>: Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> >: No thanks. The one time I tried Orwell (1984), I found it dry, >: boring, and Fiction With A Message. None of which does >: anything for me. I read to be entertained, and I don't find >: FWAM to be entertaining.
> Orwell is FWaM alright. And neither 1984 nor AM have a happy > ending at all. Which I suppose is necessary to properly > pile-drive the message into the audience.
While I do not necessarily require a happy ending, I do require to be entertained along the road to ruin.
> But even so, I remember Animal Farm had a certain charm when > looked at as if it were in the "horror" genre.
I don't really do horror so much, either.
> And horror books > and flicks never have the good guys *really* win. There's > always the little bit of the alien contamination that's > overlooked, the odd member or two of the family of cannibals > that escapes, or the vampire or two that got turned without > anybody noticing.
Well, one does have to keep the sequal options open.
-- Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. - David Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 22:43:44 -0400, "Brian M. Scott" > <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote: >> Similar, but not quite the same. My feeling is that for >> a native speaker of English, reading Malory 'in >> translation' is a bit of a cheat. Reading Verne in >> translation is a bit of a cheat only if one reads French >> with at least moderate facility; otherwise it's making >> the best of a bad job. (Mind you, a translation might >> actually be better than the original, but reading it >> still isn't reading the original.) > I'd rather spend the time and effort learning Verne's > French than Malory's English.
I can already read Malory's English with a little work, and my French is considerably more limited; achieving genuine reading fluency in the latter would require *much* more work, and for less payoff in this case. I'm not really interested in reading either Malory or Verne as fiction, and I've no other reason to read Verne. Malory, on the other hand, is interesting to me in at least two ways: as evidence of the history of the English language, and as a major (if late) contribution to the Arthurian corpus.
> I think I do read less new sci-fi, particularly short, > because of a feeling growing a while back that a pretty > lousy ending, from the point of view of cast members, was > almost guaranteed when I did.
One of the nice things about buying books in person is that I can check the endings before I buy.
> > On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 21:11:28 GMT, Wayne Throop > > <thro...@sheol.org> wrote: > >> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> > >>: I suspect you'd be appalled at how many people who are, by the > >>: actual definition of "literate," i.e., are able to read at an > >>: 8th grade level or better, couldn't tell you the difference > >>: between George Orwell H. G. Wells, and Orson Wells.
> >>Or between Orson Wells and Orson Bean, for that matter.
> >>Perhaps I should say "somemody who reads more than ten books a > >>year for recreation" rather than merely literate. But I have no > >>idea if my impression wrt Animal Farm is even in the right order > >>of magnitude.
> > A rehearsal acquaintance, last week, let me know he'd been doing > > a LOT of reading while the cast was on his arm. I said a neutral > > "oh?" and probed for clarification; it turned out he was > > processing at a rate of six books a month, or so.
> > Dave "this would have qualified for a neutral 'oh' if I'd been > > able to get > > another word in edgewise" DeLaney
> I know a guy who used to be able to (before various medical > problems) read the average paperback in about an hour. Swears he > didn't speed read, either. It was . . . amazing.
I used to be able to read the average paperback in about an hour or so as well. Then they got longer.
>> I am currently in the middle of the "Fuller Memorandum" >> which I imagine everybody else read ages ago.
> Nope. I gave up on Charlie after several mediocre to > disappointing experiences.
Luckily I started with the Laundry books. I then tried a couple of others (Glasshouse and Merchant something or other series book 1) and bounced big time. I have not brought myself to buy anything else since. I am still glad to have read the Laundry books.
> > I think I do read less new sci-fi, particularly short, > > because of a feeling growing a while back that a pretty > > lousy ending, from the point of view of cast members, was > > almost guaranteed when I did.
> One of the nice things about buying books in person is that > I can check the endings before I buy.
Do we strongly disagree about knowing the ending before we read a story? I know it came up recently - but I generally don't pay attention to who's said what here for more than a few hours...
Also, /you/ probably just see more downer endings. It's like gambling, you can't change the game odds by using a system. Except in cases like a lottery where you can have an unclaimed prize fund that rolls into the next game, and you only play then.
The analogy would be... I dunno... Star Wars novels set at a particular point in the history, avoiding the particularly lousy times, such as, your Jedi hero is obviously going to be killed by the Empire, since there aren't any of them around by the time Alderaan gets foomed.
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: > On 8/15/11 11:33 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
> > : Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy<tausti...@gmail.com> > > : No thanks. The one time I tried Orwell (1984), I found it dry, > > : boring, and Fiction With A Message. None of which does anything for > > : me. I read to be entertained, and I don't find FWAM to be > > : entertaining.
> > Orwell is FWaM alright. And neither 1984 nor AM have a happy ending at all. > > Which I suppose is necessary to properly pile-drive the message into the > > audience.
> I don't think it IS necessary at all; one of the reasons I really hated > 1984 was that the evils of such a society were made ABUNDANTLY clear > throughout the novel and ending on a note of total hopelessness was not > at all necessary.
But how to avoid it? In that world, the lovers were doomed. (Weren't they banning sex?)
I somehow got the idea that AF was partly a specific diagram of Russian twentieth century history, e.g. Snowball = Trotsky. So again its shape was dictated. But another view of the topic is that the October revolution didn't begin in optimism at all, there never was any.
> On 2011-08-15 19:11:36 -0700, i...@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen) said:
> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 20:14:08 +0000 (UTC), Kurt Busiek > > <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
> > [... Sad Endings..]
> >> "Flowers for Algernon" doesn't seem to be one of those stories; it's > >> quite readable. The ending's sad, but well-delivered. I also don't hear > >> a lot of complaints about "The Lottery" or "Occurrence at Owl Creek > >> Bridge," because they're quite readable, too, even though they're > >> downers.
> > I too detest unhappy endings. > >> I don't think "Flowers for Algernon" chased away lots of people from > >> reading. Didn't even chase away Ryk.
> > Chased me away from lit-ra-chur classes in both high school and > > college, however.
> I didn't argue that no one but Ryk dislikes downer endings, or that > such things never chased anyone away from anything.
> But I'll stand by the idea that I don't think "Flowers for Algernon" > chased away lots of people from reading. Didn't even chase you away > either, it seems.
For every "The Cold Equations", there's a "Princess of Mars without any clothes on". It probably balances out somewhat.
DeLaney) wrote: >Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote: >>d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in >>> A rehearsal acquaintance, last week, let me know he'd been doing >>> a LOT of reading while the cast was on his arm. I said a neutral >>> "oh?" and probed for clarification; it turned out he was >>> processing at a rate of six books a month, or so.
>>> Dave "this would have qualified for a neutral 'oh' if I'd been >>> able to get another word in edgewise" DeLaney
>>I know a guy who used to be able to (before various medical >>problems) read the average paperback in about an hour. Swears he >>didn't speed read, either. It was . . . amazing.
><looks nervously left and right to make sure the 'saccades and sp33d r3ading' >guy isn't anywhere near; that was one determined-to-be-wrong thread>
Geesh, yeah.
Back when paperbacks were often <150 pages, zipping through one in under an hour and a half was feasible. Not so much these days!
Cheers - Jaimie -- "On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
<sjhar...@netspace.net.au> wrote: >"Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> writes:
>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:05:12 +0800, Robert Bannister >> <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote in >> <news:9atu28F7peU3@mid.individual.net> in >> rec.arts.sf.written:
>> [...]
>>> I am currently in the middle of the "Fuller Memorandum" >>> which I imagine everybody else read ages ago.
>> Nope. I gave up on Charlie after several mediocre to >> disappointing experiences.
>Luckily I started with the Laundry books. I then tried a couple of >others (Glasshouse and Merchant something or other series book 1) and >bounced big time. I have not brought myself to buy anything else >since. I am still glad to have read the Laundry books.
There's another Laundry book expected mid next year, btw.
Charlie does have a pretty wide spread of writing styles; unfortunately for you none of the others are much like the Laundry stories. I'm mildly surprised you bounced off both Glasshouse and Merchant Princes 1 - I'd have expected most SF readers to enjoy one or the other (or both).
Cheers - Jaimie -- "I love the way that Microsoft follows standards. In much the same manner as fish follow migrating caribou." - Paul Tomblin, ASR
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 03:33:01 GMT, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) > wrote:
>> But even so, I remember Animal Farm had a certain charm when >> looked at as if it were in the "horror" genre. And horror books >> and flicks never have the good guys *really* win. There's always >> the little bit of the alien contamination that's overlooked, the >> odd member or two of the family of cannibals that escapes, or the >> vampire or two that got turned without anybody noticing.
> I liked the ending of the movie Flash, which was about a serial. Or > the episodes of the TV show "Wild, Wild, West", where Victor Buono's > or Michael Dunn's characters got away at the end.
> Doctor Miguelito Quixote Loveless was one character, but I'm not > remembering the magician's name right now. Count something or > another.
Count Manzeppi.
I'll note that from my PoV there are actually two types of "Horror" (referring to Wayne's comment): "Positive Horror" in which a true victory is achieved, and "Negative Horror", in which the best you manage is a holding action or temporary reprieve. Dean Koontz has done quite a bit of positive horror, in which by the end the bad guy/alien/super psychic/etc. has actually been permanently dealt with (in one way or another) and the protagonists get to have a happily ever after.
Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote: >For every "The Cold Equations", there's a "Princess of Mars without >any clothes on". It probably balances out somewhat.
Well, if that's the price we must pay...
Dave -- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
>>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:05:12 +0800, Robert Bannister >>> <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote in >>> <news:9atu28F7peU3@mid.individual.net> in >>> rec.arts.sf.written:
>>> [...]
>>>> I am currently in the middle of the "Fuller Memorandum" >>>> which I imagine everybody else read ages ago.
>>> Nope. I gave up on Charlie after several mediocre to >>> disappointing experiences.
>>Luckily I started with the Laundry books. I then tried a couple of >>others (Glasshouse and Merchant something or other series book 1) and >>bounced big time. I have not brought myself to buy anything else >>since. I am still glad to have read the Laundry books.
> There's another Laundry book expected mid next year, btw.
> Charlie does have a pretty wide spread of writing styles; > unfortunately for you none of the others are much like the Laundry > stories. I'm mildly surprised you bounced off both Glasshouse and > Merchant Princes 1 - I'd have expected most SF readers to enjoy one or > the other (or both).
I am in the same camp with Brian. Glasshouse -- ugh. Merchant Princes 1 was lame. The Laundry stories were great fun.
I just read Halting State, and while not exactly bad I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
>>>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:05:12 +0800, Robert Bannister >>>> <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote in >>>> <news:9atu28F7peU3@mid.individual.net> in >>>> rec.arts.sf.written:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> I am currently in the middle of the "Fuller Memorandum" >>>>> which I imagine everybody else read ages ago.
>>>> Nope. I gave up on Charlie after several mediocre to >>>> disappointing experiences.
>>>Luckily I started with the Laundry books. I then tried a couple of >>>others (Glasshouse and Merchant something or other series book 1) and >>>bounced big time. I have not brought myself to buy anything else >>>since. I am still glad to have read the Laundry books.
>> There's another Laundry book expected mid next year, btw.
>> Charlie does have a pretty wide spread of writing styles; >> unfortunately for you none of the others are much like the Laundry >> stories. I'm mildly surprised you bounced off both Glasshouse and >> Merchant Princes 1 - I'd have expected most SF readers to enjoy one or >> the other (or both).
> I am in the same camp with Brian. Glasshouse -- ugh. Merchant Princes > 1 was lame. The Laundry stories were great fun.
>> I think I do read less new sci-fi, particularly short, >> because of a feeling growing a while back that a pretty >> lousy ending, from the point of view of cast members, was >> almost guaranteed when I did.
> One of the nice things about buying books in person is that > I can check the endings before I buy.
> On Aug 16, 4:44 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" > <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote: >> On 8/15/11 11:33 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
>>> : Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy<tausti...@gmail.com> >>> : No thanks. The one time I tried Orwell (1984), I found it dry, >>> : boring, and Fiction With A Message. None of which does anything for >>> : me. I read to be entertained, and I don't find FWAM to be >>> : entertaining.
>>> Orwell is FWaM alright. And neither 1984 nor AM have a happy ending at all. >>> Which I suppose is necessary to properly pile-drive the message into the >>> audience.
>> I don't think it IS necessary at all; one of the reasons I really hated >> 1984 was that the evils of such a society were made ABUNDANTLY clear >> throughout the novel and ending on a note of total hopelessness was not >> at all necessary.
> But how to avoid it? In that world, the lovers were doomed. (Weren't > they banning sex?)
Er, have a happy ending? Revolution succeeds at end, showing you both "here's the danger" and "you need to act to fix it", rather than DOOOM DOOOOM DOOM we're all DOOOOMED.
>> > I think I do read less new sci-fi, particularly short, >> > because of a feeling growing a while back that a pretty >> > lousy ending, from the point of view of cast members, was >> > almost guaranteed when I did.
>> One of the nice things about buying books in person is that >> I can check the endings before I buy.
>Do we strongly disagree about knowing the ending before we read a >story? I know it came up recently - but I generally don't pay >attention to who's said what here for more than a few hours...
>Also, /you/ probably just see more downer endings. It's like >gambling, you can't change the game odds by using a system. Except in >cases like a lottery where you can have an unclaimed prize fund that >rolls into the next game, and you only play then.
>The analogy would be... I dunno... Star Wars novels set at a >particular point in the history, avoiding the particularly lousy >times, such as, your Jedi hero is obviously going to be killed by the >Empire, since there aren't any of them around by the time Alderaan >gets foomed.
STAR WARS is an interesting example, because the first and third movies do end on up notes. Then, to quote something I said on the Bujold list:
"The thing about the Star Wars expanded universe that most impresses me is how the need for endless sequels has taken what was way back in the late Disco a fairly upbeat series where the good guys eventually prevailed and turned into a crapsack setting that's grimmer than the disintegration of Yugoslavia, Congo Wars I & II and the Mongol Conquests combined."
> On 8/16/11 12:56 AM, Brian M. Scott wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:56:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie > > <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in > > <news:440e4e24-60c4-4...@v3g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> > > in rec.arts.sf.written:
> > [...]
> >> I think I do read less new sci-fi, particularly short, > >> because of a feeling growing a while back that a pretty > >> lousy ending, from the point of view of cast members, was > >> almost guaranteed when I did.
> > One of the nice things about buying books in person is that > > I can check the endings before I buy.
In message <3ec9f26d-74d1-4c38-83bc-a8af8bf65...@l4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet <illegaln...@gmail.com> writes
>On Aug 15, 8:05 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> as an example: I am currently >> in the middle of the "Fuller Memorandum" which I imagine everybody else >> read ages ago.
>Will probably finish it tonight (my first time through).
He's apparently a day or two away from submitting the next book of the series to the publisher. -- Marcus L. Rowland www.forgottenfutures.com www.forgottenfutures.org www.forgottenfutures.co.uk Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game Diana: Warrior Princess & Elvis: The Legendary Tours The Original Flatland Role Playing Game
: "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> : Er, have a happy ending? Revolution succeeds at end, showing you both : "here's the danger" and "you need to act to fix it", rather than DOOOM : DOOOOM DOOM we're all DOOOOMED.
"Now as I was saying the universe is doomed, just doomed, doomed doomed doomed... Go now children!"
On Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:47:40 AM UTC-7, Lonnie Clay wrote: > On Tuesday, August 16, 2011 9:19:38 AM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote: > > On 8/16/11 12:56 AM, Brian M. Scott wrote: > > > On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:56:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie > > > <rja....@excite.com> wrote in > > > <news:440e4e...@v3g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> > > > in rec.arts.sf.written:
> > > [...]
> > >> I think I do read less new sci-fi, particularly short, > > >> because of a feeling growing a while back that a pretty > > >> lousy ending, from the point of view of cast members, was > > >> almost guaranteed when I did.
> > > One of the nice things about buying books in person is that > > > I can check the endings before I buy.
Adamantly opposed, compromise incoNCeivable? Try our Negotiable Contracts! You too can daNCe upon a pin head! ONCe you start you'll bouNCe like a red rubber ball! CoNCessions praNCing before you, you'll pronouNCe yourself satisfied or your money back. Why give an iNCh when you could be taking a mile? Don't miss your chaNCe! PiNCh your eyes shut, muster all your patieNCe, and probe into the aNCient wisdom of chaNCe! Contact us NOW at oxyGEN - Inhale.oxyGEN....@chaNCe.iNC!
Lonnie Courtney Clay p.s. For a wise dome, who needs to rely on chaNCe? But what do I know? I'm just a GLI-TCH.
