HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: qvortrup@inf.ethz.ch (Michael Qvortrup)
Subject: Re: Dilvish: Zelazny's other Fantasy
Organization: Dept. Informatik, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 07:59:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.081330.27447@netcom.com> dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) writes:
>qvortrup@inf.ethz.ch (Michael Qvortrup):
>>I am getting curious. Could somebody please tell me where I can find
>>these stories? Are they novels or short stories?
>
>"Dilvish, the Damned" and "The Changing Land", two of Zelazny's
>lesser efforts, both books out of print (I think) but not hard to find.

Sometimes one just has to be lucky. This weekend I went around to the
bookstore again, and guess what? They had a copy of 'The Changing Land'
on the shelves! Fourth printing (1988), and the 15'th copy they have
sold since 1984.

Greetings,
--Mike

PS: Now I just have to find 'Dilvish, the Damned'.
    'The Changing Land' does seem to be of a more humouristical bent
    that the Elric books.

-- 
#include <std-disclm.h>--"... and there is a small flaw in my character."---
Real Life: Michael Christian Heide Qvortrup      A Dane         ETH, Zuerich
e-mail   : qvortrup@inf.ethz.ch                  abroad         Switzerland
Institut fuer wissenschaftliches Rechnen  /  Inst. of Scientific Computation
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: gamiddle@math.uwaterloo.ca (Guy Middleton)
Subject: Re: SF starter kit
Organization: University of Waterloo Software Liberation Army
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:49:20 GMT

In article <1icba3INNglp@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
> 
> For military SF, try:
> 
> Soldier Ask Not (Dickson)
> Naked to the Stars (Dickson)
> The Forever War (Haldeman)
> Starship Troopers (Heinlein)
> Bill the Galactic Hero (Harrison -- comedy)

And also _Passage at Arms_, by Glen Cook.
And _Armor_, by John Steakley.

 -Guy Middleton, University of Waterloo		gamiddleton@math.waterloo.edu
		(+1 519 885 1211 x3472)		gamiddleton@math.uwaterloo.ca
From: bobm@Ingres.COM (Bob McQueer)
Subject: Re: Author Polls: QUESTION
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:43:38 GMT

In <UfG7Zyi00WB5MDqgFi@andrew.cmu.edu>,
	dated 4 Jan 93 07:53:02 GMT,
	jl3j+@andrew.cmu.edu (John Robert Leavitt) writes:
> SInce I took over the polls from Tom Hyer a month or so ago, the response
> rate has been, shall we say, a bit low.  In fact, the most recent poll (Michael
> Moorcock) netted only 4 responses besides my own.  This puzzles me.  So, I
> would like to know some things:
> 
> 1) Why is nobody responding?  (Bad author choices, mail problems, lack of interest?)

I think the polls are useful.  The problem is that most of the widely read
authors with enough books published have been covered at this point.  For
instance, if you had a Mick Farren poll I could respond, but you would
probably not get a lot of responses.  A lot of people have not read Farren,
or have read one of his and not liked it (I chose Farren as an example not
because I think he's great - I've found him just interesting enough to keep
picking up his books occasionally).  On the other hand, a vast majority
have read enough of Larry Niven to offer opinions.

To keep the polls viable, what is probably needed is to encourage new people
to respond to the existing polls, and make them readily available via FTP.

Another thing which may be worth doing is running polls for people like
(he says donning flame-proof armour) Piers Anthony, Jack Chalker, or other
generally critically disapproved "hack writers".  The trouble with these
folks is that they turn out large quantities of tripe, with some occasional
good work.  It seems to me that the poll format would provide an excellent
filter in these cases.

> 2) What authors would you like to see?  Those done so far are:

R.A. MacAvoy springs to mind, as do James Blish, Mike Resnick and Tim Powers.
There really are a lot of estimable authors out there who don't have a long
enough list of works to make the poll format worthwile.  Perhaps some other
poll format could be used to address them.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: djdaneh@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Subject: Re: Fear According to Card: Dread, Terror and Horror
Reply-To: djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:34:06 GMT


In which we see that Orson Scott Card is not the least bit frightened of
displaying his ignorance.


What's wrong with this progression?


>In the anthology _The_Changed_Man_, Orson Scott Card writes:-
>"/Dread/ is the first and strongest of the three kinds of fear. Dread is
>that tension, that waiting that comes when you know there is something to
>fear but you have not identified what it is...

>"Terror only comes when you see the thing you're afraid of.

>"Horror is the weakest of all. 


Well, you see, he's utterly misplaced horror.  Horror -- traditionally --
is the fear of the unknown, not of that daid body lyin' there.  It is, in
fact, almost synonymous with "dread" (whose definition Scott _does_ seem to
have gotten right).  He got "terror" pretty much right, too.

The normal progression can best be seen in the infamous quote from Stephen
King:  "I want to horrify you, that's best of all, but if I can't horrify
you, I'll terrify you, and if I can't terrify you, I'll gross you out.  I'm
not proud."

What Scott calls "horror" is what's usually simply referred to as "the
gross-out," or "nausea" or suchlike.


			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.
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.written:17052 rec.arts.books:24085
From: wagner@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Stationery & diaries (was 1992 in Review)
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:01:22 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <1993Jan6.181420.9710@psych.toronto.edu>, dsy@psych.toronto.edu (Desiree Sy) writes:
> 
> But if you're a hopeless stationery and pen addict you've got
> more problems.  I only use ink of a easy flowing light weight
> (Waterman is excellent, but there are others which will do)
> because of my somewhat expensive fountain pen.  As a
> calligrapher, I have experimented with various recycled papers, 
> some of which are not ink absorbent (some need some help with a
> bit of gum arabic) -- but the kind of paper used in bound blank 
> books is almost never of this higher grade of recycled paper. 
> 
> 
> -desiree

Which others would you recommend?  I had always thought the choices
were 1) something which runs when it rains, 2) something which 
will clog your pen often, and 3) nasty-smelling Waterman.  Now you
hint that there are others.  Brand names?  How do they smell?

						-Luke
					wagner@mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Who killed SF???
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:47:37 GMT

I don't think the chains will kill the backlist.  The chains found out
you couldn't make your money just from bestsellers at 40% off.  Otherwise
you would see them putting up stores with 100 square feet and nothing but
the NYT list.

Quite the reverse, the money is now in the backlist.  Those 40% off
books bring people into the store, where they also leave with stuff from
the general shelves.  Hence superstores.

All in all I think it's not a bad trend.  There was no reason that
bookselling, crazy business that it is with returns and all, should have
been immune from the discounting tht is common in modern retailing.

Bookselling isn't as profitable as you might think though.  Typical margins
are 4 to 7% for the chains -- Crown books is the most profitable.  I think
Tom Clancy made more money last year than all but the 3 largest chains.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Crow's Friend Timmy)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Start alt.fantasy-- was Who killed SF?
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:24:49 GMT
Organization: Next Thursday A.D.

jahb@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JENNIFER A. HEISE) writes:

>However, it seems the Science Fiction Inquisitors are
>back.  Shall we retire to another newsgroup?

No, I suggest we just enjoy life, and if they can't handle it, they can go
create their own monastery where they can be miserable together. 

Running off when they moan not only encourages them, it make sthem think
they're winning.

-- 
            Chuq "IMHO" Von Rospach, ESD Support & Training (DAL/AUX)
                      Member, SFWA =+= Editor, OtherRealms
                chuq@apple.com | GEnie: MAC.BIGOT | ALink:CHUQ 

          I'm history! No! I'm mythology! Whatever, I'm outta here!
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: John Woods Campbell
Date: 5 Jan 1993 13:53:58 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan4.220357.24550@math.ucla.edu>  
troly@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) writes:
> >I don't have to.  They've done it themselves, at length, in print.   
Campbell's
> >influence is well documented.  If you want to argue this further,  
repair your
> >ignorance first.
> 
>    Campbell's influence is widely asserted.  This is
> not the same as saying that it is well documented.
> Your assumption, that anyone who disagrees with you on
> the importance of Campbell's influence must be
> ignorant, is arrogant and wrong.
> 

It IS well documented (and Eric listed a number of sources in
his post).   All the major historians anc critics--those  who
were "Campbell writers" (like Asimov) and those who weren't
(like Aldiss)--give major credit to Campbell.

>    Campbell's tutelage was appreciated by starry-eyed
> would-be writers but it was wasted on those who already
> could write, like Heinlein and Simak.  Indeed Simak
> quite properly told Campbell off when he asked Simak to
> rewrite a story--Simak was a better writer, after
> all--and Simak refused to deal with Campbell from then
> on.

Simak had stories published for Campbell from the early days up
through at least the mid-sixties.  Simak himself became a 
much better writer during the Campbell years (though it's hard to
tell whether this was a direct result of Campbell or Simak's
response to the field as a whole not accepting as much of the
pulp stuff).

> 
>   By working vigorously with selected substandard
> authors, Campbell was able to to insure that the worst
> of what he published was not as bad as the worst of
> what his competitors published.  But his constant
> meddling degraded the work of writers who were better
> than him, and the ones whom he helped who had talent
> would have learned to write by themselves in time.
> Thus his hard work tended to promote mediocrity.  This
> may be his most lasting contribution to a genre which
> is still growing more and more mediocre today.

Nope. His constant meddling helped many good writers become
even better.  There is no "editorial heirarchy" in which 
a writer can only be helped by a writer who is better than
he/she is.  Campbell could not write as well as some of
his writers, but that did not mean that as an editor he could
not help them improve their work.

Also, writers don't just learn "by themselves." One important
way a writer learns is that he/she gets feedback. Some of the
most important feedback a writer can get is from an editor.

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

From: David.Dyer-bennet@f341.n659.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (David Dyer-bennet)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Piers Anthony: Victim Of His Own Success?
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1993 10:32:58 -0600

 CH> Has anyone read any of Pier's Anthony novels which aren't part of a
 CH> series, like _Firefly_
 CH> or _Ghost_? 

Though it's dated some, I enjoyed Macroscope quite a bit.  For that
matter I liked a fair amount of his early series work, including
Orn/Omnivore/Ox, the Battle Circle books, and the first 3 Cluster
novels.  He seemed to figure out his new techniques somewhere in the
middle of doing the cluster books, and it's been downhill ever since,
sadly.  

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
From: damiene@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Eccles)
Subject: Re: Davis Mechanics (was Re: John Woods Campbell)
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:09:23 GMT

hwt@bcarh11a.BNR.CA (Henry Troup) writes:

>In article <1992Dec30.031602.25533@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
>arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>|>But the statement you just made about objects isn't true.  Action and
>reaction
>|>happen simultaneously; or rather, action and reaction happen at any point
>|>simultaneously.

>This is one I can't figure out.  Consider a steel bar, in free space, a
>long way from anywhere, one light-year long.  place a large rocket
>against one end, and turn it on.  Let it run for 364 days.  Turn it off.
>What has happened?  Try it again with an incompressible rod - if the rod
>moves, the message reached the far end faster than light.  If the rod
>doesn't move, where'd the momentum go?

>Now shrink the system to one light-second long, and run the engine in
>half second bursts.  All the same effects have to be happening.

>Now shrink the system to one meter and run the "engine" at 600 MHz -
>again, the same 'delay' effects are there.

huh? Whats the problem? When you push against the millions of atoms
at one end of the bar, they start to move, and their electron shells
start to influence others along the bar, etc cetra.....
so the bar shrinks.... big deal, this is one sodding heavy pieve
of steel, its billions of kms long......

I may be being completely iggerant, but it wouldn't be the first time

Eccles :)
From: cozzlab@garnet.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Who killed SF???
Date: 7 Jan 1993 21:59:18 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan7.191415.9908@news.uiowa.edu> williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
> .... What is all this crap that clogs the shelves???
[prolonged cry of anguish deleted]

Whereat various other people posted remarks summarizing to:

(a)  But This and That and The Other Work is fantasy and it's *GOOD*!

(b)  Publishers are in business to make money: they sell what people will
     buy.

In regards to (b), it is only too true: they sell what will sell.  But
keep in mind also the recent thread on a similar topic which boiled down
to People buy what they like: one reader's dreck is another's Real Neat
Stuff.

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 only ask because I want to know.)

Or is yours the cry of anguish that also gets repeated on this group a lot,
"What is all this (adjectives deleted) FANTASY doing in with the SCIENCE
FICTION?"  This remark gets applied to bookstores, to libraries, and to
discussions on this very newsgroup.

Sad but true, while there are many readers who like hard (or at least
moderately firm) SF and detest fantasy, there are many more who like and
read both.  Most writers in the genre write both.  I don't know what
I can do to comfort the fantasy-haters except to point out that it takes
only a fraction of a second to recognize and scorn that unicorn on the
cover, and failing that it takes only a few seconds to read the blurb
on the back cover.

Maybe we can start a new thread.  Can anyone think of a cover/blurb 
combination that led you to think a book was SF (or fantasy) when it
was actually fantasy (or SF)?

Dorothy J. Heydt
UC Berkeley
cozzlab@garnet.berkeley.edu

Disclaimer:  UCB and the Cozzarelli lab are not responsible for my
opinions, and in fact I don't think they know I have any.
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Who killed SF???
Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:16:33 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: uhad2.admin.uh.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <C0pCHL.HCn@math.uwaterloo.ca> gamiddle@math.uwaterloo.ca writes:

> In article <76225@apple.apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Crow's Friend Timmy) writes:
> > 
> > Publishers publish what readers buy. 
> 
> And readers buy what publishers publish.

  Not necessarily.  Books don't always sell.  TV shows get cancelled.  Pub-
lishers publish what they *hope* readers will buy.  Don't always work out.


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 		               *
********************************************************************************
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: John Woods Campbell
Date: 4 Jan 1993 13:43:22 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan2.135330.12000@math.ucla.edu>  
dstein@oak.math.ucla.edu (David Stein) writes:

I'll just address this one point for now. 

>   3. Why does the definition NOT fit some well known pre-Campbell  
SF?
> 
>    J. Verne's _20,000 Leagues Under the Sea_
>    H.G. Well's _The War of the Worlds_
>    A. Huxley's _The Brave New World_
>    Capek's _R.U.R._
> 
>    Just a few examples of very well-known SF works with which  
Campbell 
>    might have been familiar, and which fit his definition.  So why  
is 
>    his definition of SF so original and unique to be worth a  
mention?

Cambell was not the first person to stress good writing and
reasonable characterization in SF. As you say, Wells and
others did it.  However, the American SF magazines (pre-1939)
ignored Wells, Verne, et al.  They were filled with 
poorly written nonsense, and only an occasional story had
real value.  Campell took the reigns of what was to be THE
major magazine for over a decade, and imposed these standards
there, thus forcing a major part of the field to produce
better stories.


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

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: d40937@aiken (Jean Yves Desbiens)
Subject: Re: Anarchy in S.F.
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:08:12 GMT

I am new to this thread so I don't know if this has been covered
but STAND ON ZANZIBAR seamed pretty anarchic to me when I read it
8 years ago; a bureaucraticaly controled anarchy is probably
the worst kind.

--
SEIZE THE DAY, MAKE YOUR LIFE EXTRAORDINARY .  "Dead Poets Society"

Jean-Yves Desbiens                  | d40937@info.polymtl.ca
Etudiant en genie informatique      | 
Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal Can | To indeed be a god ...,
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay)
Subject: Re: sf writers on tv
Organization: Free Faerie Front
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:13:00 GMT

In article <JET.93Jan4170322@boxer.nas.nasa.gov> jet@boxer.nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend) writes:
>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).

Did she say if she was working on anything now? When is the next
Butler book coming out? Tell me! Tell me! TELL ME!
-- 
Andrew Solovay    

"I is not now, nor has I ever been, a Human Bein'!"
                ---Pogo Possum
From: dayne@byron.u.washington.edu (Dayne Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Who killed SF???
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:07:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1isk1cINNgef
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: byron.u.washington.edu

In article <C0pCHL.HCn@math.uwaterloo.ca> gamiddle@math.uwaterloo.ca (Guy Middleton) writes:
>
>What came first, the chicken or the egg?
>
> -Guy Middleton, University of Waterloo		gamiddleton@math.waterloo.edu

The chicken, obviously. I can't see God wanting to sit on an egg...

     -price
        dayne@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Editor that hated Chalker ?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:35:14 GMT

One more comment about Chalker.

I read the first book of his G.O.D. Inc., series. Really fell in
love with the two main characters and enjoyed reading about their
life.

Then the science fiction actually makes the book duller!

Now, wouldn't these two characters have been better off as heroes
of a *detective* series?

I wonder if that's what Chalker wanted to do, just couldn't get it
published.
From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Hugo from... (was O pooh!  (was Re: John W. Campbell would laugh...))
Date: 6 Jan 93 15:53:46 -0600
Organization: Fermilab Grossforschungenseinrichtungen
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <1993Jan6.190325.22720@pbhyc.PacBell.COM>, djdaneh@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
> Now to pick on Eric's details.
> In article <1k23VC#2Lmwcv7ghZ4TB72f2G4GkTT6=esr@snark.thyrsus.com> esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
[Eric claims `SF' was invented by Campbell]
> 
> Nonsense.  "Science fiction," and its initialization "SF," existed well before
> Campbell became editor of ASTOUNDING.  Indeed, even Gernsback was using it 
> within the earliest days of AMAZING STORIES; "scientifiction" was too unwieldy
> a term even for a German.  
                    ^^^^^^
Luxembourger.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey         | "I'm gonna keep on writing songs
Fermilab                          | until I write the song
Bitnet:      HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | that makes the guys in Detroit
Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | who draw the cars
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS  | put tailfins on 'em again."
                                            --John Prine
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Heinlein - Politically correct?
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:02:46 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1564@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, by seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp):
> In article <1ik53bINNjkj@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de writes:
>>As far as PC goes:  Where are the women in Starship Troopers?  Were they
>>ALL unfit for infantry duty

Since all ship crew members were female, it could be that they simply
were automatically assigned to the navy instead of the MI (I seem to
recall that one was not completely free to choose where one would end
up, but also that this distinction was quite clear and known to
everyone in the book).
-- 
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