From: curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: Diamond-hard SF
Date: 21 Nov 1992 04:45:05 GMT
Organization: CS Dept. Snakepit - Do Not Feed.
NNTP-Posting-Host: cobra.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov19.115023.20559@yang.earlham.edu> jessec@yang.earlham.edu writes:
>
>> |>>   More importantly: why read fiction if it can't tell you anything about 
>> |>>what it is to be human? To be alive?
>> |>
>> |>I don't know about you, Jesse, but I already have a pretty good feeling
>> |>of what it is to be alive.
>> |
>> |We all *live* it, but what *is* it and what on earth does it mean?
>> 
>> Methinks it might be profitable, before continuing into further
>> realms of cosmological netherspace, to restrain our ambitions
>> and ask what on earth _you_ mean.
>
>   Huh? You ask for definitions of "is" and "mean", and I wonder why you 
>need them.

Because you're playing a game with yourself, Jesse.  It's a game
that's been played millions of times before by people much
smarter than us, and quite frankly it's a lot of fun.  And it
won't pilate your pontius or coat your corneas, so there's
really nothing wrong with it.  But before we plunge boldly
onward I'd like to define the rules:

---------------------THE RULES--------------------------

(1) Choose a verb.  Points awarded for weighty connotations.
    Bonus points awarded for mundane meanings.

(2) Choose a subject.  Points awarded for weighty connotations.

(3) Is (2) defined under (1)?

--	Yes?  You fail.  Sorry, boy, looks like you'll have to
work for a living.

--	No?  Congratulations.  You're a star.  Continue to (4).

(4) Make a question out of (1) and (2).

---------------------------------------------------------

Now, as I believe I've mentioned, I get Big Kix out of this
sport.  I mean, it's almost like surfing to me.  So let's
keep it up, Jesse.

I see your bet, and raise you one.  I'll tell you the meaning
of life - as soon as you tell me the meaning of brick.


>>>[Jesse makes the Case, for Gibsonism]
>>
>> Bwhaha.  Let's have a big "Bwahaha," from the crowd.  Thank
>> you, folks.  Thank you.  And now, a show of hands.  Could we
>> have a show of hands?  All those who think the best replacement
>> for one heap of trendy moose offal is another heap of trendy
>> moose offal, say "Aye" and give me five fingers high.  Ready...
>> now!
>
>   Once again, another conversation-stopping proposition:

Never was much at conversation no how.

>It's all "trendy moose offal"!
>
>Never mind that this completely ignores the case I tried to
>make for my points.

That's right.

In fact, I didn't even read it.

Because I had this feeling it was going to be a heap of moose
offal.  And since you're a man in touch with the currents I
figured it was sure to be trendy moose offal.  And having
just that day slugged back a pack of Sterling my guts were
in no position for more of the same.

How did I know it was moose offal?  Without even using my handy
Moose-Offal Dowsing Rod, a product which I keep near me at all
times, and highly recommend to anyone allergic to such?

Because my distaste for Gibsonism has nothing to do with
Gibsonism.  Likewise my distaste for Gernsbackism does not
involve the tenets of Gernsbackism.  The same goes for
Pinkoism(*), or Jungism, or Libertarianism, or any of the greasy,
half-backed pseudophilosophies that people have been trying
to slip into fiction since the first caveman told the first
lie.

Why?  Because they're _simplistic_.  

I can summarize Gibsonism in a few sentences.  Same for
Gernsbackism.  Shit, I think I could do Libertarianism in one.
They're _cliches_, for god's sake!  Is anyone really fool
enough to believe that the world is, has ever been, will ever
be, that simple?  

That, pop pop, 2000 will roll around and we'll all be stuffed
up to here with High-Tech Lowlife and sararimen in Hawaiian
shirts, while Ralph 12C41+ watches forlornly from his ivory
tower and a mob of savage Randroids builds New Libertaria on
the ruins of Pago Pago?

Well, maybe.  I mean, who knows.  There's a lot of nuts out
there.

Me I like my world complex.  Juicy.  Alive.  And that takes
more than ideology - that takes _imagination_.

(Anyone who dares to suggest different can have a word or two
with my pal Dr. Bloor, here.  Dr. Bloor is an _expert_.
He'll set you straight - or else.)

c
(*)Pinkoism.  Ideology designed in the early '70s.  Aimed
at customer bracket with hearts too soft for capitalism
and balls too soft for communism.  Has been a roaring success
and is only now nearing the end of its market lifecycle.
See also, "Mush."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written