. 
>After the Taltos books(I could rank them individually, but I'd have to take
>the time to figure out which was which)(I really liked 'em all) I'd put
>Pheonix Guards, and Brokedown Palace(depends on my mood, but they're close on
>the Taltos stuff) and then TRIH and Cowboy Feng's, both of which I found 
>distressingly mediocre. I also really dug Gypsy. In fact, aside from To Reign
>in Hell and Cowboy Feng's, I think I can recommend everything he's done.

  I haven't read Phoenix Guards or this Gypsy one, which I only just heard
about, but it seems my opinions are the exact opposite of yours! The Sun, the
Moon and the Stars was nice, but not very interesting. Brokedown Palace was
very boring indeed. Cowboy Feng and TRIH were both excellent. The Taltos
series started off excellently, but I am worries that it will get bogged down
as a chronicle of Vlad's marital problems.

Friendless, who would include Brust as one of his 5 favourite authors if he
            did that sort of thing. But there's no point having a static
	    favourite author if you can't read any more of their books, is
	    there? So rather than have a favourite author, I just have authors
	    who I intend to read more of in the future, and these include
	    Michael Scott Rohan, CJ Cherryh, Nikolai Gogol, Bruce Sterling,
	    UK LeGuin, Italo Calvino, and so on.
From: klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Stephen Brust's Best
Date: 20 Nov 92 10:07:54 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen


I like Phoenix Guard. It clears up a lot of points about how the
empire works.

Brokedown Palace makes no sense to me at all.

Klaus O K

P.S. Notice that the rule of the Thecla follows the rule of the Orca?
Think about it!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,alt.cyberpunk
From: root@ciss.DaytonOH.NCR.COM
Subject: Re: Diamond-hard SF
Organization: NCR Corporation - Dayton, OH
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:35:38 GMT

In article <DOOM.92Nov18004512@elaine6.Stanford.EDU> doom@elaine6.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Brenner) writes:
>
>As literary manifestoes go, I thought Szabo's "Diamond-hard
>SF" was a pretty good job.  It was very extreme, with lots
>of ringing phrases expressing disgust at the conventional,
>and so on... of course it probably doesn't hurt that I have
>some prejudices going in the same direction as his.  And
>maybe there aren't very many examples of it in existence, but
>this isn't a serious flaw for a real manifesto, but rather a
>challenge to the creative.
>
>By the way, I can't seem to find the place where he claims
>that SF should have *nothing* in common with conventional
>fiction.  I suspect you're misreading him, but I'm sure
>you'll be hearing more about that from him.
>
>I would have thought that this one concrete example
>would've made it clear what he was talking about:
>
>    For example: a poetic description of weird, original
>    psychoactive effects of a genetically engineered
>    aphrodisiac would be quite interesting.  The mere
>    unaugmented desire of character X to take character Y
>    to bed I could read about in other genres, or live
>    out in real life myself for that matter, which is
>    quite preferable to the fiction.
>
>So tell me, all of you folks who told him to give up and go
>to the engineering library, do you really think there's no
>point in trying to write fiction exclusively focused on
>human beings creating and reacting to the fundamentally new?
>And isn't it *different* if the fundamentally new thing is
>also fundamentally possible, a thing you might want to
>work for or against?
>
I agree with most of the replies to the original.  I thought sf was about
humans/aliens reacting to the new (social changes, radical new inventions,
etc.).  I also got the impression from the original posting that character
and plot development was not wanted.  That pretty much takes it out of the
realm of story-telling and gives you a hardware manual full of techno-babble.

As far as the -fundamentally possible-, where does one stop?  Much of the
early sf literature is full of -impossible- gadgets we take for granted
today.
From: pnh@panix.com (Patrick Nielsen-Hayden)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: ASH OCK - Christopher Hinz
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:42:58 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

The third book is called THE PARATWA.  The Hinz trilogy has been a
sleeper, only spottily available in the US, but all three books will 
have paperback editions from Tor in a year or two.
-- 
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
pnh@panix.com
From: banzai@apple.com (David Austin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Raymond Feist
Date: 17 Nov 92 03:07:05 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.written
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Nov16.161349.11324@cs.hope.edu>, rossing@cs.hope.edu (Eric
Rossing) wrote:
> 
> A friend of mine has heard that there's a new book out by Raymond E. Feist and
> wants to know if this is true, and if so, the title and whether it is part of
> Riftwar series or the Daughter/Servant of the Empire books.
> 
> Anyone know anything?  Thanks!
> 
> ---
> Eric Rossing        | "What are you afraid of, a fate worse than death?"
> rossing@cs.hope.edu | "No, just death!  Isn't that enough?!?"
> Hope College        |            Col. Mustard and Mrs. Peacock,
> Holland, MI   49423 |            Clue

Yes, there is a new book. It is entitled King's Buccaneer and is a stand
alone book like Prince of Blood was. It was quite good, and is set a bit
after Prince of Blood. It should be available in all major bookstores.

+-----------------+---------------------------------------+------------------+
|David Austin     | This is my opinion only, please don't | Home is where  
 |
|banzai@apple.com | blame Apple for my personal problem.  | you hang you
hat.|
+-----------------+---------------------------------------+------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,alt.cyberpunk
From: gamiddle@math.uwaterloo.ca (Guy Middleton)
Subject: Re: Diamond-hard SF
Organization: University of Waterloo Software Liberation Army
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:33:14 GMT

I must be missing something here.  Am I the only one who thought the original
article was meant to be satirical?

 -Guy Middleton, University of Waterloo		gamiddleton@math.waterloo.edu
		(+1 519 885 1211 x3472)		gamiddleton@math.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay)
Subject: Re: SF for kids and teens?
Organization: Smiley Abolition Front
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:57:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.202439.28443@netcom.com> solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay) writes:
>If you're open to fantasy as well as science-fiction, I'd suggest
>Le Guin's "Earthsea Trilogy": _A_Wizard_of_Earthsea_, _The_Tombs_
>_of_Atuan, and _The Farthest_Shore_. (The fourth book didn't
>measure up, IMPO.)

A self-correction (or rather self-ammendation):

If you want fantasy as well as SF, *for Eru's sake* include
Tolkien's The_Hobbit_! Fantastic for almost all ages. Accessible
to (in fact, written for) children, but with a lot of complexity
and surprises.

You may want to include CS Lewis's _Chronicles_of_Narnia_, but I
can't heartily recommend them. I know a lot of people who love
them, but I have two big problems with them: (1) The Christian
allegory is so thick you can cut it with a knife, and (2) Lewis
talks down to his audience. For these reasons, I haven't been
able to read Narnia since junior high, whereas I go back to
_Hobbit_ on a regular basis.
-- 
Andrew Michael Solovay    

"When angry, count four. When very angry, swear."
                --Mark Twain
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.written:15145 alt.cyberpunk:6049
From: kasprj@sage4a.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak)
Subject: Re: Shai'Hulud
Reply-To: kasprj@rpi.edu
Organization: The Big Wedge 
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:16:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.173206.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, howsonj@woods.ulowell.edu writes:

|> As our first motion I think we should try and get rid of these arrogant, 
|> racist, skinhead cyberpunks. I don't know about you but they are starting to
|> get on my nerves. THANX.
 
 Excuse me? Which arrogant, racist, skinhead cyberpunks are you talking 
about? I haven't seen any on this newsgroup.
------------------------------------------------------------------
     __  Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
 ___/  | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *| Sam Adams,Spaten# Life is too short #Hudson Lager,Beck's 
     \_| Pilsener Urquell#to drink cheap beer#Pete's Wicked Ale
      ====  e-mail: kasprj@rpi.edu or kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu
From: DrAllosaurus@cup.portal.com (Samuel DrAllosaurs Crider)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: New Hitchhiker's Book:  Reviews ...?
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 17:50:40 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

I asked about this a few weeks ago myself. Somebody made reference to an 
alt.fan.adams.douglas group butit doesn't seem to be available on either
of the newsreaders I have access too.

****SPOILERS******

I was very perplexed by MOSTLY HARMLESS. I'm not sure if the book was just
quickly knocked off for a quick handful of pounds -- or the whole novel
is working on some level I'm missing. Is it even meant to be read in 
traditional chronological order?

I guess a motivation in writing this book was to just finishing things off
rather permanently. But the last book was such a satisfactory ending, wrapping
up a lot of themes with what was basically a 'happy' ending -- though it did
not contradict the overal pessimistic humor of the series.

Arthur seemed to have largely escaped his "arthurness" through meeting
Fenchurch. Why then mercilessly snatch her away just to make Arthur suffer
again -- towards the goal of a final conclusion to that suffering?

I wonder if Arthur should have even been in this book? Zaphod was written
out after all -- why not just make Trillian the lead and be done with it?

One can't help but wonder what's gone on in Adams's life that might have
inspired such a grim twist on the series. of course a similiar question
comes up aboutthe cheerfulness of SO LONG.

I guess this isn't much of a 'review' -- but am am disturbed by this
book. The GUIDE had major impact on me when I first heard it (note the
'heard'). I'm bothered by what's eventually come of it....

By the way, has anybody heard the radio series that Adam's non-fiction
LAST CHANCE TO SEE was based on? Are tape available?

Dr.Allosaurus
drallosaurus@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Tim Powers, Deity extroidinaire
From: David Silberstein <DASBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 15 Nov 1992 22:30:37 EST
 27902@tms390.micro.ti.com><1992Nov06.094810.7094@clarinet.com><1jOJ9J#5wc22N95PB4T6hRyMbB3GrR4=esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <1jOJ9J
>
>> That may be my SF over fantasy prejudice (although Drawing is fantasy) but it
>> shows how much I like Powers to say I read his fantasies.
>
>Interesting point here, and another indicator of Powers's genre-busting style.
>I too prefer SF to fantasy, in general.  However, I consider Powers's work in
>general to have most of the virtues that I value in SF and don't generally
>find in fantasy --- like SF, it convinces primarily by good world-building, by
>an accretion of logical detail, rather than by whomping you on the noggin with
>fascinating archetypes (though it does the latter, too).
>
 In addition to creating a universe that is usually very consistent, I think
 Powers is also notable for the fact that he writes very tightly, that is,
 he will move the characters around in the world he has built just so far,
 and no more (maybe that's why this thread got started with that 'Powers is
 God' acclaim?). He doesn't give in to the temptation to continue any of his
 stories at all (even when we want to follow a character - whatever did
 happen to Ashbless after he rowed off singing the Beatles?), unlike some
 writers of science-fiction/fantasy (Who Shall Remain Nameless)(not that a
 continuing series is necessarily bad - just that Powers doesn't do series).

>I'd say there is thus a serious case for regarding Power's "fantasies" as a
>particularly dark, strong form of technology-of-magic SF (a subgenre which,
>historically, has usually been associated with humorous or satirical intent).

 The work that I feel is one of the best treatments of this sort is Greg Bear's
 _The_Infinity_ Concerto_/_The_Serpent_Mage_  ( one book split in two for
  publishing reasons). Bear is sometimes a little sloppy; a nit-picker
 might find some inconsistancies in this book, but nothing really jarring.
 He makes up for it by thinking BIG - to find the lacunae, you really have to
 dig. I recommend the above heartily nonetheless.

>This is not just semantic hairsplitting; it predicts that Powers's stuff in
>general should have a much stronger appeal than most fantasy to people whose
>basic allegiance is to hard SF of the traditional "puzzle-solving" Campbellian
>vein.  I know that I fit this description, and I suspect you do too.
>
>--
>                                        Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
--
 David Silberstein DASBC@cunyvm.cuny.edu
 " I am not now, and never have been, a member of the Sidhe"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: shen@cae.wisc.edu (Tan Shen Hsiao)
Subject: Any idea when sequel to 'Magic of Recluce' will be out?
Organization: Microwave Research Group, U of Wisconsin-Madison
Distribution: usa
Date: 16 Nov 92 08:22:15 CST
Originator: shen@hprisc-10.cae.wisc.edu

  On the last few pages of my paperback version of 'The Magic of Recluce'
  it states that the hardcover sequel would be out in August this year.

  Has anyone seen it yet? I believe it is called 'Towers of Sunset'.
  Checks with the local university bookstore and Waldenbooks have
  turned up empty.

  Thanks,
  Shen Hsiao

-- 
Tan Shen Hsiao                      |Internet:  shen@cae.wisc.edu
Electrical & Computer Engineering   |Bitnet: shen%cae.wisc.edu@WISCMACC.BITNET 
University of Wisconsin-Madison     | 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: librik@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David Librik)
Subject: Re: Asimov biography
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:48:34 GMT

mab@buphy.bu.edu (Michael Burstein) writes:

>I read the following in the November issue of Locus, on p. 8:

>"Stanley Asimov is editing Isaac Asimov's letters for publication. His
>autobiography, _I, Asimov_, has been postponed. Ralph Vincinanza is now
>agent for the Asimov estate."

Is this autobiography the one that Asimov had planned, to follow _In Memory
Yet Green_ and _In Joy Still Felt_?  I loved those books, and always hoped
Asimov would live to continue them.  I suppose the question is: did Asimov
assemble his third volume over time, so that it is as rich as the first two,
or was _I, Asimov_ a last-minute scribble, done when he realized he was dying?
The first two books are the best example of how a good writer can make a
fascinating story out of anything, including the day-to-day doings (told in
incredible detail) of himself.

- David Librik
librik@cory.Berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,alt.cyberpunk
From: eliz@ai.mit.edu (Elizabeth Willey)
Subject: Re: Diamond-hard SF
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
	<BxtJ4w.FDs@techbook.com> <1992Nov17.053145.3591@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:09:13 GMT


	>dstein@oak.math.ucla.edu writes:
	>I'm willing to read a so-so
	>written sf novel if it is full of original and startling ideas.
	and szabo at techbook.com adds:
	I second this, and go further.  Characters and plot are the
	exemplar components of mundane fiction.  I do not care to see them 
	at all, unless they are important to the technology or to the artistry 
	of the story -- and almost always these days the artistry of the story 
	is defecated upon by the introduction of mundane characters or plot 
	elements, polluting the potentially fertile vast tracts of the SF 
	landscape with the toxic reek of an inferiority complex to mundane 
	genres.

The recent cold fusion affair is diamond-hard science fiction by this
definition.  Books, articles, and letters-to-the-editors galore.
Check it out.  For technological soap opera, the high jinks of lovable
Dr. Baltimore and his ingenuous pal Dr. Imanishi-Kari (may have gotten
her name wrong) will do.

Of course, the fact that it's humans doing all this science means that
it's rather difficult to get considerations of character and action
out of the business---so maybe cold fusion reading isn't your cup of
tea after all.  Consider dropping the SF monthlies and picking up
_Nature_ instead.


Elizabeth Willey
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written