Backlash against the series?
Jacey Bedford
to natter with the owner whenever I'm passing, and to check what's on
her couple of shelves of SF.
In the pastv year, the quantity of SF has diminished from four shelves
to two (it is a very tiny shop) and has now been placed low down where
they don't even catch your eye.
She tells me that comments from readers make her think that long series
have had their day. Her customers aren't necessarily wanting to get
embroiled in something that's going to run to seven volumes of 600 pages
each, but most of the SF she's offered comes in large sets.
She's not a specialist in SF however she says if she knew the genre
better and if she could stock some intelligent 'one-offs' she thinks her
customers would be more inclined to invest.
Is this a microcosm of what's happening elsewhere? Is there likely to be
a backlash against huge, sprawling, multi-part series? (By this I'm
referring to series like Crown of Stars and Wheel of Time, rather than
something like Discworld which has individual books set in the same
universe.)
Jacey
--
To send me real mail try
artisan at artisan hyphen harmony dot com
and make the subject line obviously not spam.
Dan Goodman
> We have a tiny local bookseller in the next village and I pop in there
> to natter with the owner whenever I'm passing, and to check what's on
> her couple of shelves of SF.
>
> In the pastv year, the quantity of SF has diminished from four shelves
> to two (it is a very tiny shop) and has now been placed low down where
> they don't even catch your eye.
>
> She tells me that comments from readers make her think that long series
> have had their day. Her customers aren't necessarily wanting to get
> embroiled in something that's going to run to seven volumes of 600
pages
> each, but most of the SF she's offered comes in large sets.
>
> She's not a specialist in SF however she says if she knew the genre
> better and if she could stock some intelligent 'one-offs' she thinks
her
> customers would be more inclined to invest.
Perhaps the information she needs is available on the web. What does she
think she needs to know? That a particular book is a complete story --
rather than one episode in a series
-- to begin with, yes. But what else?
> Is this a microcosm of what's happening elsewhere? Is there likely to
be
> a backlash against huge, sprawling, multi-part series? (By this I'm
> referring to series like Crown of Stars and Wheel of Time, rather than
> something like Discworld which has individual books set in the same
> universe.)
There will be a backlash, but it may not be against all series novels.
When the people whose first sf/fantasy was Harry Potter books start
looking for others to buy, they'll want
books which have complete stories in them. Being part of a larger story
won't be a problem
-- but they'll want stories in the books they buy.
And I suspect they'll be as irritated as I am now by the scenes in Wheel
of Time where nothing happens except people thinking the same thoughts
they had in the last few books. Or the Harry Turtledove scenes which are
too full of description and explanation for anything story-like to be
fitted in.
--
Dan Goodman
Journal http://dsgood.blogspot.com or
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsgood/
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> Is this a microcosm of what's happening elsewhere? Is there likely to be
> a backlash against huge, sprawling, multi-part series? (By this I'm
> referring to series like Crown of Stars and Wheel of Time, rather than
> something like Discworld which has individual books set in the same
> universe.)
Could be. I myself am a bit daunted by Peter F. Hamilton. But going by
my newly installed three shelves of Book To Be Read Quick, there's lots
of standalone stuff around.
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan - ada...@spamcop.net - this is a valid address
homepage: http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
English blog: http://annafdd.blogspot.com/
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/annafdd/
Boudewijn Rempt
> Jacey Bedford <look...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Is this a microcosm of what's happening elsewhere? Is there likely to be
>> a backlash against huge, sprawling, multi-part series? (By this I'm
>> referring to series like Crown of Stars and Wheel of Time, rather than
>> something like Discworld which has individual books set in the same
>> universe.)
>
> Could be. I myself am a bit daunted by Peter F. Hamilton. But going by
> my newly installed three shelves of Book To Be Read Quick, there's lots
> of standalone stuff around.
Whenever I pick a book from the shelves in the bookshop and I see Volume X
of Y blazoned on the cover, I put it back...
--
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.valdyas.org/fading/index.cgi
Chris Kern
posted the following:
>Whenever I pick a book from the shelves in the bookshop and I see Volume X
>of Y blazoned on the cover, I put it back...
What irritates me more is when the company *doesn't* put "Volume X of
Y" on the book, yet it is volume X of Y. They presumably do this
because if people see "Volume 8 of Some Series", they won't buy it
because they'll assume without reading the first 7 volumes they'll be
lost.
But it's particularly annoying when you want to read the series,
because it's sometimes hard to find out what order the books are
supposed to be read in.
-Chris
Chris Kern
posted the following:
>How about putting the list of books in the series on one of the inside
>pages (a la the "other [this publisher] books by [this author]" lists I've
>seen) instead of splashing the series status on the front cover?
It depends. If it seems like just a marketing ploy I would prefer to
see the series status on the cover.
If the books can truly be read stand-alone, then I don't mind if
they're not specifically marked as part of a series.
-Chris
Yoon Ha Lee
> Anna Feruglio Dal Dan wrote:
>
> > Jacey Bedford <look...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Is this a microcosm of what's happening elsewhere? Is there likely to be
> >> a backlash against huge, sprawling, multi-part series? (By this I'm
> >> referring to series like Crown of Stars and Wheel of Time, rather than
> >> something like Discworld which has individual books set in the same
> >> universe.)
> >
> > Could be. I myself am a bit daunted by Peter F. Hamilton. But going by
> > my newly installed three shelves of Book To Be Read Quick, there's lots
> > of standalone stuff around.
I bought _The Reality Dysfunction_ (in two paperback volumes--ye gods!)
from a used bookseller who warned me the thing was loooong. And boy was
he right. On the other hand, the Husband picked it up to read and
enjoyed it enough to go out and get the rest, so it wasn't a bad choice.
> Whenever I pick a book from the shelves in the bookshop and I see Volume X
> of Y blazoned on the cover, I put it back...
Hear, hear. I'm especially annoyed because of years of never being
about to find volume 1 of various series while in Korea, forcing me to
read out of order if I was to have enough reading material. Then I come
to the U.S. and lo! bookstores and libraries often are missing volume 1
of whatever series. It's most aggravating when it's a series I would
otherwise read, but these days I am wary of series unless they're
already complete, and even then...I curse myself for being hooked on
George R.R. Martin. ^_^ And that Janny Wurts thing with the monstrous
volumes...(okay, maybe she has several; the one that starts with _Curse
of the Mistwraith_.)
--
Yoon Ha Lee
http://pegasus.cityofveils.com
Pi = 3, for small values of pi and large values of 3.
Charlton Wilbur
CK> On 25 May 2004 10:10:47 GMT, Omixochitl
CK> <Omixoch...@yahoo.com> posted the following:
>> How about putting the list of books in the series on one of the
>> inside pages (a la the "other [this publisher] books by [this
>> author]" lists I've seen) instead of splashing the series
>> status on the front cover?
CK> It depends. If it seems like just a marketing ploy I would
CK> prefer to see the series status on the cover.
I prefer this too - or a listing inside the front cover is just as
good, if I've picked up a book because I'm considering buying it.
What irks me is that series take so long to come out. I started
reading George Martin's series when it first came out, and I'm *still*
waiting for the fourth book. (I gave up on Robert Jordan long ago.)
It also annoys me when series go downhill; this has soured me on Robin
Hobb, because the third book in the trilogy is *never* as good as the
first. (I gave up on Robert Jordan long ago.)
Charlton
--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> What irks me is that series take so long to come out. I started
> reading George Martin's series when it first came out, and I'm *still*
> waiting for the fourth book.
You are definitely *not* alone in that.
Josh Deb Barman
>
> Is this a microcosm of what's happening elsewhere? Is there likely to be
> a backlash against huge, sprawling, multi-part series? (By this I'm
> referring to series like Crown of Stars and Wheel of Time, rather than
> something like Discworld which has individual books set in the same
> universe.)
>
> Jacey
Speaking from experience as a reader of fantasy, I have wanted to get
into Robert Jordan for a long time now but am totally intimidated by
the size of the complete Wheel of Time series. I can't comment on
whether the size is appropriate (since I haven't read it yet) but it
does *seem* to be excessive. I'm quite comfortable with trilogies and
up to 5 or maybe 6 books in a series. But more than that is pushing it
for me.
At the back of my mind, I also think it's incredibly hard to keep the
plot moving in an interesting way if the series is so long. There
*have* to be times when things stagnate or go back over old concepts,
surely?
Kate Nepveu
>Speaking from experience as a reader of fantasy, I have wanted to get
>into Robert Jordan for a long time now but am totally intimidated by
>the size of the complete Wheel of Time series.
[...]
>At the back of my mind, I also think it's incredibly hard to keep the
>plot moving in an interesting way if the series is so long. There
>*have* to be times when things stagnate or go back over old concepts,
>surely?
It's not complete yet, and stagnate--oh yes definitely. I used to be a
big fan and I didn't even read the last one.
--
Kate Nepveu
E-mail: kne...@steelypips.org
Home: http://www.steelypips.org/
Book log: http://www.steelypips.org/weblog/
Sea Wasp
> josh_de...@yahoo.com (Josh Deb Barman) wrote:
>
>
>>Speaking from experience as a reader of fantasy, I have wanted to get
>>into Robert Jordan for a long time now but am totally intimidated by
>>the size of the complete Wheel of Time series.
>
> [...]
>
>
>>At the back of my mind, I also think it's incredibly hard to keep the
>>plot moving in an interesting way if the series is so long. There
>>*have* to be times when things stagnate or go back over old concepts,
>>surely?
>
>
> It's not complete yet, and stagnate--oh yes definitely. I used to be a
> big fan and I didn't even read the last one.
>
It's not NECESSARY that it stagnate; it depends on planning, I
suspect. I have something like 30+ books planned out myself. There are
several series in there, and *ALL* of them are connected in one way or
another.
I just hope I get a chance to WRITE them.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Dan Goodman
news:fbd6aed6.04052...@posting.google.com:
> Jacey Bedford <look...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:<w3811r6k...@artifact.demon.co.uk>...
>
>>
>> Is this a microcosm of what's happening elsewhere? Is there likely to
>> be a backlash against huge, sprawling, multi-part series? (By this
>> I'm referring to series like Crown of Stars and Wheel of Time, rather
>> than something like Discworld which has individual books set in the
>> same universe.)
>
> Speaking from experience as a reader of fantasy, I have wanted to get
> into Robert Jordan for a long time now but am totally intimidated by
> the size of the complete Wheel of Time series. I can't comment on
> whether the size is appropriate (since I haven't read it yet) but it
> does *seem* to be excessive. I'm quite comfortable with trilogies and
> up to 5 or maybe 6 books in a series. But more than that is pushing it
> for me.
>
> At the back of my mind, I also think it's incredibly hard to keep the
> plot moving in an interesting way if the series is so long. There
> *have* to be times when things stagnate or go back over old concepts,
> surely?
What plot? I don't think the Wheel of Time has any.
And I don't think Harry Turtledove's various series have plots, either.
David Friedman
Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
> And I don't think Harry Turtledove's various series have plots, either.
>
The Videssos ones do--also the Fox books. Perhaps not the alternate
history threads.
--
Remove NOSPAM to email
Also remove .invalid
www.daviddfriedman.com
Dan Goodman
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> And I don't think Harry Turtledove's various series have plots, either.
>
> The Videssos ones do--also the Fox books. Perhaps not the alternate
> history threads.
>
Thanks for the correction; those do indeed have plots.
Charlton Wilbur
[regarding Robert Jordan]
JDB> At the back of my mind, I also think it's incredibly hard to
JDB> keep the plot moving in an interesting way if the series is
JDB> so long. There *have* to be times when things stagnate or go
JDB> back over old concepts, surely?
The first few books are decent. I'd recommend starting with the first
one and continuing until you are tempted to hurl the book at the wall;
at that point, give up, because the books *do* stagnate and get stale.
Brian M. Scott
<cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote in
<news:87ekp7z...@mithril.chromatico.net> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
>>>>>> "JDB" == Josh Deb Barman <josh_de...@yahoo.com> writes:
> [regarding Robert Jordan]
> JDB> At the back of my mind, I also think it's incredibly hard to
> JDB> keep the plot moving in an interesting way if the series is
> JDB> so long. There *have* to be times when things stagnate or go
> JDB> back over old concepts, surely?
> The first few books are decent. I'd recommend starting with the first
> one and continuing until you are tempted to hurl the book at the wall;
> at that point, give up, because the books *do* stagnate and get stale.
Tastes will differ. I found the first book impenetrably
boring, but I managed to read two, I think, of the later
ones, neither being among the first three or four in the
series. Much incident, but nothing much happening, and to
people about whom I can't care very much.
Brian
Dorothy J Heydt
I bought the first four (all there were then available in
paperback) to read at a convention when I knew I'd have a lot of
time to kill. I got through the first book, which did a fair job
of keeping moving, but by chapter One of book Two I found the
hero (and all the other characters) so feckless, pointless,
aimless, and graceless that I put the book down, coining the
Eight Deadly Words on the spot, viz.,
"I don't *care* *WHAT* happens to these people!"
and gave them all to my niece who had a long train trip to take.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Karen Leonard
news:87ekp7z...@mithril.chromatico.net:
>>>>>> "JDB" == Josh Deb Barman <josh_de...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> [regarding Robert Jordan]
>
> JDB> At the back of my mind, I also think it's incredibly hard to
> JDB> keep the plot moving in an interesting way if the series is
> JDB> so long. There *have* to be times when things stagnate or go
> JDB> back over old concepts, surely?
>
> The first few books are decent. I'd recommend starting with the first
> one and continuing until you are tempted to hurl the book at the wall;
> at that point, give up, because the books *do* stagnate and get stale.
>
Likely caused by the conflict of interest with his editor. (Folks, you
*can't* edit your own spouse and do both well. It's in the nature of
spousing and editing.)
I also think that he's trying to head off all possible derivative stories
at the pass, and so he's gotten distracted from the one he's telling.
Bringing back dead bad guys as the opposite sex is a cheat, too. The
reader goes, yeah, that's another one down, I make it 7 wipeouts to go,
at this pace he'll need another 4 books--then he brings back the deaders.
Messes up any idea of overall pacing and progress. (Hope springs
eternal--maybe the deaders and the still-livers will be all together at
the final battle and he'll get'em at once. With that extra-special zap
he's not supposed to use.)
I started writing after I read, I think it was book IV, the one where the
entire whole plot seemed to be confusions of identity based upon
reincarnation. I figure, hell, this writing thing oughta be doable.
Not that I've actually proven any such doability w/rt my own yet.
Karen
Marilee J. Layman
I'm still getting weird questions from eBayers about the books I have
up. Is this hardcover? (Yes, it says so in the description.) What
does the cover look like? (There's two pictures of the cover in the
description.) And today, someone asked me to sell a book I don't
have. I have the first two GRRM books up, the first as used, the
second as new "because I bought it before I read the first" and he
wanted me to sell him the third. Hmmm....
--
Marilee J. Layman
David Bilek
>>>>>> "CK" == Chris Kern <chris...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> CK> On 25 May 2004 10:10:47 GMT, Omixochitl
> CK> <Omixoch...@yahoo.com> posted the following:
>
> >> How about putting the list of books in the series on one of the
> >> inside pages (a la the "other [this publisher] books by [this
> >> author]" lists I've seen) instead of splashing the series
> >> status on the front cover?
>
> CK> It depends. If it seems like just a marketing ploy I would
> CK> prefer to see the series status on the cover.
>
>I prefer this too - or a listing inside the front cover is just as
>good, if I've picked up a book because I'm considering buying it.
>
>What irks me is that series take so long to come out. I started
>reading George Martin's series when it first came out, and I'm *still*
>waiting for the fourth book. (I gave up on Robert Jordan long ago.)
>
That's nothin'. I read _A Matter for Men_ when I was like 8 years old
and I'm still waiting for book 5. I'm 29 now.
-David
David Bilek
>Kate Nepveu wrote:
>> It's not complete yet, and stagnate--oh yes definitely. I used to be a
>> big fan and I didn't even read the last one.
>>
>
> It's not NECESSARY that it stagnate; it depends on planning, I
>suspect. I have something like 30+ books planned out myself. There are
>several series in there, and *ALL* of them are connected in one way or
>another.
>
> I just hope I get a chance to WRITE them.
The track record for that sort of thing isn't very good. Witness
Daniel Keys Moran.
-David
David Bilek
>
>I'm still getting weird questions from eBayers about the books I have
>up. Is this hardcover? (Yes, it says so in the description.) What
>does the cover look like? (There's two pictures of the cover in the
>description.) And today, someone asked me to sell a book I don't
>have. I have the first two GRRM books up, the first as used, the
>second as new "because I bought it before I read the first" and he
>wanted me to sell him the third. Hmmm....
I do believe you have the highest number of feedbacks while still
maintaining 100% positive that I've ever seen.
That's pretty impressive!
-David
Vandevere
> josh_de...@yahoo.com (Josh Deb Barman) wrote in
> news:fbd6aed6.04052...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Jacey Bedford <look...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:<w3811r6k...@artifact.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> >>
> >> Is this a microcosm of what's happening elsewhere? Is there likely to
> >> be a backlash against huge, sprawling, multi-part series? (By this
> >> I'm referring to series like Crown of Stars and Wheel of Time, rather
> >> than something like Discworld which has individual books set in the
> >> same universe.)
> >
> > Speaking from experience as a reader of fantasy, I have wanted to get
> > into Robert Jordan for a long time now but am totally intimidated by
> > the size of the complete Wheel of Time series. I can't comment on
> > whether the size is appropriate (since I haven't read it yet) but it
> > does *seem* to be excessive. I'm quite comfortable with trilogies and
> > up to 5 or maybe 6 books in a series. But more than that is pushing it
> > for me.
> >
> > At the back of my mind, I also think it's incredibly hard to keep the
> > plot moving in an interesting way if the series is so long. There
> > *have* to be times when things stagnate or go back over old concepts,
> > surely?
>
> What plot? I don't think the Wheel of Time has any.
>
> And I don't think Harry Turtledove's various series have plots, either.
Robert Jordan has said that he will be finishing up WOT in two more
books. He's also not going to do any more prequels until the series
is finished, so, this time, I think he means it!
For details, go to Dragonmount.com
Vandevere
Dorothy J Heydt
Vandevere <vonho...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>Robert Jordan has said that he will be finishing up WOT in two more
>books.
Hah! He said that six or seven volumes ago.
He's also not going to do any more prequels until the series
>is finished, so, this time, I think he means it!
I think I have a nice bridge I'd like to show you.
Even if he did I wouldn't read it. As I said upthread, I got as
far as book 2, chapter 1, and said the hell with it.
Quadpus
> boring, but I managed to read two, I think, of the later
> ones, neither being among the first three or four in the
> series. Much incident, but nothing much happening, and to
> people about whom I can't care very much.
I finished the first book about, I dunno, two months ago, and when I
was paging through the second book yesterday it occurred to me that I
had absolutely no memory of how the first book ended, what state
things were left in, how the climax was resolved, or even if there was
a climax to speak of.
(spoilerspace)
I have a vague memory of being disappointed to discover that the Eye
of the World was in fact something resembling a municipal swimming
pool, and god help me if I can recall why it was important enough to
lend its name to the title of the book.
These can't be good omens for the rest of the series.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
Thanks! I try to do things properly.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Brenda W. Clough
> I got through the first book, which did a fair job
>of keeping moving, but by chapter One of book Two I found the
>hero (and all the other characters) so feckless, pointless,
>aimless, and graceless
>
>
Did his leg fall off?
Brenda <another reader of COLD COMFORT FARM>
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Recent short fiction: PARADOX, Autumn 2003
http://home.nyc.rr.com/paradoxmag//index.html
Upcoming short fiction in FIRST HEROES (TOR, May '04)
http://members.aol.com/wenamun/firstheroes.html
J.Pascal
They didn't loose me until I saw all the various pieces needed
to bring the plot arc together and I picked up the next book and
it continued to expand when it should have started to contract.
It wasn't that I was any less engaged in the prose or the
people, but that I stopped believing in an eventual payoff. Maybe
some people don't want the payoff... they just want to stay in
the world for as long as possible.
That said, I don't buy series if I can help it, because I want
to read the whole story all at once. So I *will* wait. So
my interest is very much not being taken into account by book
sales of the first volumes of the series. Then when the later
books come out the first may not be available so I won't start the
series at all, no matter how much I was interested when they
first came out.
I don't suppose there is anything I can do about this except
to make a pledge to never write a book that can't stand alone.
j.pascal
Kate Nepveu
[Wheel of Time]
>>> It's not complete yet, and stagnate--oh yes definitely. I used to be a
>>> big fan and I didn't even read the last one.
>> It's not NECESSARY that it stagnate; it depends on planning, I
>>suspect. I have something like 30+ books planned out myself. There are
>>several series in there, and *ALL* of them are connected in one way or
>>another.
I don't know if it's necessary, but with Jordan it certainly happened,
which is all I was saying.
>> I just hope I get a chance to WRITE them.
>The track record for that sort of thing isn't very good. Witness
>Daniel Keys Moran.
Well, I suspect that Moran has some kind of grevious personality issue
that keeps him from getting picked up by a major publisher, and I
haven't seen that Sea Wasp has that problem. (Or maybe I'm just bitter
that there's a COMPLETE TRENT NOVEL just moldering in Moran's desk
drawer.)
Jacey Bedford
<ju...@pascal.org> writes
Re Robert Jordan:
>
>They didn't loose me until I saw all the various pieces needed
>to bring the plot arc together and I picked up the next book and
>it continued to expand when it should have started to contract.
I've been reading Kate Elliot's Crown of Stars. When I started it I
thought it was a five part series and I enjoyed the first one, so I
decided to invest in the rest. Each volume gets longer and more
convoluted. When I got to book five - I discovered that there was a
sixth book in hardback (I'm waiting for the paperback) and then I read
that there was to be a seventh and I'm not sure I have the stamina.
In book five I do confess that some of the apparently unconnected
threads fell by the wayside for me. There were two child characters
introduced somewhere around book three who seemed like fairly minor
characters and suddenly around book five they started to have whole
chunks devoted to their story - when all I really wanted to find out
about was the main protagonists whose story I'd been following since
book one.
So I started skipping the kids' sections, and the story from the 'enemy'
point of view - just glancing at the last page to see if they were still
more or less in the same position.
Since my expectations were that I'd be rewarded with a resolution at the
end of book five, I feel as though the story should be starting to round
down now and come to a natural close.
I guess I'll keep right on to the end, but skipping the characters who
don't float my boat seems to be an option I'll continue to take. I
presume all the loose threads will eventually join together. If they
don't... I'll me mightily disappointed. And if there's another book
beyond number seven I might wait until Reader's Digest publishes it in a
condensed version.
Jacey
--
To send me real mail try
artisan at artisan hyphen harmony dot com
and make the subject line obviously not spam.
Marilee J. Layman
<mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>I'm still getting weird questions from eBayers about the books I have
>up.
And today, the person who bought my entire Narnia set insisted on
sending extra postage. I had already told her I'd found a box for all
of them and weighed it all together and then used the Domestic
Calculator on the USPS site, but she was sure it would need more
postage. So I'll just pass the extra postage on to the Friends of the
Library.
--
Marilee J. Layman
S. Palmer
> I got through the first book, which did a fair job
> of keeping moving, but by chapter One of book Two I found the
> hero (and all the other characters) so feckless, pointless,
> aimless, and graceless that I put the book down, coining the
> Eight Deadly Words on the spot, viz.,
>
> "I don't *care* *WHAT* happens to these people!"
I got about 300 pages into the first book when I hit the Eight Deadlier
Words:
"I want all these people to die horribly!"
Given the length of the series, I figured it was unlikely to happen soon
enough to make it worth reading any further. Unwilling to sell the book
(since I didn't think it kind to make anyone spend money on it) and also
unwilling to give it away to anyone I knew (since I like my friends and
would like to keep them), I abandoned the book on a table somewhere. If
someone then chose to pick it up, it was no longer within my control and
therefore not my fault.
The only other book I hated enough to abandon was Peter Hamilton's
Reality Disfunction.
-Suzanne
Jonathan L Cunningham
wrote:
>The only other book I hated enough to abandon was Peter Hamilton's
>Reality Disfunction.
I read the second volume of that, about a month ago. I confess I
hadn't read the first volume, so I don't know if that made a
difference, but it really irritated me. Half the time I didn't
even know whether characters were on the same planet as each
other (probably not) or whether I'd encountered them in a very
short scene fifty pages back (fifty-fifty on that one).
It could be a collection of good novellas, though, if only
someone would take the trouble to cut out all the pages and
re-arrange them in the right order.
Jonathan
--
Use jlc at address, not spam.
Marilee J. Layman
I read all five books -- more violence and depravity than I normally
want, but the story pulled me on -- only to find in the last pages of
the last book that there is a literal god in the machine that just
sort of cleans up all the problems left hanging by the story.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Sea Wasp
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:32:46 -0400, "S. Palmer" <cic...@speakeasy.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>The only other book I hated enough to abandon was Peter Hamilton's
>>Reality Disfunction.
>
>
> I read the second volume of that, about a month ago. I confess I
> hadn't read the first volume, so I don't know if that made a
> difference, but it really irritated me.
Not reading the first volume of that would be like not reading
"Fellowship of the Ring" AND "The Two Towers" and just reading "Return
of the King".
Jonathan L Cunningham
>Jonathan L Cunningham wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:32:46 -0400, "S. Palmer" <cic...@speakeasy.net>
>> wrote:
[Reality Dysfunction]
>> I read the second volume of that, about a month ago. I confess I
>> hadn't read the first volume, so I don't know if that made a
>> difference, but it really irritated me.
>
> Not reading the first volume of that would be like not reading
>"Fellowship of the Ring" AND "The Two Towers" and just reading "Return
>of the King".
Hmmm. Ok. But see my response to Marilee.
Funnily enough, I've talked with people who liked it. Now I'
confused.
Fortunately, I have a big enough 2B red pile that I can postpone
the problem.
Jonathan L Cunningham
<mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:21:14 GMT, sp...@softluck.plus.com (Jonathan L
>Cunningham) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:32:46 -0400, "S. Palmer" <cic...@speakeasy.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The only other book I hated enough to abandon was Peter Hamilton's
>>>Reality Disfunction.
[...]
>>It could be a collection of good novellas, though, if only
>>someone would take the trouble to cut out all the pages and
>>re-arrange them in the right order.
>
>I read all five books -- more violence and depravity than I normally
>want, but the story pulled me on -- only to find in the last pages of
>the last book that there is a literal god in the machine that just
>sort of cleans up all the problems left hanging by the story.
Five? There are *five*? Omigod.
I find unsatisfactory endings very .... unsatisfactory. It sounds
like I shouldn't bother.
Sea Wasp
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 23:24:41 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Jonathan L Cunningham wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:32:46 -0400, "S. Palmer" <cic...@speakeasy.net>
>>>wrote:
>>
>
> [Reality Dysfunction]
>
>>>I read the second volume of that, about a month ago. I confess I
>>>hadn't read the first volume, so I don't know if that made a
>>>difference, but it really irritated me.
>>
>> Not reading the first volume of that would be like not reading
>>"Fellowship of the Ring" AND "The Two Towers" and just reading "Return
>>of the King".
>
>
> Hmmm. Ok. But see my response to Marilee.
>
> Funnily enough, I've talked with people who liked it. Now I'
> confused.
I liked it myself.
There are three books in the series -- in the UK. There are (I
believe) SIX in the series in the USA, because the originals are so
honkin' huge that to fit in standard paperback they had to be split.
If there are only 5, it would mean the last one was released in HC and
then, probably, in QP format which can handle Honkin' Huge.
I rather LIKED the ending. Sure, it'd be nice to have seen the writer
wrap up all the loose ends in another way, but f'cryin' out loud, he
practically TELLS you it's going to be a DEM ending. Not once, either,
but several times from the middle of the series onward. And the rest
of it was pretty darn cool.
Marilee J. Layman
>Jonathan L Cunningham wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 23:24:41 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jonathan L Cunningham wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:32:46 -0400, "S. Palmer" <cic...@speakeasy.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>
>> [Reality Dysfunction]
>>
>>>>I read the second volume of that, about a month ago. I confess I
>>>>hadn't read the first volume, so I don't know if that made a
>>>>difference, but it really irritated me.
>>>
>>> Not reading the first volume of that would be like not reading
>>>"Fellowship of the Ring" AND "The Two Towers" and just reading "Return
>>>of the King".
>>
>>
>> Hmmm. Ok. But see my response to Marilee.
>>
>> Funnily enough, I've talked with people who liked it. Now I'
>> confused.
>
> I liked it myself.
>
> There are three books in the series -- in the UK. There are (I
>believe) SIX in the series in the USA, because the originals are so
>honkin' huge that to fit in standard paperback they had to be split.
>If there are only 5, it would mean the last one was released in HC and
>then, probably, in QP format which can handle Honkin' Huge.
I had three books -- the first two in one, the third & fourth in
another, and the fifth alone -- from SFBC.
>
> I rather LIKED the ending. Sure, it'd be nice to have seen the writer
>wrap up all the loose ends in another way, but f'cryin' out loud, he
>practically TELLS you it's going to be a DEM ending. Not once, either,
>but several times from the middle of the series onward. And the rest
>of it was pretty darn cool.
As lazy as Sawyer.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Tina Hall
> Jonathan L Cunningham wrote:
<waving to Irina>
Btw, is there a FAQ for this place?
>> [Reality Dysfunction]
> There are three books in the series -- in the UK. There are
> (I believe) SIX in the series in the USA, because the originals
> are so honkin' huge that to fit in standard paperback they had to
> be split.
I've got the paperbacks, and it's only three books. They're nicely
thick (other measurements pretty much identical to Digital Knight).
> If there are only 5, it would mean the last one was released in HC
> and then, probably, in QP format which can handle Honkin' Huge.
What's QP?
> I rather LIKED the ending. Sure, it'd be nice to have seen the
> writer wrap up all the loose ends in another way, but f'cryin'
> out loud, he practically TELLS you it's going to be a DEM ending.
> Not once, either, but several times from the middle of the series
> onward. And the rest of it was pretty darn cool.
How did he tell that? (And what's DEM, this Deux Ex Machina or
however you spell it -thingy?)
--
Tina - Hopeless Optimist and Tolerant Fanatic, with no internet access!
"Blood and souls for Makhleb!" -- Dungeon Crawl
Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of an insane mind!!!!
(Apologies to Terry Pratchett.) CrossPoint/FreeXP v3.40 RC3
David Langford
Cunningham) wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:16:27 -0400, Marilee J. Layman
><mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:21:14 GMT, sp...@softluck.plus.com (Jonathan L
>>Cunningham) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 13:32:46 -0400, "S. Palmer" <cic...@speakeasy.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>The only other book I hated enough to abandon was Peter Hamilton's
>>>>Reality Disfunction.
>[...]
>>>It could be a collection of good novellas, though, if only
>>>someone would take the trouble to cut out all the pages and
>>>re-arrange them in the right order.
>>
>>I read all five books -- more violence and depravity than I normally
>>want, but the story pulled me on -- only to find in the last pages of
>>the last book that there is a literal god in the machine that just
>>sort of cleans up all the problems left hanging by the story.
>
>Five? There are *five*? Omigod.
Three in the original British editions: =The Reality Dysfunction=, =The
Neutronium Alchemist=, =The Naked God=. Further subdivided for the US
market, not unreasonably since they're pretty enormous books.
Peter Hamilton is notorious for vastly long works. His latest, =Pandora's
Star=, looks big enough (882 pages) be a standalone but merely opens a
two-book series.
Dave
--
David Langford
ans...@cix.co.uk | http://www.ansible.co.uk/
Latest book: =Different Kinds of Darkness= (collection, Cosmos, 2004)
Irina Rempt
> <waving to Irina>
Hi Tina!
(guys, this is Tina, who followed me from rec.arts.roguelike.nethack to
rasff all by herself, and from thence to here at my suggestion; she's
mad enough for this place)
> Btw, is there a FAQ for this place?
Er, kind of, in intermittent progress:
http://www.stanford.edu/~bmoses/rasfc/rasfc-faq.html
is the latest non-controversial version I can find, but other people
will probably tell you otherwise. Believe nothing until you've seen it
with your own eyes.
> <And what's DEM, this Deux Ex Machina or
> however you spell it -thingy?)
Deus ex machina, "god from the machine". From the _Guide to Literary
Terms_:
> In some ancient Greek drama, an apparently insoluble crisis was solved
> by the intervention of a god, often brought on stage by an elaborate
> piece of equipment. This "god from the machine" was literally a _deus
> ex machina.
>
> Few modern works feature deities suspended by wires from the ceiling,
> but the term deus ex machina is still used for cases where an author
> uses some improbable (and often clumsy) plot device to work his or
> her way out of a difficult situation. When the cavalry comes charging
> over the hill or when the impoverished hero is relieved by an
> unexpected inheritance, it's often called a deus ex machina.
Irina
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin. http://www.valdyas.org/irina/
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
http://www.valdyas.org/foundobjects/index.cgi Latest: 29-May-2004
David Chapman
> I rather LIKED the ending. Sure, it'd be nice to have seen the writer
> wrap up all the loose ends in another way, but f'cryin' out loud, he
> practically TELLS you it's going to be a DEM ending. Not once, either,
> but several times from the middle of the series onward. And the rest
> of it was pretty darn cool.
I hated the ending the first time, having suffered through 4,000 pages to
reach that point. It worked a lot better when I re-read it and realised
that it wasn't really deus ex machina because the characters had had to work
hard for their victory even though it was assured once they got past the
obstacles.
--
Twelve points to ... SLOVENIA!
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
>>Jonathan L Cunningham wrote:
>
>
> <waving to Irina>
>
> Btw, is there a FAQ for this place?
>
>
>>>[Reality Dysfunction]
>>
>
>> There are three books in the series -- in the UK. There are
>>(I believe) SIX in the series in the USA, because the originals
>>are so honkin' huge that to fit in standard paperback they had to
>>be split.
>
>
> I've got the paperbacks, and it's only three books. They're nicely
> thick (other measurements pretty much identical to Digital Knight).
Well, the UK and Europe usually go together in this regard.
>
>
>>If there are only 5, it would mean the last one was released in HC
>>and then, probably, in QP format which can handle Honkin' Huge.
>
>
> What's QP?
Quality Paperback, also called Trade Paperback. These are paperbacks
which are (usually) larger than normal paperbacks and (usually) made
with higher quality binding/materials, etc. They vary a lot more than
HC (hardcover) or MM (Mass market paperback).
>
>
>> I rather LIKED the ending. Sure, it'd be nice to have seen the
>>writer wrap up all the loose ends in another way, but f'cryin'
>>out loud, he practically TELLS you it's going to be a DEM ending.
>>Not once, either, but several times from the middle of the series
>>onward. And the rest of it was pretty darn cool.
>
>
> How did he tell that? (And what's DEM, this Deux Ex Machina or
> however you spell it -thingy?)
>
Yes, DEM = Deus Ex Machina "God from/in the Machine" Basically he
told you by bringing up the subject of something called a God multiple
times and saying that if the characters could find it they would solve
their problems. Possibly not *quite* in so many words, but close.
Sea Wasp
They certainly do work hard. The DEM may grant their wishes, so to
speak, but not before they've done their best (or, in the case of Mr.
Quinn, their worst. The Mighty Quinn gets what he deserves, though)
R. L. Delamancha
wrote:
/snip/
>Btw, is there a FAQ for this place?
At my site are links to various versions of FAQ, plus unauthorized
comments from me. :-)
R.L.
--
http://www.houseboatonthestyx.com/rasfc/
Taboos, 'rules'; links to archives, FAQs, & crit groups etc
& Blog on current rasfc issues
Tina Hall
> On Wednesday 09 June 2004 04:14 Tina Hall (Tina...@kruemel.org)
> wrote:
>> <waving to Irina>
> (guys, this is Tina, who followed me from
> rec.arts.roguelike.nethack to rasff all by herself,
I didn't exactly stalk you. <g>
(I was pleasantly surprized to find you in rasfw, first, after rgrn,
though.)
> and from thence to here at my suggestion; she's mad enough for
> this place)
I'll refrain from performing a silly boot-clapping folk-dance to
prove that. ;)
>> Btw, is there a FAQ for this place?
> Er, kind of, in intermittent progress:
> http://www.stanford.edu/~bmoses/rasfc/rasfc-faq.html
Thanks. I've asked someone to get that for me.
> is the latest non-controversial version I can find, but other
> people will probably tell you otherwise.
Non-controversial?
> Believe nothing until you've seen it with your own eyes.
O-kay.
>> <And what's DEM, this Deux Ex Machina or however you spell it
>> -thingy?)
> Deus ex machina, "god from the machine". From the _Guide to
> Literary Terms_:
[...]
Thanks. Never knew what exactly it meant and where it originated. So
the language is Greek?
--
Tina - Hopeless Optimist and Tolerant Fanatic, with no internet access!
"Smite the infidels!" -- Dungeon Crawl
Tina Hall
> Tina Hall wrote:
>> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>>> Jonathan L Cunningham wrote:
>>>> [Reality Dysfunction]
>>> There are three books in the series -- in the UK. There are
>>> (I believe) SIX in the series in the USA, because the originals
>>> are so honkin' huge that to fit in standard paperback they had
>>> to be split.
>>
>> I've got the paperbacks, and it's only three books. They're
>> nicely thick (other measurements pretty much identical to
>> Digital Knight).
> Well, the UK and Europe usually go together in this regard.
I was refering to them being paperbacks instead of hardcovers,
because it seemed as if you said it couldn't be paperbacks because
of them being so thick. (The thickness was the reason I even looked
at the first one. The title sounded interesting, so I bought it.
That were the days when deciding on what to books to read was
easy... :) )
>>> If there are only 5, it would mean the last one was released in
>>> HC and then, probably, in QP format which can handle Honkin'
>>> Huge.
>>
>> What's QP?
> Quality Paperback, also called Trade Paperback. [...]
Mrpf. :)
I don't like them. Give me a mass marked paperback and I'm happy.
Everything else isn't quite what I want. (So from my subjective
point of view, it's anything but quality...)
--
Tina - Hopeless Optimist and Tolerant Fanatic, with no internet access!
"Let it end in hellfire!" -- Dungeon Crawl
Brenda W. Clough
Yes, becaue the Greeks invented it. More than a few Greek dramas are
resolved by a diety at the end, descending from on high and telling
everybody to suck it up and get along. IPHIGENEIA IN AULIS and the
Oresteia are the ones that comes first to mind, but there are plenty others.
Brenda
David Friedman
"Brenda W. Clough" <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
> >Thanks. Never knew what exactly it meant and where it originated. So
> >the language is Greek?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Yes, becaue the Greeks invented it.
The language, however, is Latin.
--
Remove NOSPAM to email
Also remove .invalid
www.daviddfriedman.com
Brian M. Scott
(Tina Hall) wrote in
<news:MSGID_2=3A240=2F2199.13=40fidonet...@fidonet.org>
in rec.arts.sf.composition:
> Irina Rempt <ir...@valdyas.org> wrote:
>> On Wednesday 09 June 2004 04:14 Tina Hall (Tina...@kruemel.org)
>> wrote:
[...]
>>> <And what's DEM, this Deux Ex Machina or however you spell it
>>> -thingy?)
>> Deus ex machina, "god from the machine". From the _Guide to
>> Literary Terms_:
> [...]
> Thanks. Never knew what exactly it meant and where it originated. So
> the language is Greek?
Latin. (In Greek it would be something like <theos ek tęs
makhinęs>, I believe.)
Brian
Dorothy J Heydt
Tina Hall <Tina...@kruemel.org> wrote:
>
>>> <And what's DEM, this Deux Ex Machina or however you spell it
>>> -thingy?)
>
>> Deus ex machina, "god from the machine". From the _Guide to
>> Literary Terms_:
>[...]
>
>Thanks. Never knew what exactly it meant and where it originated. So
>the language is Greek?
Latin with Greek borrowing. _He mechane_ is Greek for "a
machine, contrivance," and specifically the crane that picked up
an actor playing the part of a god from behind the backdrop and
hoisted him into the air from which he could gracefully descend
to make his pronouncement. Borrowed into Latin as _machina_
(Latin has no articles). "A god out of the machine" sometimes
appears at the end of the play to tie up all the loose ends, but
this is sloppy play-writing and it's sloppy story-writing. E.g.,
you're writing a story about a woman who is abused by her
husband, and trying to decide whether to leave him, and in the
last chapter before she can decide, he's killed in a traffic
accident. This is not a satisfactory ending.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Jonathan L Cunningham
>Jonathan L Cunningham wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 23:24:41 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>> [Reality Dysfunction]
[Jonathan]
>>>>I read the second volume of that, about a month ago. I confess I
>>>>hadn't read the first volume, so I don't know if that made a
>>>>difference, but it really irritated me.
>>>
[Sea Wasp]
>>> Not reading the first volume of that would be like not reading
>>>"Fellowship of the Ring" AND "The Two Towers" and just reading "Return
>>>of the King".
>> Funnily enough, I've talked with people who liked it. Now I'
>> confused.
>
> I liked it myself.
(snip)
> I rather LIKED the ending. Sure, it'd be nice to have seen the writer
>wrap up all the loose ends in another way, but f'cryin' out loud, he
>practically TELLS you it's going to be a DEM ending. Not once, either,
>but several times from the middle of the series onward. And the rest
>of it was pretty darn cool.
It was beginning to make sense, for me, by the end of the 2nd vol.,
and it was also clear that there was a lot of stuff in the 1st volume
which was being referred to.
So what you say make sense: three volumes, but only one book, not
a trilogy.
There were lots of neat ideas, I thought, but although I generally
like books which mix science and "magic", this particular mix didn't
work for me. Too many of my beliefs were in suspenders.
(Again, it's possible that it was all set up more convincingly in
the first third, and then once the basic premise had been bought by
the reader, it could just be used.)
I have a similar dislike for Pullman's _Dark Materials_ trilogy: the
premise behind the "magic" doesn't work for me. Although I preferred
Pullman's writing style.
I've put "magic" in quotes both times, because both those are examples
of where the writer has at least made the effort to make it different
from the usual EFP versions of magic. (I include by that magic
systems which aren't D&D derived, but which crop up very frequently.)
Sea Wasp
(RE "Night's Dawn" trilogy by Peter Hamilton)
> There were lots of neat ideas, I thought, but although I generally
> like books which mix science and "magic", this particular mix didn't
> work for me. Too many of my beliefs were in suspenders.
>
> (Again, it's possible that it was all set up more convincingly in
> the first third, and then once the basic premise had been bought by
> the reader, it could just be used.)
>
I would say that's correct. The first book (or, in the USA, pair of
books -- The Reality Dysfunction) sets up all conditions, all
characters, etc., and brings in The Wierd only after we're reasonably
comfortable with the setting. If you didn't read the first book,
you're really out to sea. I'd NEVER try starting that series in the
middle. Worse than watching "a couple episodes" of Babylon 5 in the
middle of the third season.
> I have a similar dislike for Pullman's _Dark Materials_ trilogy: the
> premise behind the "magic" doesn't work for me. Although I preferred
> Pullman's writing style.
>
> I've put "magic" in quotes both times, because both those are examples
> of where the writer has at least made the effort to make it different
> from the usual EFP versions of magic. (I include by that magic
> systems which aren't D&D derived, but which crop up very frequently.)
Out of curiosity, given your interests, did you read Digital Knight,
and if so, how did it work for you? (If you did and commented earlier,
just point me at the prior discussion; there have been sufficient
numbers (fortunately!) that I no longer remember each and every one.)
Jonathan L Cunningham
>Jonathan L Cunningham wrote:
>
>> I've put "magic" in quotes both times, because both those are examples
>> of where the writer has at least made the effort to make it different
>> from the usual EFP versions of magic. (I include by that magic
>> systems which aren't D&D derived, but which crop up very frequently.)
>
> Out of curiosity, given your interests, did you read Digital Knight,
>and if so, how did it work for you? (If you did and commented earlier,
>just point me at the prior discussion; there have been sufficient
>numbers (fortunately!) that I no longer remember each and every one.)
No, I confess I haven't. I must have missed the announcement first
time round, although there have been enough mentions over the last
month or so that it's been rising to the surface of my awareness.
But (AFAICT) it's not published over here, and I haven't bought
anything from Amazon for a couple of years. I'm not even sure
the UK Amazon has it listed under SF&F, 'cos a couple of
attempts failed to find it. It is there though, somewhere.
I should have checked when I was in Forbidden Planet a couple of
weeks ago, but that was for the first time in months, too.
From what the one review of it on Amazon said, it sounds like there
is a detective-style element to the plot. I'm not usually grabbed by
detective style plots, even when futuristic. (Fussy? Moi? Back
in 1997, someone on this group asked me if I'd read any J D Robb,
which I hadn't, but I got three of her books. The first was
well-written, entertaining, and I'm going to read the other two
as soon as I'm in the right mood[1] for them ... )
Anyway, the review of Digital Knight was a bit mixed, but it
does sound like the kind of thing I *might* like. Or I might
not. Only one way to find out ... ;-).
Jonathan
[1] She's massively successful, under a number of different
pen-names as far as I can make out, so this is a comment on
my reading habits, not the quality of the books. It might be
that some books work better if you can identify with the
protagonist, but Lt. Eve Dallas is not someone I can easily
imagine myself being ... this is less likely to be a problem
with Digital Knight, I think, because your protagonist is (a)
not a sexy woman, (b) not a policeman[2]. So whatever else
he's like, that's two fewer obstacles to identifying with him.
[2] Not a comment about police: simply that I can't imagine
ever being one. OTOH, I can't by any stretch of the imagination
imagine being an EE Smith Lensman, either, and it didn't stop
me reading that series. Oh, dear, I've started wibbling :-/.
Tim S
wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:02:39 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
>> Jonathan L Cunningham wrote:
>>
>>> I've put "magic" in quotes both times, because both those are examples
>>> of where the writer has at least made the effort to make it different
>>> from the usual EFP versions of magic. (I include by that magic
>>> systems which aren't D&D derived, but which crop up very frequently.)
>>
>> Out of curiosity, given your interests, did you read Digital Knight,
>> and if so, how did it work for you? (If you did and commented earlier,
>> just point me at the prior discussion; there have been sufficient
>> numbers (fortunately!) that I no longer remember each and every one.)
>
> No, I confess I haven't. I must have missed the announcement first
> time round, although there have been enough mentions over the last
> month or so that it's been rising to the surface of my awareness.
>
> But (AFAICT) it's not published over here,
I've seen it in a bookshop. Borders, in Oxford Street, to be precise.
Tim
Jonathan L Cunningham
<T...@timsilverman.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>on 11/06/2004 7:43 pm, Jonathan L Cunningham at sp...@softluck.plus.com
>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:02:39 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Out of curiosity, given your interests, did you read Digital Knight,
>>
>> No, I confess I haven't. I must have missed the announcement first
>> time round, although there have been enough mentions over the last
>> month or so that it's been rising to the surface of my awareness.
>>
>> But (AFAICT) it's not published over here,
>
>I've seen it in a bookshop. Borders, in Oxford Street, to be precise.
Ah, yes, I've sometimes seen American-published books in my local
Borders. I'll check next time I get a chance. (Some time next week.)
If I don't find it, I'll also enquire whether they stock it and it's
just sold out.
Thanks.
Jonathan
Sea Wasp
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:02:39 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Jonathan L Cunningham wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I've put "magic" in quotes both times, because both those are examples
>>>of where the writer has at least made the effort to make it different
>>>from the usual EFP versions of magic. (I include by that magic
>>>systems which aren't D&D derived, but which crop up very frequently.)
>>
>> Out of curiosity, given your interests, did you read Digital Knight,
>>and if so, how did it work for you? (If you did and commented earlier,
>>just point me at the prior discussion; there have been sufficient
>>numbers (fortunately!) that I no longer remember each and every one.)
>
>
> No, I confess I haven't. I must have missed the announcement first
> time round, although there have been enough mentions over the last
> month or so that it's been rising to the surface of my awareness.
>
> But (AFAICT) it's not published over here, and I haven't bought
> anything from Amazon for a couple of years. I'm not even sure
> the UK Amazon has it listed under SF&F, 'cos a couple of
> attempts failed to find it. It is there though, somewhere.
It is there (in Amazon UK, and in the UK branches of Borders). You
can also get it for free as a download, or pay for it as a download if
you want to ensure that the author gets his cut, on the Baen site (the
"free" version is in the Baen Free Library).
>
> I should have checked when I was in Forbidden Planet a couple of
> weeks ago, but that was for the first time in months, too.
>
> From what the one review of it on Amazon said, it sounds like there
> is a detective-style element to the plot.
I describe it in a nutshell as "MacGyver meets the X-Files and
Buffy the Vampire Slayer".
Eric Jarvis
>
> <Digital Knight>
>
> I describe it in a nutshell as "MacGyver meets the X-Files and
> Buffy the Vampire Slayer".
>
Pretty much. There's a tough of Philip Marlowe, hacker extraordinaire in
there too. It's a fun read. I'm looking forward to reading more.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Chris Dollin
[re: _Digital Knight_]
> But (AFAICT) it's not published over here, and I haven't bought
> anything from Amazon for a couple of years. I'm not even sure
> the UK Amazon has it listed under SF&F, 'cos a couple of
> attempts failed to find it. It is there though, somewhere.
>
> I should have checked when I was in Forbidden Planet a couple of
> weeks ago, but that was for the first time in months, too.
That's where I got it from, well, either there or Murder One, a few
weeks ago.
It'll go into next quarter's reading objectives. I still have two to
go for this quarter ...
--
Plus Unassigned Reading Hedgehog
http://www.electric-hedgehog.net/reviews/2003-03-merlin-conspiracy.html
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
>
>><Digital Knight>
>>
>> I describe it in a nutshell as "MacGyver meets the X-Files and
>>Buffy the Vampire Slayer".
>>
>
>
> Pretty much. There's a tough of Philip Marlowe, hacker extraordinaire in
> there too. It's a fun read. I'm looking forward to reading more.
>
To be honest, the touch of "hard-boiled narrator" in there comes
from Archie Goodwin more than Marlowe. ;)
Sea Wasp
> Jonathan L Cunningham wrote:
>
> [re: _Digital Knight_]
> That's where I got it from, well, either there or Murder One, a few
> weeks ago.
Excellent! :)
>
> It'll go into next quarter's reading objectives. I still have two to
> go for this quarter ...
>
That sounds so... serious. Scheduled quarterly reading objectives!
Chris Dollin
> Chris Dollin wrote:
>>
>> It'll go into next quarter's reading objectives. I still have two to
>> go for this quarter ...
>
> That sounds so... serious. Scheduled quarterly reading objectives!
It appears to be the only effective way of managing my reading list,
given that I allowed the dratted thing to get as long as it is in
the first place.
So, as of recently, I said, "which of *these* <fx:handwaveLargeList/>
might I (a) plausibly manage to read in the next three months and (b)
want to read sooner rather than later? OK, pick *those* and plan to
read them."
Knowing what I wanted to read means I'm more likely to make progress
through both the fiction and non-fiction lists, and *doesn't* stop me
from reading "extras" [eg the two Hambly's I picked up on the same trip.]
because I don't overload the objectives ...
Once upon a time I'd read any book I bought on the same or the following
day. Alas these dreams are over, out of reach, a mere delicate flame
of desire. Heaven will have to wait.
--
Hedgehog
C FAQ's at: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/comp/comp.lang.c.html
http://www.electric-hedgehog.net/reviews/2003-03-merlin-conspiracy.html
Sea Wasp
> Once upon a time I'd read any book I bought on the same or the following
> day. Alas these dreams are over, out of reach, a mere delicate flame
> of desire. Heaven will have to wait.
>
You mean... OTHER things interfere with your READING? How... terrible! :)
Jonathan L Cunningham
wrote:
>Sea Wasp sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
>>
>> <Digital Knight>
>>
>> I describe it in a nutshell as "MacGyver meets the X-Files and
>> Buffy the Vampire Slayer".
Ok. I didn't watch MacGyver, and am probably the only person in the
world who chose not to watch the X-Files (at least, sometimes it
feels like that).
This doesn't push Digital Knight up my priority list, except that
now I'm more curious ...
>Pretty much. There's a tough of Philip Marlowe, hacker extraordinaire in
>there too. It's a fun read. I'm looking forward to reading more.
... and "it's a fun read" helps, not least because I suspect my
tastes and sense of humour differ from Eric's, and this is an
opportunity to check.
It's the same with reviews etc. If 99% of self-confessed sf
readers like a book, it's probably good. If 50% like it, you have
to ask "which 50%" -- and if only 5% think it's excellent, rush
out and buy it, if it's the 5% whose tastes agree with your own.
(NB in no sense do I mean to imply that Digital Knight may be less
than excellent, but sff is such a wide genre that I don't expect
to like every book, even just restricted to the excellent ones.
Sometimes I can recognise excellence without enjoyment, contrariwise
I enjoy a lot of stuff which definitely *isn't* excellent, nor
even good. Anyway, I *will* read DK and then I'll have an opinion
on it.)
Jonathan
Catja Pafort
> Btw, is there a FAQ for this place?
Google for
rec.arts.sf.composition FAQ by Michelle Bottorff,
or
1ge4nk1.12yb0up38ykowN%mbot...@mac.com
and you'll find the most currect version.
Michelle, are you going to put it on a webpage somewhere? (I can if you
haven't got space)
Catja
Sea Wasp
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 02:38:28 +0100, Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Sea Wasp sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
>>
>>><Digital Knight>
>>>
>>> I describe it in a nutshell as "MacGyver meets the X-Files and
>>>Buffy the Vampire Slayer".
>>
>
> Ok. I didn't watch MacGyver, and am probably the only person in the
> world who chose not to watch the X-Files (at least, sometimes it
> feels like that).
I didn't watch MUCH of the X-Files. If I thought more than 1 out
of 100 would understand in the general public, I'd have said "MacGyver
meets Kolchak" instead, which might be a closer match. Though there is
a sort of X-Filesish organization which makes minor appearances in the
book, they're not nearly so INCREDIBLY DUMB as the TV show.
>
> This doesn't push Digital Knight up my priority list, except that
> now I'm more curious ...
>
>
>>Pretty much. There's a tough of Philip Marlowe, hacker extraordinaire in
>>there too. It's a fun read. I'm looking forward to reading more.
>
>
> ... and "it's a fun read" helps, not least because I suspect my
> tastes and sense of humour differ from Eric's, and this is an
> opportunity to check.
>
> It's the same with reviews etc. If 99% of self-confessed sf
> readers like a book, it's probably good. If 50% like it, you have
> to ask "which 50%" -- and if only 5% think it's excellent, rush
> out and buy it, if it's the 5% whose tastes agree with your own.
Well, if you go to Amazon.com, you will find 14 reviews of DK;
two, as I recall, are negative (one of them apparently because what
they wanted was The Standard Vampire/Werewolf Novel, and I had the
gall to write something that used vampires DIFFERENTLY), and the other
12 range from "fun read" to "amazing read". (yes, I enjoy occasionally
reading those to tickle my ego. Then I read the other two to deflate
it). Most of the other online reviews were pretty positive. (And it
actually made one bestseller list; #10 on Locus' list in January)
>
> (NB in no sense do I mean to imply that Digital Knight may be less
> than excellent, but sff is such a wide genre that I don't expect
> to like every book, even just restricted to the excellent ones.
Well, certainly. There's tons of books out there which are well
written and stellar examples of their genre which still don't please
all readers. If I thought I could please everyone, I'd be doomed to
disappointment.
>
> Sometimes I can recognise excellence without enjoyment, contrariwise
> I enjoy a lot of stuff which definitely *isn't* excellent, nor
> even good. Anyway, I *will* read DK and then I'll have an opinion
> on it.)
That is generally the accepted way to form an opinion, although
apparently on Usenet not the most COMMON way. :)
David Friedman
sp...@softluck.plus.com (Jonathan L Cunningham) wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 02:38:28 +0100, Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Sea Wasp sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
> >>
> >> <Digital Knight>
> >>
> >> I describe it in a nutshell as "MacGyver meets the X-Files and
> >> Buffy the Vampire Slayer".
>
> Ok. I didn't watch MacGyver, and am probably the only person in the
> world who chose not to watch the X-Files (at least, sometimes it
> feels like that).
What are (or were) the X-files?
Tina Hall
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 02:38:28 +0100, Eric Jarvis
> <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
>> Sea Wasp sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
>>> <Digital Knight>
>>>
>>> I describe it in a nutshell as "MacGyver meets the X-Files
>>> and Buffy the Vampire Slayer".
> Ok. I didn't watch MacGyver, and am probably the only person in
> the world who chose not to watch the X-Files (at least, sometimes
> it feels like that).
I gave up on the X-Files. It's where the saying "Stop when it's at
its best/most wonderful." applies, except they didn't stop.
Don't worry. While on some broad level some themes might be similar,
and it does convey the overall idea, I can't really identify either
of the three with the contents of the book.
To break it down...
You get the efficiency and inventiveness (using what's available, on
short to no notice) of MacGyver, but you don't get planes build out
of a hairpin. [*]
You get the 'unnatural' crittes and the bigger (glimpsed at)
backround from the X-Files. I wouldn't call it conspiracy (as in the
X-Files), because that's what's put me off the X-Files (it got more
and more convoluted), but just a nice pleasant backround mystery
hinting at bigger things.
With Buffy, maybe the little group of people working together
(except they're much more likable than the Scoobies) against all
sorts of critters.
[*] There's a joke over here: MacGyver sits in a barn, alone,
surrounded by enemies. He tells them: "I've got a ballpen and some
paper.", their reaction: "We surrender!".
>> It's a fun read. I'm looking forward to reading more.
"AOL!"
> ... and "it's a fun read" helps, not least because I suspect my
> tastes and sense of humour differ from Eric's, and this is an
> opportunity to check.
My tastes are very picky and I'm easily annoyed with all sorts of
stuff, but I really liked Digital Knight.
--
Tina - Hopeless Optimist and Tolerant Fanatic, with no internet access!
"Blood and souls for Makhleb!" -- Dungeon Crawl
Jonathan L Cunningham
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <40cc3eed...@usenet.plus.net>,
> sp...@softluck.plus.com (Jonathan L Cunningham) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 02:38:28 +0100, Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Sea Wasp sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <Digital Knight>
>> >>
>> >> I describe it in a nutshell as "MacGyver meets the X-Files and
>> >> Buffy the Vampire Slayer".
>>
>> Ok. I didn't watch MacGyver, and am probably the only person in the
>> world who chose not to watch the X-Files (at least, sometimes it
>> feels like that).
>
>What are (or were) the X-files?
They're the files between the W-files and the Y-files.
David Bilek
>In article <40cc3eed...@usenet.plus.net>,
> sp...@softluck.plus.com (Jonathan L Cunningham) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 02:38:28 +0100, Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Sea Wasp sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <Digital Knight>
>> >>
>> >> I describe it in a nutshell as "MacGyver meets the X-Files and
>> >> Buffy the Vampire Slayer".
>>
>> Ok. I didn't watch MacGyver, and am probably the only person in the
>> world who chose not to watch the X-Files (at least, sometimes it
>> feels like that).
>
>What are (or were) the X-files?
You are Dorothy Heydt and I claim my five pounds.
-David
Dorothy J Heydt
Hee hee. I actually know about the X-Files, my kids used to
watch it. It was one of the things I tended to leave the room
during.
Marilee J. Layman
I knew about them, it was impossible to manage OMNI's SF board on AOL
without knowing about them, but I never watched them. I didn't watch
McGyver in the original, either, but one of the cable channels reran
them at 11am for a while and I enjoyed laughing at them. I *did*
watch Buffy, although I didn't think it continued as wonderfully as
some people.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Jo Walton
>
> What are (or were) the X-files?
A US TV series in which some US security agents investigated UFOs and other
weird science events.
I haven't seen it -- there's been no TV in my adult life -- but I know that's
what it is from general cultural osmosis.
--
Jo I kissed a kif at Kefk blu...@vif.com
David Friedman
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> wrote:
> >What are (or were) the X-files?
>
> You are Dorothy Heydt and I claim my five pounds.
I have witnesses who have seen both of us together.
Brian M. Scott
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> wrote in
<news:ddfr-0F336F.1...@sea-read.news.verio.net> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> In article <nv8pc0d4e6s30s71k...@4ax.com>,
> David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> wrote:
>>>What are (or were) the X-files?
>> You are Dorothy Heydt and I claim my five pounds.
> I have witnesses who have seen both of us together.
But have they seen you *apart*?
Brian
Julia Jones
<b.s...@csuohio.edu> writes
similar tastes in con panels, I may well not have seen Dorothy when
David wasn't around. :-)
--
Julia Jones
"We are English of Borg. Your language will be assimilated."
Jonathan L Cunningham
I stopped watching Buffy around Series 6(?) when Joss Whedon stopped
writing it. I think I managed to watch the final episode of the last
series (not sure who wrote that).
It's difficult to be original after you've exhausted every SF/horror/
fairy tale/myth ever ... although sometimes he still managed it ;-).
Where he excelled, though, was in the one-liners.
Jonathan L Cunningham
wrote:
>My tastes are very picky and I'm easily annoyed with all sorts of
>stuff, but I really liked Digital Knight.
That's possibly one of the best recommendations for it ... :-).
Brooks Moses
> In article <nv8pc0d4e6s30s71k...@4ax.com>,
> David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> wrote:
> > >What are (or were) the X-files?
> >
> > You are Dorothy Heydt and I claim my five pounds.
>
> I have witnesses who have seen both of us together.
Yes, but I disavow all knowledge of this.
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
Dorothy J Heydt
I never watched Buffy. I think by the time it came on my kids
had moved out and the TV was busted. My interest in teenagers is
limited (though I do like Ranma 1/2) and my interest in vampires
is way into the negative numbers.
David Tomlin
Three strikes and I'm out.
1. Never saw a single episode of McGyver. Not the sort of thing I'm
interested in.
2. Can't bear more than a few minutes of Buffy. Dialogue so dumb it's
embarrassing.
Btw I liked the movie version of Buffy, which is completely different
from the series. It's about 80% comedy and 20% horror. The
all-American cheerleader drafted to fight vampires was a comic premise
to begin with. Another problem with the series is that it ruins the
premise by taking it with dead-pan seriousness.
3. X-Files has held my interest through a whole episode maybe three or
four times. It does often catch my interest with an intriguing
premise, but I'm soon bored by the non-personalities of the two leads.
It's odd that many people claim there is "sexual tension" between the
two somnambulists. I had no idea sexual tension could have so much
slack in it.
My favorite episode is the one with the vampires who were really
un-dead, and really needed blood, but didn't really grow fangs. They
would use a knife or anything sharp, but the cute gag was that some of
them had taken to using store-bought vampire teeth. You can imagine
how that confused the investigators.
Ross Smith
> In article <nv8pc0d4e6s30s71k...@4ax.com>,
> David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> >What are (or were) the X-files?
>>
>> You are Dorothy Heydt and I claim my five pounds.
>
> I have witnesses who have seen both of us together.
If you think that sort of thing constitutes reliable evidence, you've
_definitely_ never seen the X-Files :-)
--
Ross Smith ......... r-s...@ihug.co.nz ......... Auckland, New Zealand
"We are all addicts of fossil fuels in a state of denial, about to
face cold turkey. And like so many addicts about to face cold turkey,
our leaders are now committing violent crimes to get what little is
left of what we're hooked on." -- Kurt Vonnegut
Neil Barnes
news:AytNTYKm...@jajones.demon.co.uk:
I can vouch that I have seen both Dorothy and David, on separate
occasions and on opposite sides of the Atlantic.
Though of course I cannot vouch for whether the other was visible
elsewhere when seeing the one, and vice versa.
Neil
--
note - the email address in this message is valid - Hotmail have
improved their spam killing no end. Ignore previous suggestions
to use ntlworld.
Sea Wasp
\
> What are (or were) the X-files?
>
I'm impressed. I didn't think it was POSSIBLE for someone to live
in this society, be online and involved in the SF community, and not
have heard of the X-Files. Not watched it, certainly, but not even
know what it is?
The X-Files was a fairly long-running television series featuring
two agents for the FBI who worked on the cases that didn't fit with
anything "normal" -- aliens, magic, psychics, etc. One was open-minded
and instinctive in his operations (Mulder) and the other, his partner,
was a scientific and full-blown skeptic (Scully). The series had as a
deep background that slowly came to the foreground a vast alien-run
conspiracy of Illuminatus! proportions. An ambitious show which, to my
mind, fell very short of its potential.
Tina Hall
>>>>>>>> <Digital Knight>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I describe it in a nutshell as "MacGyver meets the
>>>>>>>> X-Files and Buffy the Vampire Slayer".
<snip>
> Three strikes and I'm out.
<snip MacGyver>
> 2. Can't bear more than a few minutes of Buffy. Dialogue so dumb
> it's embarrassing.
It's supposed to be daft, that's what makes it funny and kept me
watching. (I didn't care much for most of the characters and
supposed 'scares'.)
> Btw I liked the movie version of Buffy, which is completely
> different from the series.
I didn't like it. It wasn't particularly funny, nor interesting.
> It's about 80% comedy and 20% horror.
Buffy the series is about 80% comedy (and 20% characters being
annoying, which might count as horrible). <g>
> The all-American cheerleader drafted to fight vampires was a
> comic premise to begin with. Another problem with the series is
> that it ruins the premise by taking it with dead-pan seriousness.
If it did, I didn't notice. Some posters in another newsgroup talked
about 'drama', I thing they were taking it too serious.
<snip X-Files>
--
Tina - Hopeless Optimist and Tolerant Fanatic, with no internet access!
"Smite the infidels!" -- Dungeon Crawl
Dorothy J Heydt
>David Friedman wrote:
>
> The X-Files was a fairly long-running television series featuring
>two agents for the FBI who worked on the cases that didn't fit with
>anything "normal" -- aliens, magic, psychics, etc. One was open-minded
>and instinctive in his operations (Mulder) and the other, his partner,
>was a scientific and full-blown skeptic (Scully).
Really???????? The impression I got from overhearing snatches of
the show was that the female agent was sensible and level-headed
and the male agent was a full-bloon looneytoon who would believe
in anything if it was bizarre enough.
The series had as a
>deep background that slowly came to the foreground a vast alien-run
>conspiracy of Illuminatus! proportions.
That was the other thing I objected to: the continuing suggestion
that all the woo-woo stuff was real and would've been discovered
if they'd only searched ten minutes longer; the trope that all
the stuff in the National Enquirer is true (so nicely parodied in
_Men in Black_).
Stuart Houghton
>
> What are (or were) the X-files?
>
A popular beat combo, m'lud. :-)
--
Stuart Houghton
blog:http://rippingyarns.blogspot.com/
book reviews:http://asciimonkey.blogspot.com/
John F. Eldredge
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:23:02 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:
>In article <40CD7DA6...@wizvax.net>, Sea Wasp
><sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>>David Friedman wrote:
>>
>> The X-Files was a fairly long-running television series
>> featuring
>>two agents for the FBI who worked on the cases that didn't fit with
>> anything "normal" -- aliens, magic, psychics, etc. One was
>>open-minded and instinctive in his operations (Mulder) and the
>>other, his partner, was a scientific and full-blown skeptic
>>(Scully).
>
>Really???????? The impression I got from overhearing snatches of
>the show was that the female agent was sensible and level-headed
>and the male agent was a full-bloon looneytoon who would believe
>in anything if it was bizarre enough.
I think that you both just said the same thing in slightly different
terms.
>
>The series had as a
>>deep background that slowly came to the foreground a vast alien-run
>> conspiracy of Illuminatus! proportions.
>
>That was the other thing I objected to: the continuing suggestion
>that all the woo-woo stuff was real and would've been discovered
>if they'd only searched ten minutes longer; the trope that all
>the stuff in the National Enquirer is true (so nicely parodied in
>_Men in Black_).
Well, an episode in which the invading aliens turned out to be a
ten-year-old prankster would have been a let-down, as far as the
viewers were concerned. Just as fictional detectives (almost) always
solve the crime, fictional paranormal investigators have to find some
genuinely paranormal event. It's a literary trope.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBQM3FEjMYPge5L34aEQITXwCfQTl1mSe3Rc1GQtTLkSCKPQ6FPsoAniX8
aeBu4EJjIfoJPRlDx8qpx2il
=fG/s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
R. L.
wrote:
>In article <40CD7DA6...@wizvax.net>, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>>David Friedman wrote:
>>
>> The X-Files was a fairly long-running television series featuring
>>two agents for the FBI who worked on the cases that didn't fit with
>>anything "normal" -- aliens, magic, psychics, etc. One was open-minded
>>and instinctive in his operations (Mulder) and the other, his partner,
>>was a scientific and full-blown skeptic (Scully).
>
>Really???????? The impression I got from overhearing snatches of
>the show was that the female agent was sensible and level-headed
>and the male agent was a full-bloon looneytoon who would believe
>in anything if it was bizarre enough.
Er, isn't that what he said? :-)
>The series had as a
>>deep background that slowly came to the foreground a vast alien-run
>>conspiracy of Illuminatus! proportions.
>
>That was the other thing I objected to: the continuing suggestion
>that all the woo-woo stuff was real and would've been discovered
>if they'd only searched ten minutes longer; the trope that all
>the stuff in the National Enquirer is true (so nicely parodied in
>_Men in Black_).
Sounds cool, maybe I should get a tv sometime.
But I thought 'trope' meant something else...?
R.L.
--
RL at houseboatonthestyx
Stuart Houghton
news:lsgrc019idk2tmrqu...@4ax.com:
> Well, an episode in which the invading aliens turned out to be a
> ten-year-old prankster would have been a let-down, as far as the
> viewers were concerned. Just as fictional detectives (almost) always
> solve the crime, fictional paranormal investigators have to find some
> genuinely paranormal event. It's a literary trope.
>
They did a couple of episodes where the weekly weirdness turned out to have
either a mundane explanation, or one that was still paranormal, but just a
completely different type of paranormal than the viewer expected.
Eric Jarvis
>
> Well, an episode in which the invading aliens turned out to be a
> ten-year-old prankster would have been a let-down, as far as the
> viewers were concerned. Just as fictional detectives (almost) always
> solve the crime, fictional paranormal investigators have to find some
> genuinely paranormal event. It's a literary trope.
>
Jonathan Creek
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Charlton Wilbur
SW> The X-Files was a fairly long-running television series
SW> [...] The series had as a deep background that slowly came to
SW> the foreground a vast alien-run conspiracy of Illuminatus!
SW> proportions. An ambitious show which, to my mind, fell very
SW> short of its potential.
There was a point a couple years into the series where it became
pretty much apparent that the background was being made up as it was
needed, which led to the conspiracy behaving in ways that were
astoundingly stupid for a group of people that had been operating in
secrecey at the top levels of the US Government for 30+ years. After
that point I stopped watching it regularly, because the artifice (or
lack thereof) was just too apparent.
Still, the non-arc episodes managed to get better and better: in the
best of them, it was never entirely clear whether the odd phenomenon
they were investigating was real or not.
Charlton
--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com
Chris Dollin
> In article <nv8pc0d4e6s30s71k...@4ax.com>,
> David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nospam.com> wrote:
>> >What are (or were) the X-files?
>>
>> You are Dorothy Heydt and I claim my five pounds.
>
> I have witnesses who have seen both of us together.
That's easy if you're one person.
--
Why, Yes, Clark And Superman Are Both With Me Hedgehog
C FAQ's at: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/comp/comp.lang.c.html
http://www.electric-hedgehog.net/reviews/2003-03-merlin-conspiracy.html
Chris Dollin
> Ok. I didn't watch MacGyver, and am probably the only person in the
> world who chose not to watch the X-Files (at least, sometimes it
> feels like that).
You Are Not Alone.
I'm afraid I jusdged the X-Files by its first episode only, my response
to same being "Ye Gods, I'm not watching more of *that*!".
Which is perhaps fortunate - if we'd liked it, we'd not have room on
the shelves for it.
--
Chris Dollin
> Chris Dollin wrote:
>
>> Once upon a time I'd read any book I bought on the same or the following
>> day. Alas these dreams are over, out of reach, a mere delicate flame
>> of desire. Heaven will have to wait.
>
> You mean... OTHER things interfere with your READING? How... terrible! :)
I can give them up any time I want!
--
(But I Don't) Hedgehog
http://www.electric-hedgehog.net/reviews/2003-03-merlin-conspiracy.html
Stuart Houghton
@news.individual.net:
> John F. Eldredge jo...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
>>
>> Well, an episode in which the invading aliens turned out to be a
>> ten-year-old prankster would have been a let-down, as far as the
>> viewers were concerned. Just as fictional detectives (almost) always
>> solve the crime, fictional paranormal investigators have to find some
>> genuinely paranormal event. It's a literary trope.
>>
>
> Jonathan Creek
>
Not *strictly* a paranormal investigator. More like the exact opposite, in
fact.
David Friedman
> David Friedman wrote:
> \
> > What are (or were) the X-files?
> >
>
> I'm impressed. I didn't think it was POSSIBLE for someone to live
> in this society, be online and involved in the SF community, and not
> have heard of the X-Files. Not watched it, certainly, but not even
> know what it is?
I knew there was such a thing, because I had seen the term, but I don't
believe I have ever seen the show--we don't have a TV--and I think this
thread is the first clear description I have seen of just what it was.