"New York Times" article on SF television
Paul T. Riddell
http://www.nytimes.com/library/review/020600tv-scifi-review.html
Cordially,
Paul T. Riddell
The Healing Power of Obnoxiousness:
The Paul T. Riddell Essay Archive
http://www.hpoo.com
"Same Old garbage, Shiny New Container"
Randolph Fritz
>Anyone have a chance to read this one?
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/library/review/020600tv-scifi-review.html
>
Just did (though I don't own a TV. :) Yup. Gee, who's that quoted in
paragraph seven? :)
For me, the most interesting point, though, comes from Harlan Ellison
(sorry, Paul.:) "...it is being done by the same people who produce
cop shows, doctor shows and game shows."
Yet the public idea of policing and medicine largely comes from those
shows. Brrrr.
R.
--
"So sit us down, buy us a drink,
Tell us a good story,
Sing us a song we know to be true.
I don't give a damn
That I never will be worthy,
Fear is the only enemy that I still know"--NMA
Randolph Fritz
>
>Randolph, do you ever have a point to make that isn't some variation on
>the theme of how foolish and stupid everyone else is?
>
>Just wondering.
>
Ouch! And after I'd resolved to be careful of that, too. :( Not in
the past several weeks, it seems; I've just reviewed my posts here.
I've been stressed and I think depression has crept up on me (on
little cat feet, no doubt.) :(
Sorry, folks; I'll try to do better.
Randolph Fritz
<win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
>In article <slrn89rn2h....@open.thedoor.nom>, r
and...@cyber-dyne.com (Randolph Fritz) writes:
>
>But they get doctors to be medical advisors on doctor shows (even MASH),
>and cops to be technical advisors on cop shows. They don't get starship
>captains to be technical advisors on sf shows.
>
True enough. I was thinking more along the lines that at least
science fiction isn't supposed to be realistic.
>(Now, it might be nice if the story editors were familiar with the sf
>field, and this has happened in some cases - people like David Gerrold and
>Melinda Snodgrass have been story editors on Buck Rogers and ST:TNG
>respectively, which may have helped ST:TNG but didn't do much for Buck
>Rogers as far as I could tell.
Just because they have an advisor doesn't mean they listen; I've heard
real cops and lawyers complain about television cops & lawyers. I
suspect, also, that some shows are fairly accurate. The problem is, I
can't tell which are and which aren't.
>But an interesting question is whether any on-going tv series with
>continuing characters is going to be more like a tv series or like a
>non-TV example of the genre it's supposed to be in. Even ST:TOS ended
>up having to have love stories all around, and DS9 spent as much time
>on exploring the interrelationships of the continuing characters -
>not always in an sf-like way - as it did on stories "about" ideas.)
I think this is both a problem and a virtue of series stories with
continuing characters in any form; the continuity of characters
necessarily becomes a major part of the stories, and actors want to
characterize. And, there's an inherent distortion by having all these
"interesting" things happen to the same characters; most people's
lives are much more peaceful, and most people prefer it that way. I
dunno. I think perhaps this may be because sf is partly "about"
history, and the way character makes history is really complicated--I
think maybe it's hard to focus down on a particular group of people
and have their lives consistently say something about history. And
maybe not; this is all off the top of my head speculation and may be
off the top of my wrong head. :)
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
>On Sun, 06 Feb 2000 11:24:35 -0600, Paul T. Riddell
><hpoo...@usa.net> wrote:
>>Anyone have a chance to read this one?
>>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/library/review/020600tv-scifi-review.html
>>
>
>Just did (though I don't own a TV. :) Yup. Gee, who's that quoted
>in paragraph seven? :)
>
>For me, the most interesting point, though, comes from Harlan
>Ellison (sorry, Paul.:) "...it is being done by the same people who
>produce cop shows, doctor shows and game shows."
>
>Yet the public idea of policing and medicine largely comes from
>those shows. Brrrr.
Randolph, do you ever have a point to make that isn't some variation on
the theme of how foolish and stupid everyone else is?
Just wondering.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Molly Moloney
I was more than a little put off by the quote from Christine Boese, who wrote
her dissertation on Xena-online-fandom:
"I like sorting through the wacky theories and deciding for myself which
part is utterly wacked and whether a kernel of truth might be buried in the
dung"
I hope that she didn't really examine fans, their production, or their
consumption with this much disdain.
--
Molly
mike weber
Feb 2000 02:54:55 GMT,
:
"Sci-fi vibrates at the key intersections of modernism and
postmodernism, with the macho sci-fi writers often reverting
subconsciously to essentialized gender identities and behaviors,"
says Dr. Christine Boese, an assistant professor in English at Clemson
University, who disliked the original "Star Trek" because "it was all
about men and posturing."
As a South Carolinian, some of whose siblings went through junior
college programs run by Clemson at the Greenville Area Tech campus, i
will point out that Clemson is *not* generally widely-hailed as a
hotbed of arts and language scholarship and that one might well wonder
if someone who is an assistant professor in English there might not
have been unable to get a job anywhere more prestigious.
--
mike weber kras...@mindspring.com
==========================================================
The man who sets out to carry a cat by its tail learns
something that will always be useful and which never will
grow dim or doubtful. -- Mark Twain.
overly ambitious website: http://weberworld.virtualave.net
(c) 2000 by michael a. weber. Permission to publish it in full
and without alteration (Usenet, IMDB, Deja) is granted. Venues
that alter the text in any way (ReMarQ) are denied permission
to publish. Unless specifically stated in the text, this
posting does not constitute endorsement of any commercial
product or service.
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>On Sun, 06 Feb 2000 11:24:35 -0600, Paul T. Riddell <hpoo...@usa.net> wrote:
>>Anyone have a chance to read this one?
>>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/library/review/020600tv-scifi-review.html
>>
>
>Just did (though I don't own a TV. :) Yup. Gee, who's that quoted in
>paragraph seven? :)
>
>For me, the most interesting point, though, comes from Harlan Ellison
>(sorry, Paul.:) "...it is being done by the same people who produce
>cop shows, doctor shows and game shows."
>
>Yet the public idea of policing and medicine largely comes from those
>shows. Brrrr.
But they get doctors to be medical advisors on doctor shows (even MASH),
and cops to be technical advisors on cop shows. They don't get starship
captains to be technical advisors on sf shows.
(Now, it might be nice if the story editors were familiar with the sf
field, and this has happened in some cases - people like David Gerrold and
Melinda Snodgrass have been story editors on Buck Rogers and ST:TNG
respectively, which may have helped ST:TNG but didn't do much for Buck
Rogers as far as I could tell. But an interesting question is whether any
on-going tv series with continuing characters is going to be more like a tv
series or like a non-TV example of the genre it's supposed to be in. Even
ST:TOS ended up having to have love stories all around, and DS9 spent as
much time on exploring the interrelationships of the continuing characters
- not always in an sf-like way - as it did on stories "about" ideas.)
-- Alan
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Physical mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 69, PO BOX 4349, STANFORD, CA 94309-0210
===============================================================================
Paul T. Riddell
myself. I just figure that I've made my family and the staff at
Readercon very happy: my name finally appeared in the "New York Times"
without the prefix "convicted serial killer and cannibal". Brought
tears of joy to my mother's eyes; yes it did...
By the way, don't apologize that Unca Harlan's quote was more
interesting than mine: I've spent my adult life playing Guy Gardner to
Harlan's Alan Scott, so naturally I'm not going to be as interesting.
Out of the people the reporter quoted, I figure that I'm doing well to
get _that_ much. I'm just glad that I kept pounding her with the
message of "'Farscape' is intelligent SF television", and that the
message saw print. If this works, then maybe we may get more
intelligent stuff on the tube. We can hope, anyway.
Diane Duane
- SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr") wrote:
>...people like David Gerrold and
>Melinda Snodgrass have been story editors on Buck Rogers and ST:TNG
>respectively, which may have helped ST:TNG but didn't do much for Buck
>Rogers as far as I could tell.
I was working as David's assistant at the time, and before Ghu I can tell you
that this wasn't from lack of David's trying. Not even he, though, could do
much about an executive producer who (among other major cognitive problems)
didn't understand what was wrong with a story premise which started with the
following sentence:
"Earth is in dire peril, because there is about to be an eclipse of the
Galaxy..."
David worked hard and did what he could, but when it finally became clear that
the exec. producer was not going to listen to him, he left. It's a shame, for
what he had in mind for the series would have made it a much better one than the
goofy thing that eventually aired. There even would have been science in it.
(sigh)
Best! -- Diane
(c) 2000 by The Owl Springs Partnership. Permission to publish
this post in full and without alteration (Usenet, IMDB, Deja)
is granted. Venues that alter the text in any way (ReMarQ) are
denied permission to publish this post. Naughty, *naughty* ReMarQ!
http://www.ibmpcug.co.uk/~owls/index2.html
Nancy Lebovitz
Randolph Fritz <rand...@efn.org> wrote:
>On 7 Feb 2000 01:53:29 GMT, Patrick Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>the theme of how foolish and stupid everyone else is?
>>
>>Just wondering.
>
>the past several weeks, it seems; I've just reviewed my posts here.
>I've been stressed and I think depression has crept up on me (on
>little cat feet, no doubt.) :(
>
>Sorry, folks; I'll try to do better.
>
I wonder how much of what passes for philosophy, political theory,
and punditry is just ideologized biochemistry.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
The calligraphic button website is up!
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
>I'm even more amused by her comments as quoted in the previous graph:
>
>"Sci-fi vibrates at the key intersections of modernism and
>postmodernism
A sentence which doesn't actually mean enough to pull the weight of its
own figures. The best reading we can give it is "SF has something to
do with modernism and postmodernism." Which is (1) true, (2) obvious,
and (3) not interesting.
>,with the macho sci-fi writers often reverting
>subconsciously to essentialized gender identities and behaviors,"
Everyone in our culture "often reverts subconsciously to essentialized
gender" etcetera. That's what it means to say that sexism is pervasive
in a culture; that's how essentialist notions work. Singling out SF
writers as particularly "macho" simply suggests that Dr. Christine
Boese (1) doesn't know very many and (2) is perfectly happy to
propagate essentialist memes when it serves her own rhetorical
purposes.
>says Dr. Christine Boese, an assistant professor in English at Clemson
>University, who disliked the original "Star Trek" because "it was all
>about men and posturing."
But most of what's interesting about Star Trek is the extent to which
it's _not_ about that stuff. An extent which is, in fact, surprising
in a cheesy 1960s TV adventure show. Mind you, I can barely stand to
watch Star Trek, but even I can tell that there's more to it than
Professor Boese's pat characterization.
I'm sure Professor Boese believes herself to be a terribly
sophisticated feminist about this stuff. She should talk to Joanna
Russ about it sometime.
Moshe Feder
<hpoo...@usa.net> wrote:
>Anyone have a chance to read this one?
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/library/review/020600tv-scifi-review.html
Yup, came across it yesterday in Sunday's "The Week in Review" and would
have posted a pointer to it here myself if my ISP had been behaving.
I thought it was sensible on the whole (although I'm not sure I would have
singled out "Farscape" for such high praise, although granted it's better
than much of its competition), but what struck me most was the very fact of
the article's existence and publication in such a prominent place. It's yet
another striking example of how our cozy ghetto has been swallowed up by
the cultural megalopolis around it. What 25 or 30 years ago would have been
seen only in a fanzine is now deemed by the Newspaper of Record to be of
general interest to its readership.
If I'd beaten you to it, I might have titled this thread "SF Continues to
Dissolve in the Mainstream."
I wish I could figure out whether to be happy or sad.
Moshe
--
Considerate people edit the quotations in their posts.
You're one, aren't you?
Avram Grumer
Lebovitz) wrote:
> I wonder how much of what passes for philosophy, political theory,
> and punditry is just ideologized biochemistry.
I wonder if any of it isn't.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@bigfoot.com | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
The Phantom Menace delenda est!
http://www.PigsAndFishes.org/goodstuff/pmde.html
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
>In article <87mhhd$7...@netaxs.com>, na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy
>Lebovitz) wrote:
>
>> I wonder how much of what passes for philosophy, political theory,
>> and punditry is just ideologized biochemistry.
>
>I wonder if any of it isn't.
It's certainly easier to be a libertarian when you're young, to cite an
obvious (and perhaps cliched) example.
This is all akin, of course, to the observation that a conservative is
a liberal who's been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative who's been
arrested.
mike weber
Feb 2000 17:27:09 GMT,
:
I agree 100% with what you've said here.
However, none of what you've quoted is what *i* said; i wouldn't be
surprised if a casual reader might think i had been agreeing with her.
What *i* said was in the second paragraph:
>>As a South Carolinian, some of whose siblings went through junior
>>college programs run by Clemson at the Greenville Area Tech campus, i
>>will point out that Clemson is *not* generally widely-hailed as a
>>hotbed of arts and language scholarship
--
"You have not converted a man because you have silenced him."
<mike weber> <kras...@mindspring.com>
Ambitious Incomplete web site: http://weberworld.virtualave.net
Rob Hansen
wrote:
>what struck me most was the very fact of
>the article's existence and publication in such a prominent place. It's yet
>another striking example of how our cozy ghetto has been swallowed up by
>the cultural megalopolis around it. What 25 or 30 years ago would have been
>seen only in a fanzine is now deemed by the Newspaper of Record to be of
>general interest to its readership.
>
>If I'd beaten you to it, I might have titled this thread "SF Continues to
>Dissolve in the Mainstream."
>
>I wish I could figure out whether to be happy or sad.
I love that SF has gone mainstream but am less happy with what was
done to it in the process. _Star Wars_ was undoubtedly responsible for
this happening on the scale it has, but that was a 1970s version of a
1930s space opera and inspired a whole raft of imitations that were no
more clued in (and I may never forgive George Lucas for blurring the
distinction between robots and androids). Still, twenty years on and
the visions that are now holding sway in media SF are more likely to
be those of Phil Dick - the one SF writer who got the future right -
and we have more sophisticated fare like _The Matrix_.
--
Rob Hansen
================================================
My Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
Feminists Against Censorship:
http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/
Kevin J. Maroney
>This is all akin, of course, to the observation that a conservative is
>a liberal who's been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative who's been
>arrested.
A Libertarian is a conservative who has been audited....
--
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@crossover.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor, New York Review of Science Fiction
<http://www.nyrsf.com>
Copyright 2000, Kevin J. Maroney. Republication of this message
without proper attribution or with alteration of text is forbidden.
Avram Grumer
r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk wrote:
> ...(and I may never forgive George Lucas for blurring the
> distinction between robots and androids)...
Lucas could easily shift the blame onto Karel Capek.
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
<r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> writes:
>wrote:
>
>I love that SF has gone mainstream but am less happy with what was
>done to it in the process. _Star Wars_ was undoubtedly responsible for
>this happening on the scale it has, but that was a 1970s version of a
>1930s space opera and inspired a whole raft of imitations that were no
>distinction between robots and androids).
But actually, Karel Capek - the guy who named robots to start with, in
R.U.R - was talking about androids. (Thus, Boucher's "Q.U.R." where the
inventive breakthough was in solving robot neuroses by remodeling the
inefficient human-based forms of the robots into efficient task-oriented
forms.) So this is a distinction that has been blurred since before it
existed.
>Still, twenty years on and
>the visions that are now holding sway in media SF are more likely to
>be those of Phil Dick - the one SF writer who got the future right -
>and we have more sophisticated fare like _The Matrix_.
Which is more like 1960s fiction -- I think we can actually put the
_The Matrix_ into the same developmental stream as "I Have No Mouth and
I Must Scream" than 1930s, but with clever comic-book/action-movie
development.
Matt Austern
> mike weber wrote in <389e63d2...@news.mindspring.com>:
>
> >I'm even more amused by her comments as quoted in the previous graph:
> >
> >"Sci-fi vibrates at the key intersections of modernism and
> >postmodernism
>
> A sentence which doesn't actually mean enough to pull the weight of its
> own figures. The best reading we can give it is "SF has something to
> do with modernism and postmodernism." Which is (1) true, (2) obvious,
> and (3) not interesting.
Even more precisely, it suggests that SF has something to do with the
way in which modernism and postmodernism resemble each other. I'd
claim that this claim is neither true nor obvious; it's vacuous,
unless it comes preceded with a discussion explaining how the speaker
thinks that modernism and postmodernism differ.
I'll go along with the "not interesting" part, though.
Bruce Baugh
>A Libertarian is a conservative who has been audited....
Or in my case a Communist who got to know people from Communist
countries.
--
Bruce Baugh / bruce...@sff.net
"Never let it be be said, especially by large men with guns, that
I failed to help." - Dave Weinstein
mike weber
:
>Avram Grumer wrote in <avram-07020...@manhattan.crossover.com>:
>
>>In article <87mhhd$7...@netaxs.com>, na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy
>>Lebovitz) wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder how much of what passes for philosophy, political theory,
>>> and punditry is just ideologized biochemistry.
>>
>>I wonder if any of it isn't.
>
>
>It's certainly easier to be a libertarian when you're young, to cite an
>obvious (and perhaps cliched) example.
>
>a liberal who's been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative who's been
>arrested.
>
off (for different reasons, but he pretty much gored everyone's ox
across the spectrum) remarked that based on the sequelae, Libertarians
complain to the writer, Democrats complain to the editor and
Republicans complain to the publisher.
--
Who would speak truth should have one foot in the stirrup.
(Church bulletin board, Dunwoody GA)
==========================================================
mike weber
kras...@mindspring.com/Half-Complete Website of Xeno:
http://weberworld.virtualave.net
Randolph Fritz
>
>It's yet another striking example of how our cozy ghetto has been
>swallowed up by the cultural megalopolis around it.
>
Hi, Moshe! ...Or is it the other way around?
>
>What 25 or 30 years ago would have been seen only in a fanzine is now
>deemed by the Newspaper of Record to be of general interest to its
>readership.
>
Well...I wonder how much of it is due to the re-acceptance of the
fantastic? How much, in other words, this was something that at least
many people already liked that is now "News that's fit to print," as
it were.
>
>I wish I could figure out whether to be happy or sad.
>
I've wondered for a while, myself. It seem to me that that grandiose
dream of early fandom is coming true.
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
>On Mon, 07 Feb 2000 11:57:23 -0400, Moshe Feder <mo...@dorsai.org>
>wrote:
>>
>>It's yet another striking example of how our cozy ghetto has been
>>swallowed up by the cultural megalopolis around it.
>>
>
>Hi, Moshe! ...Or is it the other way around?
Good point. I have that thought every time I read one of our number
emitting this particular burst of doleful nostalgia.
What I see is a world in which the attitude and apparatus of science
fiction -- the ideas that the world is changing, that it will change
greatly in our lifetime, that these changes will be driven by
technology, and that these changes can be discussed and negotiated
via storytelling -- are all over the culture, rather than confined to
just a few.
And in which the attitudes and apparatus of science fiction fandom --
the idea of being in touch with likeminded folks from all over the
world, the idea of creating communities of shared interest and
folklore via written communication, the attitude that slightly wonky
intellectual eccentricity can be just as glamorous as being class
president or captain of the football team -- are far, far more
culturally prominent than a generation ago.
I agree that this isn't an unmixed blessing, but it certainly is
interesting to watch. I do strongly feel that the "ghetto" metaphor
is long past its point of being useful. SF and SF fandom are no more
a "ghetto" than the East Village is, and SF people who keep talking
about it that way come off as cluelessly as East Village denizens who
act as if their fashionable, rapidly-gentrifying neighborhood is some
kind of rough-n-tough urban frontier.
>>I wish I could figure out whether to be happy or sad.
>>
>
>I've wondered for a while, myself. It seem to me that that
>grandiose dream of early fandom is coming true.
"Early fandom" had a lot of grandiose dreams. One thing early fandom
proved itself adept at, actually, was debunking the sillier of those
grandiose dreams. The point of the epic of Claude Degler isn't that
he thought fans were slans; it's that fandom thoroughly and
comprehensively rejected his nonsense.
I don't see any particular reason to be weepy about the modern state
of affairs. Assuming that SF and fandom in decades past did in fact
share some kind of identifiable values and ideals, either those
values and ideals were worthwhile or they weren't. If they were
worthwhile, why is it a bad thing to see them more widely shared in
parts of the larger culture?
Certainly it's better to be righteous and lonely than to be
unrighteous. But twisting that into the notion that loneliness is
itself a virtue is morally perverse. It jolly well is not. Humans
thrive best with more connections to one another, not fewer.
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> In article <ntiu9sksuc1kfc4b0...@4ax.com>, Rob Hansen
> <r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >I love that SF has gone mainstream but am less happy with what was
> >done to it in the process. _Star Wars_ was undoubtedly responsible for
> >this happening on the scale it has, but that was a 1970s version of a
> >1930s space opera and inspired a whole raft of imitations that were no
> >more clued in (and I may never forgive George Lucas for blurring the
> >distinction between robots and androids).
>
> But actually, Karel Capek - the guy who named robots to start with, in
> R.U.R - was talking about androids.
> So this is a distinction that has been blurred since before it
> existed.
Who came up with this famous distinction?
I refer to the notion that, to put it briefly, a "robot" is a mechanical man
and an "android" is an artificial organic man.
A lot of people know about this distinction, but who first laid down the
law? As Alan Winston and others point out, Capek's "robots" are not
"robots" in this sense, so the person who invented this distinction was
already messing things up.
Where did it first come from? I have the impression that the distinction
goes back at least to the Forties. Maybe an article or editorial in
*Astounding*? A seminal fanzine article?
--
Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey | "Based on the antiproton
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | decay, I would estimate the
Bitnet: Sic transit gloria mundi | incident occurred
Internet: HIG...@FNAL.FNAL.GOV | within the last 4.3 hours."
SPAN/Hepnet: 43009::HIGGINS | --Mr. Data
(Somebody tell Cdr. Data to check his vacuum...)
Avram Grumer
Hayden) wrote:
> I agree that this isn't an unmixed blessing, but it certainly is
> interesting to watch. I do strongly feel that the "ghetto" metaphor
> is long past its point of being useful. SF and SF fandom are no more
> a "ghetto" than the East Village is, and SF people who keep talking
> about it that way come off as cluelessly as East Village denizens who
> act as if their fashionable, rapidly-gentrifying neighborhood is some
> kind of rough-n-tough urban frontier.
True. How about the computer industry for a replacement metaphor: SF
fans are the future's early adopters. When the future was invented, way
back in the late 19th century, SF fans invested in it, devoting enough
time and energy to understand really complicated and novel futures.
Eventually futures became more accessable and a wider audience could get
in on the action.
> I don't see any particular reason to be weepy about the modern state
> of affairs. Assuming that SF and fandom in decades past did in fact
> share some kind of identifiable values and ideals, either those
> values and ideals were worthwhile or they weren't. If they were
> worthwhile, why is it a bad thing to see them more widely shared in
> parts of the larger culture?
Some of the early adopters are upset at the low quality and
dumbed-downedness of the recent crop of popular futures, and the
proprietary attitude some future publishers take towards their futures.
mike weber
on Tue, 8 Feb 2000 12:15:34 -0600,
>Who came up with this famous distinction?
>
>I refer to the notion that, to put it briefly, a "robot" is a mechanical man
>and an "android" is an artificial organic man.
>
>A lot of people know about this distinction, but who first laid down the
>law? As Alan Winston and others point out, Capek's "robots" are not
>"robots" in this sense, so the person who invented this distinction was
>already messing things up.
>
>Where did it first come from? I have the impression that the distinction
>goes back at least to the Forties. Maybe an article or editorial in
>*Astounding*? A seminal fanzine article?
>
Edmond Hamilton writing for DC comics was always very precise about
this -- it's the earliest i recall seeing it in print (late Fifties, i
think), but it prolly goes back before that.
OTOH, it may have been Hamilton himself who originally promulgated it
-- there was an android character in "Captain Future", wasn't there?
--
=============================================================
"They put manure in his well and they made him talk to lawyers!"
-- Cat Ballou
mike weber -- kras...@mindspring.com
mike weber
Feb 2000 19:58:48 GMT,
:
>p...@panix.com (Patrick Nielsen Hayden) wrote in
><8ED454B...@166.84.0.240>:
>>a "ghetto" than the East Village is, and SF people who keep talking
>>about it that way come off as cluelessly as East Village denizens who
>>act as if their fashionable, rapidly-gentrifying neighborhood is some
>>kind of rough-n-tough urban frontier.
>
>some kind of urban frontier come off to me as clueless. In my
>experience, how denizens feel about it generally depends on which block
>they live.
>
About the same for areas like Midtown, here in Atlanta, where as
little as two blocks can make the difference between yuppie-gentrified
perfectly-safe-to-walk-dogs and only-the-strong-survive at night.
--
"Life's a game where they're bound to beat you, and time's a
trick they can turn to cheat you -- and we only waste it
anyway, that's the hell of it..." -- Paul Williams
montypython
by a person and it dosnt have to have a likeness to man(By
the way whatis that guy in star trek called the humanoid +
would he be classified as a robot or as an android?)
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Richard Kennaway
> Who came up with this famous distinction?
>
> I refer to the notion that, to put it briefly, a "robot" is a mechanical man
> and an "android" is an artificial organic man.
Is there such a distinction? I have always understood the word
"android" to mean "a robot in the form of a human". FWIW, the OED cites
references for that meaning (with "automaton" rather than "robot", of
course) back to 1727, and for "artificial organic man" to 1953. "Robot"
was coined by Capek, but has become broadened to mechanical automata in
general.
-- Richard Kennaway
Josh Hesse
: I tought a robot was any machine not specifically controled
: by a person and it dosnt have to have a likeness to man(By
: the way whatis that guy in star trek called the humanoid +
: would he be classified as a robot or as an android?)
Both?
I always thought that an android was a humanoid robot.
So Data(from Star Trek) would be an android _and_ a robot.
Sojurnor(the little wheeled Mars probe subset) would just be a robot.
Sony's Aibo(that little dog droid) is definitly a robot, but probably
not an android.
-Josh
--
"Talk about silly conspiracy theories..." -Wayne Schlitt in unl.general
This post (C)2000, Josh Hesse. Ignored material is (C) of the person quoted.
|ess|ngr|nl.| (Oo) MYTHOS How's my posting? 1-800-DEV-NULL
email: jh|e@e|s.u|edu /||\ DREAMLANDS .Sigfile freshness date:10-28-99
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <hig...@fnal.gov> wrote:
> > Who came up with this famous distinction?
> >
> > I refer to the notion that, to put it briefly, a "robot" is a mechanical man
> > and an "android" is an artificial organic man.
>
> Is there such a distinction? I have always understood the word
> "android" to mean "a robot in the form of a human".
There are those who insist upon such a distinction. Personally, I don't mind
if you refer to Mr. Data (who seems to be filled with wires and blinking
lights) or R. Daneel Olivaw as "androids."
I would like to learn where and when this distinction originated. Possibly
in a story?
> FWIW, the OED cites
> references for that meaning (with "automaton" rather than "robot", of
> course) back to 1727, and for "artificial organic man" to 1953. "Robot"
> was coined by Capek, but has become broadened to mechanical automata in
> general.
1953. Hmm, that may be a clue.
--
Josh Hopkins, Rocket Scientist, on marriage to Amy: | Bill Higgins
"I figure any woman who would get up at 1 AM | Fermilab
to come watch bad video of my rocket launch |
in the dark | Internet:
is worth hanging on to." | hig...@fnal.fnal.gov
mike weber
on Wed, 9 Feb 2000 12:41:02 -0600,
:
>On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Richard Kennaway wrote:
>
>> Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <hig...@fnal.gov> wrote:
>> > Who came up with this famous distinction?
>> >
>> > I refer to the notion that, to put it briefly, a "robot" is a mechanical man
>> > and an "android" is an artificial organic man.
>>
>> Is there such a distinction? I have always understood the word
>> "android" to mean "a robot in the form of a human".
>
>There are those who insist upon such a distinction. Personally, I don't mind
>if you refer to Mr. Data (who seems to be filled with wires and blinking
>lights) or R. Daneel Olivaw as "androids."
>
>I would like to learn where and when this distinction originated. Possibly
>in a story?
>
>> FWIW, the OED cites
>> references for that meaning (with "automaton" rather than "robot", of
>> course) back to 1727, and for "artificial organic man" to 1953. "Robot"
>> was coined by Capek, but has become broadened to mechanical automata in
>> general.
>
>1953. Hmm, that may be a clue.
>
Weisinger, the editor, who insisted on the distinction, niw that i
come to think.
--
"History doesn't always repeat itself... sometimes it just
screams 'Why don't you listen when I'm talking to you?' and
lets fly with a club." JWC,Jr.
Rob Hansen
weber) wrote:
>Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <hig...@fnal.gov> is alleged to have said,
>on Tue, 8 Feb 2000 12:15:34 -0600,
>
>>Who came up with this famous distinction?
>>
>>I refer to the notion that, to put it briefly, a "robot" is a mechanical man
>>and an "android" is an artificial organic man.
>>
>>A lot of people know about this distinction, but who first laid down the
>>law? As Alan Winston and others point out, Capek's "robots" are not
>>"robots" in this sense, so the person who invented this distinction was
>>already messing things up.
>>
>>Where did it first come from? I have the impression that the distinction
>>goes back at least to the Forties. Maybe an article or editorial in
>>*Astounding*? A seminal fanzine article?
>>
>Edmond Hamilton writing for DC comics was always very precise about
>this -- it's the earliest i recall seeing it in print (late Fifties, i
>think), but it prolly goes back before that.
>
>OTOH, it may have been Hamilton himself who originally promulgated it
>-- there was an android character in "Captain Future", wasn't there?
Give that man a cigar. According to the SF Encyclopedia it was indeed
Hamilton who was largely responsible for codifying the distinction
with 'Captain Future', though it spread widely in SF thereafter.
Nancy Lebovitz
Richard Kennaway <ar...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <hig...@fnal.gov> wrote:
>> Who came up with this famous distinction?
>>
>> I refer to the notion that, to put it briefly, a "robot" is a mechanical man
>> and an "android" is an artificial organic man.
>
>references for that meaning (with "automaton" rather than "robot", of
>course) back to 1727, and for "artificial organic man" to 1953. "Robot"
>was coined by Capek, but has become broadened to mechanical automata in
>general.
Imho, an android is a robot covered with something that resembles human
flesh. A robot looks like a machine.
Nancy Lebovitz
mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>In article <87mhhd$7...@netaxs.com>, na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy
>>>Lebovitz) wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wonder how much of what passes for philosophy, political theory,
>>>> and punditry is just ideologized biochemistry.
To be fair, the ideology might *not* be total nonsense, but the biochemistry
probably doesn't generally get enough credit/blame.
>A local journalist who wrote a satirical article that pissed everybody
>off (for different reasons, but he pretty much gored everyone's ox
>across the spectrum) remarked that based on the sequelae, Libertarians
>complain to the writer, Democrats complain to the editor and
>Republicans complain to the publisher.
That's kind of plausible, now that you mention it.
Nancy Lebovitz
Patrick Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>I don't see any particular reason to be weepy about the modern state
>of affairs. Assuming that SF and fandom in decades past did in fact
>share some kind of identifiable values and ideals, either those
>values and ideals were worthwhile or they weren't. If they were
>worthwhile, why is it a bad thing to see them more widely shared in
>parts of the larger culture?
>
>unrighteous. But twisting that into the notion that loneliness is
>itself a virtue is morally perverse. It jolly well is not. Humans
>thrive best with more connections to one another, not fewer.
>
be a comprehensible social group, and this has lead to some splintering
and possibly a loss of variety in each sub-group.
I agree that it's better to take over (or grok/be grokked by) the
larger society than to remain in a tiny group, but there's still a
loss.
Moshe Feder
>What I see is a world in which the attitude and apparatus of science
>fiction -- the ideas that the world is changing, that it will change
>greatly in our lifetime, that these changes will be driven by
>technology, and that these changes can be discussed and negotiated
>via storytelling -- are all over the culture, rather than confined to
>just a few.
>
>And in which the attitudes and apparatus of science fiction fandom --
>the idea of being in touch with likeminded folks from all over the
>world, the idea of creating communities of shared interest and
>folklore via written communication, the attitude that slightly wonky
>intellectual eccentricity can be just as glamorous as being class
>president or captain of the football team -- are far, far more
>culturally prominent than a generation ago.
>
>I agree that this isn't an unmixed blessing, but it certainly is
>interesting to watch. I do strongly feel that the "ghetto" metaphor
>is long past its point of being useful. SF and SF fandom are no more
>a "ghetto" than the East Village is, and SF people who keep talking
>about it that way come off as cluelessly as East Village denizens who
>act as if their fashionable, rapidly-gentrifying neighborhood is some
>kind of rough-n-tough urban frontier.
Actually, I agree with you about the staleness of the "ghetto" metaphor. I
probably should have put it in quotes to suggest that I was using it
self-consciously, with an awareness of the history of its use and overuse
and its obviousness obsolesence in a world in which it can be argued, as
Randolph pointed out, that our genre's relationship to the larger cultural
context has been, in some ways, inverted (or should that be, if the
previously contained has swallowed the container, everted?).
>"Early fandom" had a lot of grandiose dreams. One thing early fandom
>proved itself adept at, actually, was debunking the sillier of those
>grandiose dreams. The point of the epic of Claude Degler isn't that
>he thought fans were slans; it's that fandom thoroughly and
>comprehensively rejected his nonsense.
Yes, but isn't the irony here that the present cultural prominence of SF
would once have seemed as nonsensical to fandom's realists as Degler's
grandiosities? And even if sensible fans did dare to dream that SF might
someday be familiar to all and popular with millions, wouldn't that dream
have assumed that the SF in question was good, rather than the puerile
dreck that fills our screens and bookstore shelves? (OK, I know, I know,
Sturgeon's law etc. and so on.)
>I don't see any particular reason to be weepy about the modern state
>of affairs. Assuming that SF and fandom in decades past did in fact
>share some kind of identifiable values and ideals, either those
>values and ideals were worthwhile or they weren't. If they were
>worthwhile, why is it a bad thing to see them more widely shared in
>parts of the larger culture?
Never said it was. In fact, I'm proud of the fact that SF has, in a number
of ways, been a force for good. And I'm pleased (if still a bit amazed) by
the fact that the New York Times now sees fit to publish what once would
have been a fanzine article. I'm even willing to overlook J.D. Biersdorf-
er's failing to take the hint from Peter Nicholls' ENYCLOPEDIA OF SF
article he or she quoted about half way through and continuing to beat us
about the head and shoulders with "sci-fi" for an additional eight
paragraphs. :-)
>Certainly it's better to be righteous and lonely than to be
>unrighteous. But twisting that into the notion that loneliness is
>itself a virtue is morally perverse. It jolly well is not. Humans
>thrive best with more connections to one another, not fewer.
Turning my whistful statement that "I don't know whether to be happy or
sad." about the present state of affairs into an alleged claim that
loneliness is a virtue is a bit of perverse twisting itself. I certainly
don't think (and didn't say) anything of the kind. The feelings I was
expressing are closer to those of a parent watching a child leave home to
make his own way in the world: concerned, proud, hopeful, and regretful
that the special closeness possible in childhood may never be recaptured.
But no decent parent holds a child back on that account.
Moshe
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Considerate people edit the quotations in their posts.
You're one, aren't you?
Nancy Lebovitz
Moshe Feder <mo...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
>Yes, but isn't the irony here that the present cultural prominence of SF
>would once have seemed as nonsensical to fandom's realists as Degler's
>grandiosities? And even if sensible fans did dare to dream that SF might
Even aside from pop culture, I think that if you'd told someone in 1950
(maybe even in 1970) that there'd be so much print sf coming out by the
end of the millennium that it would be impossible to keep up, they'd have
thought it an implausibly wild prediction.
>someday be familiar to all and popular with millions, wouldn't that dream
>have assumed that the SF in question was good, rather than the puerile
>dreck that fills our screens and bookstore shelves? (OK, I know, I know,
>Sturgeon's law etc. and so on.)
>
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
>In article <8ED454B...@166.84.0.240>, Patrick Nielsen Hayden
>wrote:
>>"Early fandom" had a lot of grandiose dreams. One thing early
>>fandom proved itself adept at, actually, was debunking the sillier
>>of those grandiose dreams. The point of the epic of Claude Degler
>>isn't that he thought fans were slans; it's that fandom thoroughly
>>and comprehensively rejected his nonsense.
>
>Yes, but isn't the irony here that the present cultural prominence
>of SF would once have seemed as nonsensical to fandom's realists as
>Degler's grandiosities?
A very good point, actually.
>And even if sensible fans did dare to dream
>that SF might someday be familiar to all and popular with millions,
>wouldn't that dream have assumed that the SF in question was good,
>rather than the puerile dreck that fills our screens and bookstore
>shelves? (OK, I know, I know, Sturgeon's law etc. and so on.)
Actually, I suspect they wouldn't have been surprised. I mean, drecky
SF always did well; e.g., Captain Future, and the Shaver Mystery.
I do happen to think that as much good SF is being published now as
ever has been; and that moreover there's even a perceptible improvement
in the overall quality of dramatic SF. But those are separate
arguments -- and subjects on which thoughtful people differ.
>Turning my whistful statement that "I don't know whether to be happy
>or sad." about the present state of affairs into an alleged claim
>that loneliness is a virtue is a bit of perverse twisting itself. I
>certainly don't think (and didn't say) anything of the kind. The
>feelings I was expressing are closer to those of a parent watching a
>child leave home to make his own way in the world: concerned, proud,
>hopeful, and regretful that the special closeness possible in
>childhood may never be recaptured. But no decent parent holds a
>child back on that account.
Fair enough!
Randolph Fritz
>
>Yes, but isn't the irony here that the present cultural prominence of SF
>would once have seemed as nonsensical to fandom's realists as Degler's
>someday be familiar to all and popular with millions, wouldn't that dream
>have assumed that the SF in question was good, rather than the puerile
>dreck that fills our screens and bookstore shelves? (OK, I know, I know,
>Sturgeon's law etc. and so on.)
>
As to the first--I think the whole field had visions; that was what
kept people going under near-impossible conditions. And the visions
have turned out to be premonitory--there really was gold at the end of
the rainbow. As for good...a lot of the SF that was popular then is
not good by current standards. 40 years ago or so, didn't Damon
Knight once write that discovery of the field was not likely, nor
likely to be good for the field? I wonder what he thinks now!
Richard Brandt
>
> Anyone have a chance to read this one?
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/library/review/020600tv-scifi-review.html
Tooting your own horn there, eh, Paul?
I think Harlan lifted that "human heart in conflict with
itself" routine from somewhere.
Ironically, LeGuin *has* been done on television, but
certainly not _Left Hand of Darkness_.
Speaking of Sci-Fi Channel, one of their supposedly
hot shows is "First Wave," which is really nothing
more than a re-tread of "The Invaders." That's how
far we've come.
(Doesn't Coppola produce that one? That's how far
*he's* come.)
--
=== Richard Brandt is at http://www.zenation.com/rsbrandt ===
"The moral [of "Man in the Moon"] is that anybody's life can
have a plot if they have an agent."--Andrei Codrescu
Doug Berry
flapped its wings, causing Richard Brandt <af...@rgfn.epcc.edu>
to write:
>Speaking of Sci-Fi Channel, one of their supposedly
>hot shows is "First Wave," which is really nothing
>more than a re-tread of "The Invaders." That's how
>far we've come.
It's a bit more than a direct remake of "The Invaders." The
premise is fairly interesting, but the poor writing drove me away
after a few shows.
The way you've wriiten this suggests to me that you are saying
that since The Invaders did the alien infiltration plot once,
nobody can try it again? I find that odd, since the "They're
Here!" plot has a long and treasured history both in books (The
Puppet Masters) and film (Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Village
of the Damned, Invaders From Mars).
I know that in the wake of Alan Laska's ATTEMPTS to SAVE the
Sci-Fi Channel from PUTTING THEMSELVES OUT OF BUSINESS it's easy
to dismiss them out of hand, but they have really improved their
fare in the last year. Better movies (less horror, more SF), the
new Outer Limits, Twlight Zones with a tape header giving name,
writer, original airdate and episode number.
Of their original shows, "Farscape" is good media SF. Interesting
characters, fairly well written, decent effects. It has become
one of those shows I make an effort to catch or tape each week. I
plan on using the Leviathan ship idea in a future GURPS game.
--
Douglas E. Berry +o0|0o+ grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/index.html
This message Copyright 2000 by Douglas E. Berry.
Permission to publish it in full and without
alteration (Usenet, IMDB, Deja) is granted.
Venues that alter the text in any way (RemarQ)
are denied permission to publish.