HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gamiddle@math.uwaterloo.ca (Guy Middleton)
Subject: Re: Piers Anthony
Organization: MFCF
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:48:20 GMT

In article <192i6fINN808@agate.berkeley.edu> curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
> If we're to get anywhere in this argument, we'd best have a definition of
> "good" and "bad" writing.
> 
> I'll offer four:
> 
  ...
> (3) Good writing is writing that I like.  Now there's a definition.
> It's both objectively applicable and prejudiced as all hell - the
> Tabasco sauce of spirited conversation.  But some, I fear, may
> find it unpalatable.

But I *like* this definition!  I would make a slight modification, however:
instead of saying "Good writing is writing that Curtis Yarvin likes", we would
say "Good writing is writing that Guy Middleton likes".  But we're all
sophisticated readers here, right?  So it makes little difference.

 -Guy Middleton, University of Waterloo		gamiddleton@math.waterloo.edu
		(+1 519 885 1211 x3472)		gamiddleton@math.uwaterloo.ca
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Fourth Giants book out
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:39:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

"Entoverse" is by far the worst of the four 'Giants' novels.  Hogan
has developed a model of how life and intelligence could evolve within
a computer (not to be confused with the computer itself developing life
or intelligence!) and the centerpiece of the book is the long, dull, and
not-very-convincing exposition of this model.  The rest of the book is
either the setup for this exposition or the wrapping up of loose ends.

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

   God helpe the man so wrapt in Errours endless traine  -- Edmund Spenser
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig)
Subject: Re: All the Weyrs of Pern
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 23:53:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jonathan M Lennox):
>>As weak an understanding of science as McCaffrey's own is also an
>>advantage. [...]  Her computers, for example,
>>are either artificial superintelligences or pc's running DOS.

>  I think it was decided on alt.fan.pern that the AIVAS was a VMS
>machine...not even DOS requires you to explicitly say "RUN".
>
>  This explains a lot about the AIVAS, of course.  :-)

But do VMS programs have .EXE extensions?  (Of course, the starships
were built a number of centuries in our future, and VMS may have 
evolved... :)

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

   God helpe the man so wrapt in Errours endless traine  -- Edmund Spenser



Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: mcconnel@Chaos.mcs.kent.edu (Mike McConnell)
Subject: Re: Piers Anthony
Organization: Kent State University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:55:41 GMT

When I see someone post a letter saying that they like Piers Anthony, a couple 
of thoughts run through my mind.  But an important one is that I remember that
there was a time, yes, when I was younger and less sophisticated you might say)
when I really enjoyed his books.  And I think 'hey, that person is lucky that 
they can get that same enjoyment from his books now.'  Then I think, but the 
poor person just posted here and they are about to be flamed.  So I would like 
to say this to those of you who have flamed, or are ready to flame, anyone who
likes Anthony (or any such authors):
	If you find your own favorite authors so superior, wouldn't you be 
doing both the poster and your authors a service to say something like 
"If your getting into SF&F, why don't you try *****'s books, such as *****.
Wouldn't this work better for everyone in the end.
	Or do you just like to sit around and lie in wait for people who are 
not as 'sophisticated' as you?

Mike McConnell
Dept. of Mathematics
Kent State University
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: steyn@cs.rochester.edu (Gavin Steyn)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Piers Anthony
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:26:18 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Sep14.043843.19553@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> aaron@space.ualberta.ca writes:

>As to "stooping" to punning for money--I'm sure that he enjoys it.  I'm sure
>that he loves the fact that he can make money by writing Xanth books.  I don't
>think I'd refuse an opportunity like that, if it were offered to me. 

Oddly enough, a number of other authors manage to avoid it.  

> I seem to
>recall that he doesn't spend all his time writing Xanth books, so he might
>perhaps have written something worthwhile at some point(which indeed I believe
>includes Xanth...but not to
>worry, that something worthwhile will probably sell better than anything Iain
>Banks ever writes(or insert your favourite authors here).  Which is probably
>the real problem you have, right?  Tell the truth.  Admit it.

Well, yes, actually, it does bother me.  I don't go around flaming 
Anthony (or Eddings, or whoever), and their earning money doesn't particularly
bother me.  And if their sales didn't impinge on the rest of the market
I wouldn't care.
  But it kind of pisses me off that Anthony gets shelves-full of bookshelf
space, when I can't buy, say, Dunsany or Lafferty for love or money.
I don't care if you read Brooks, Anthony, and co all the rest of your
life--I care when that prevents me from reading authors who are
(flame-bait coming up...) inarguably finer in every way.

Gavin Steyn
steyn@cs.rochester.edu
"So he's had the lifelong ambition of reversing the polarity of the earth?"
From: Fritz.Niespodziany@p4.f41.n2403.z2.fidonet.org (Fritz Niespodziany)
Sender: postmaster@p2.f41.n2403.z2.fidonet.org
From: Laurie Mann
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: HUGO Awards?
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:32:36 GMT
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com

Paul Michael Agapow writes
>David has cogently illustrated my argument. BTW, for us in the antipodes, how
>_does_ a story (or whatever) get shortlisted for the Hugo?

This has been explained here before.  Does anyone know if
it's in FAQ?

The answer is simple:  Popular vote of the members of the current
World Science Fiction Convention.  

Every winter, every member of the upcoming World Science Fiction Convention
(this year, it was MagiCon in Orlando) receive Hugo Nomination ballots.
They can nominate up to five short stories in the Best Short Story
Category, five novels in the Best Novel Category (etc.).

The ballots are sent back to a central administrator, who validates
the voters (as real members) and tallies the votes.  (At this point
the administrator SHOULD contact all nominees to be sure they want
to be on the ballot, but this does not happen every year.)

The final ballots are then sent out to the Worldcon members in the
spring, who then vote for their favorite short story, novel,
dramatic presentation (etc.) from among those nominated.  They can
also vote for "No Award" if they prefer.

The ballots are sent back to a central administrator, who validates
the voters (as real members) and tallies the votes.  THe results are
announced at the Hugo Awards at the Worldcon.   

I can't really address your specific comments, except for this one:

>"Dogs Life" and its resounding put down were also possibly due to taste as
>well. i thought it suceeded more than "Press Ann" both comically and as a
>work of substance.

You have to remember that "Dogs Life" appeared in Amazing Magazine, a
professional magazine with a TINY circulation compared to the other
pro magazines.  For it to have even made the final ballot was pretty
remarkable, and I think even Martha realizes this. Even though all 
the short stories were available
electronically, only about 1/3 to 1/2 of the votes have access to
computers or a network, so not everyone read it.

An Amazing cover DID win a Chesley Award this year (the annual art
award given out by the Association of Science Fiction and Fantasy
Artists)---the David Mattingly cover depicting the wizard in the
subway car.  A GREAT cover, and a very well-deserved award.

*  NeXT: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com * GEnie:  Laurie.Mann  *
**** Vote to can George and Dan! **  Vote for CHANGE in 1992!****
**********    Member of the cultural elite and PROUD!  **********
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: goudreau@batman.rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: COVINGTON CROSS
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 20:11:53 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC

>In article <7337@ds5000.DAC.Northeastern.edu> bnostran@ds5000.DAC.Northeastern.edu (Barbara Nostrand) writes:
>
>It is very interesting that the question of authentic British accent is
>raised by a subject of the Atlantian throne.  The reason for this being
>that not only is modern UC British English descended from imported
>German monarchs, linguistic researchers actually claim that the closest
>extant approximation to Elizabethan Stratford-on-Avon English is actually
>spoken in Atlantia.  
>

So, where/what exactly is this "Atlantia"?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goudreau			Data General Corporation
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com		62 Alexander Drive	
+1 919 248 6231			Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA
From: stucki@retina.cis.ohio-state.edu (David J Stucki)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: S.R. Donaldson
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:39:53 GMT
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
Originator: stucki@retina.cis.ohio-state.edu

In article <9209151157.AA02492@mica.geology.utoronto.ca> julie@MICA.GEOLOGY.UTORONTO.CA (Julie King) writes:

   I purchased Donaldson's new book with much joy, anticipating the wonderful
   more wonderful writing in the style of the Covanent series.  I thought
   it was *horrible* and was extremely dissapointed!  Violence, horror, more
   violence, and sex.  I really don't see this as a villian turned victum but
   rather a study of deranged human lust and abuse.  Any comments?

   JK

I think you missed the point. You can't have villians or victims without
lust and abuse of some kind. Donaldson just isn't being subtle about
making that clear. I think that this series not only shows a maturation
in his writing, but is also allowing him to be more honest than he was
in his previous books.

For a smoother transition from Covenant and Mordant to the Gap you should
take a look at the mystery novels he wrote under the pseudonym of Reed
Stephens.

By the way, I am about a quarter of the way through the 3rd book in the
series, and as always SRD manages to keep things fresh and seems to have
mastered the art of building intricate webs of plot twists.

dave...

David J Stucki               /\     ____          /\ Department of Computer and
537 Harley Dr. #6           /__\   \ /\ /  /\    /__\       Information Science
Columbus, OH  43202        /\  /\   \--/  /__\  /_\/_\    2036 Neil Avenue Mall
stucki@cis.ohio-state.edu /__\/__\   \/        /\    /\      Columbus, OH 43210
                                              /__\  /__\    __
There is no place in science for ideas,      /_\/_\/_\/_\   \/  /\     /\
there is no place in epistemology for knowledge,                --    /__\
and there is no place in semantics for meanings.  -- W.V. Quine      /_\/_\
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Dreamer Fithp
From: ecmtwhk@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Thomas Koenig)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 23:06:59 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

daynem@byron.u.washington.edu (Dayne Miller) writes:

>Niven and Pournelle, in FOOTFALL, mention a Threat Team (the "Dreamer Fithp")
>that's composed of several writers of SF that advise the federal gov't. in 
>times of unusual crisis. I believe Niven makes reference to a similar group 
>in one of his short stories (maybe in the LIMITS collection??).

>Is there any evidence to suggest that such an organization may exist, either
>actively or in a contingency-based set-up?

>If so, who is (or should be) on it? I'd guess Niven, Pournelle, David Brin, 
>Orson Scott Card, Asimov (were he still alive), Carl Sagan (maybe the only
>true scientist of the group), Gregory Benford, Greg Bear, and a few others
>(mostly "hard SF" writers, in all likelihood).

>Anyone know anything they want to share?

We can start out by identifying who is who in FOOTFALL. Robert Anson is
(or rather, was) Heinlein. Wade Curtis is Pournelle, and Sherry
Atkinson probably C. J. Cherryh (although she's Canadian, if I remember
correctly). I'm also reasonably sure that Niven has Tuckerized himself
into that novel, but I don't remember who he was.
-- 
Thomas Koenig, ecmtwhk@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz, ib09@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic
diagram.
From: pcp2g@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Gilligan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: When is the next Uplift book due?
Date: 14 Sep 92 00:34:13 GMT
Reply-To: pcp2g@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Gilligan)
Organization: University of Virginia

I imagine this is a FAQ question, but the title says it all. Or
has Brin given up?


* Phil Plait                  PCP2G@astsun.acc.virginia.EDU
* 
* "Galaxies spinning around world of shame."
From: mab@buphy.bu.edu (Michael Burstein)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: HUGO Awards?
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:45:04 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department

Could someone please post the Hugo winners for novel, novella,
novellete, and short story?

-- 
Michael A. Burstein
Physics Department, Boston University         mab@buphy.bu.edu
590 Commonwealth Ave.                         (617) 353-9437 (o)
Boston, MA 02215                              (617) 735-9433 (h)
From: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Good writing (was Re: Piers Anthony)
Date: 15 Sep 1992 00:11:43 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dpn2@po.CWRU.Edu (Damien P. Neil)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, djdaneh@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) says:

>In article <192i6fINN808@agate.berkeley.edu> curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
>
>>If we're to get anywhere in this argument, we'd best have a definition of
>>"good" and "bad" writing.
>
>How about:  "Good writing (in fiction) is writing which communicates 
>effectively, entertains, and does not insult the reader's intelligence."
>
>Go ahead, shoot it down, folks. . .

You asked for it... :-)

If there is an author who is liked by many and hated by many, is his
writing good or bad? At what point is writing "insulting the reader's
intelligence?" Most children's books would "insult" my intelligence, but
they may be fine for children. There are even stories that don't
communicate effectively, but are still good. Isn't that the definition of
surrealistic, almost?
-- 
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
| Damien Neil | dpn2@po.cwru.edu | Case Western Reserve University |
+-------------+------------------+---------------------------------+
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Good writing (was Re: Piers Anthony)
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:48:31 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

In article <1992Sep14.210619.8095@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
>In article <192i6fINN808@agate.berkeley.edu> curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
>>If we're to get anywhere in this argument, we'd best have a definition of
>>"good" and "bad" writing.
>
>How about:  "Good writing (in fiction) is writing which communicates 
>effectively, entertains, and does not insult the reader's intelligence."
>
>Go ahead, shoot it down, folks. . .

For one thing, I wouldn't limit the purpose of writing to "entertainment."
Authors may also want to edify, to outrage, to disturb, to puzzle, to 
challenge, to indulge themselves, to create pity and terror.  Is your
main reaction to Joyce or Kafka or Ellison that you feel "entertained"?

For another, it seems to me that a part of the greatness of at least some
great authors is their ambiguity and depth: they don't put across a 
simple, easily grasped message.  Dickens and Asimov communicate "effectively";
Dostoevsky and Trollope and Bradbury communicate more subtly.

As for insulting the reader's intelligence, I think you could make a case
that Milton, Shaw, Lawrence, Heinlein, and Van Vogt look down on their average 
readers, more or less to the point of insult; and yet this only makes 
them eccentric, rather than bad writers.

Don't take all this personally.  I don't think "good writing" can be defined.
You can identify elements which seem to be a part of it, but for each one
you can find some great book which flouts it.
From: curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Piers Anthony
Date: 14 Sep 1992 17:29:51 GMT
Organization: CS Dept. Snakepit - Do Not Feed.
NNTP-Posting-Host: moccasin.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep14.162252.6707@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> aaron@space.ualberta.ca writes:
>
>Ah, but they were >good<, you say.  Well, I can't help but agree.  But I can't
>help but disagree when you say that everything Piers Anthony produces is bad.

If we're to get anywhere in this argument, we'd best have a definition of
"good" and "bad" writing.

I'll offer four:

(1) Good writing is writing with good characters, plot, prose, etc.
This is a wonderful show definition but, being vague, it doesn't
much lend itself to argument.

(2) Good writing is writing that a lot of people like.  A
utilitarian definition, but lacking that "je ne sais quoi" that
brings true verve to a USENET debate.

(3) Good writing is writing that I like.  Now there's a definition.
It's both objectively applicable and prejudiced as all hell - the
Tabasco sauce of spirited conversation.  But some, I fear, may
find it unpalatable.

(4) Good writing is writing that's read by intelligent, tasteful,
literate folks like me; bad writing is writing that's read by
swinish, callow, dimwit geeks like you.  While it may strike the
cultured mind as uncharitable, this, I suspect, is the definition
most people use.

So what's it to be?  The woolly academicism of (1)?  The
mammonistic libertarianism of (2)?  The sheer egotism of (3)?  Or
the gratuitous bigotry of (4)?  Let's set some standards around
here.  We must all hang together, or fersure we all goin to be
hangin separate-like.

c
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: aaron@space.ualberta.ca (Aaron Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Piers Anthony
Reply-To: aaron@space.ualberta.ca
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 04:18:48 GMT

(Promised flame #1--and he even put flame-bait on the front, to further
legitimize things.)

Has it ever occurred to you that for an author to become rich, he has to sell
books?  I have never believe that a book can be sold in such quantities
without having some at least slightly redeeming quality.  Presumably a large
portion of those who buy the books are satisfied with their purchase--judging
by the number that buy the next book.

You, and many others who consider yourselves to have higher taste(I believe
that way back when I used "intelligentsia", to much controversy), dismiss it
as hackwork.  But it fills a need--a niche.  If there weren't a Piers Anthony,
somebody else would be filling that need.

Not everybody enjoys reading more intellectual science fiction.  Not everybody
enjoys reading SF at all.  Not everybody enjoys reading fantasy.  My wife is a
big fan of romances, because they satisfy a need in her.  (This should not be a
comment on our marriage...;-}  She enjoyed them before she met me.)  So are
many others.  They don't want books for an intellectual purpose, but for an
emotional one.  They want books to assure them that all is right with the
world...

So to say that Piers Anthony's writing is universally bad, or even that the
majority of it(the later section)is bad, is short-sighted.  So he decided to
stop, for the most part, writing his more experimental works like Macroscope,
Chthon, Tarot, etc., in favour of writing guaranteed pleasers like the Xanth
books and other series books.  So he decided that he could get rich by filling
a need.  So what?  If you consider a book good that satisfies that need, then
it's good.

But more importantly, you shouldn't consider someone lesser because they can
still appreciate books written to fill those needs.  This is like Heinlein's
attitudes that anyone who can't understand mathematics is a lesser animal--in
a word, bullshit.  If you think that you must be superior because you can
appreciate "better" SF work, then that's as wrong-minded as an Anthony reader
feeling superior because he can appreciate Anthony's work while you dismiss it.
This arrogance is why I originally proposed warning off the latter type from
rec.arts.sf.written, which is dominated by the former, people who suppose their
taste must be better than others because what they like is judged somehow more
worthy.

(This is tiring--I'll stop here, and hope I don't have to do too many more of
these.)

--
---Alfvaen(Canadian SF Quasi-Activist)
"You better hope and pray that you're gonna awake
 Back in your own world..."  ---Shakespear's Sister
Current Album--Suzanne Vega:Days of Open Hand
Current Read--Robert Heinlein:The Past Through Tomorrow
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: clc@kepler.unh.edu (Christian L Claiborn)
Subject: Re: Something Nasty in the Human Genome
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:44:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.124655.4019@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>Maybe it says something like
>
>	This bioartifact is Copyright Sirian Biotechnology Ltd,
>	GE 124,041.  Unauthorised reproduction prohibited under
>	Galactic Code 774689231554, sect 666.

BUZZ!  It says something like:
:           BEGIN 644 GENOME.TXT
:M483SJAKFKDFJSKDKL1237218FDKSFF

Etc.

			Chrisitan
			Genome consultant
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Christian Longshore Claiborn | clc@kepler.unh.edu | Friend of the Great     |
| Chuck Woolery's Protege      | clc@gloin.unh.edu  | Eater of Souls          |
| Future UNH Sysadmin          | clc@bifur.unh.edu  | Ask about group rates!  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"It was all very well to say 'Drink Me,' but the wise little Alice wasn't    |
| going to do THAT in a hurry."  -- The Reverend Charles Dodgson              |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: jmsie@mtu.edu (Jon)
Subject: Mercedes Lackey
Summary: Fan Club 
Keywords: Email of The Queen, Mage Winds, fan club
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:49:01 GMT

To all past members of EmOTQ:

My school deleted my computer account containing the mailing list, if you all
could please email me back to be placed back on.

To those who don't know what EmOTQ is: EmOTQ is a MODERATED mailing list
concerning Mercedes Lackey's world of Valdemar.  However, we also discuss her
other works. At present we are seperate from Paul Fu's _Mage Winds_ I have
decided to run EmOTQ to see what the response will/would be. A final decision
to either merge the lists or stop EmOTQ will be made in a couple of months.  
Once again I invite all fans of Misty to join EmOTQ, please remember this is
a moderated mailing list.

Jonathan Sie
jmsie@mtu.edu
Hadaan@ValdeMUSH
Jonick@Belgariad
.

 


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: gelwasser@scivax.stsci.edu
Subject: David Drake/Karl Edward Wagner
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:53:13 GMT


1. Does anyone know if David Drake Has a Fan club ?
2. Any information on up comming releases ?
3. Same for Karl Edward Wagner ?
Thanks,
Perry
 
















Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written