THE PRESTIGE by Christopher Priest
John Boston
I see that this novel has finally found an American publisher (St. Martin's).
It is one of the most entertaining novels I have read in the last couple of years.
A lot of Priest's work has been a little remote and over-intellectualized, the kind
of thing that's probably good for you but not necessarily that enjoyable to read.
In recent years he has been learning to be a story-teller, and he's arrived with
this one. It's about a rivalry between two nineteenth-century stage magicians and
the impact it has on some of their present-day descendants; Nikola Tesla plays
a significant role; and it has at least as much science in it as, oh, say, GRAY
LENSMAN. I highly recommend it.
John Boston
P Nielsen Hayden
John Boston (jbo...@delphi.com) wrote:
: I see that this novel has finally found an American publisher (St.
: Martin's).
Forgive me for quoting the whole post, but on my newsreader at least, the
long lines failed to wrap, and since I couldn't agree more with you
sentiments, I'd like to see them read by others!
This was exactly my take on the book. I have admired and respected Priest's
work for years, but I _enjoyed_ THE PRESTIGE. What an utter romp of a book.
I'm happy to say that we secured the softcover rights, and we'll be bringing
it out next fall.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
senior editor, manager of science fiction, Tor Books : http://www.tor.com
Brendan Newport
John Boston wrote:
> I see that this novel has finally found an American publisher (St. Martin's).
> It is one of the most entertaining novels I have read in the last couple of years.
> A lot of Priest's work has been a little remote and over-intellectualized, the kind
> of thing that's probably good for you but not necessarily that enjoyable to read.
> In recent years he has been learning to be a story-teller, and he's arrived with
> this one. It's about a rivalry between two nineteenth-century stage magicians and
> the impact it has on some of their present-day descendants; Nikola Tesla plays
> a significant role; and it has at least as much science in it as, oh, say, GRAY
> LENSMAN. I highly recommend it.
>
>
Yes, I quite agree.
Priest is one of the UK's best kept secrets. Other than his famous
essay concerning the "Last Dangerous Visions", he's relatively unknown
outside of the UK, yet he's been writing excellent fiction for over
two-and-a-half decades. I say "fiction" because, despite his long
association with the BSFF, Priest has managed, like Ballard, and perhaps
Michael Moorcock and Brian Aldiss, to cross the boundary into the world
of contemporary fiction and stay there. It was Priest's books that
actually (horror of horrors) introduced me to the possibility that there
might be fiction I could read in my leisure time that didn't have "SF"
at the bottom of the blurb on the back cover, next to the price. I read
his genunine science fiction titles, and then the likes of "The
Affirmation" and "A Dream Of Wessex". It wasn't too much of a hop to
"The Quiet Woman", and "The Affirmation". People who perhaps enjoy the
works of John Fowles or Brian Moore will like Priest, or visa versa.
The Prestige though continues the fine old Priest tradition of
screwing-up the ending. Once again things rush to an almighty quick,
and slightly disappointing conclusion - just as they did in "The
Glamour" (1st edtition), and to some degree, The Quiet Woman. It's not
quite so bad in The Prestige, but another ten pages to eke out the final
scenes would have been appreciated. Despite this, The Prestige was the
only fiction hardcover I've purchased in the last twelve months, and it
is, as the dust jacket proclaims, absolutely compelling to read. The
twist in the tail alluded too in the blurb is simply brilliant. I've
read it twice now and the hideous amount that UK publishers ask for for
hardcovers was, on this occasion, money well spent.
Bren
dave ewen
Hello,
Could someone please explain to me why "Bears Discover Fire" by Terry
Bisson was an award winning short story? Did I miss something?
I thought it was a fairly pointless story with no real "zing" of any
kind.
Mike Berro
dave ewen <dave.ewen-@-circellar.com> wrote:
>Could someone please explain to me why "Bears Discover Fire" by Terry
>Bisson was an award winning short story? Did I miss something?
I thought it was very well-written. There is some sort of
cumulative point system for determining total awards for stories, and
according to one cataloguer, BEARS is first of all science fiction or
mystery with 26 points. Personally, I think winning an award is not
an indication of quality, but I wouldn't refuse one. <grin>
---Mike
Robert J. Sawyer
> Why "Bears Discover Fire" ... was an award winning ...
Well, all such things are matters of taste. I adored the story
myself -- it's absolutely charming, in my view. And, really,
a quite clever concept -- we never stop to think about the
evolution going on in other lifeforms.
All best wishes.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| R O B E R T J . S A W Y E R | Author of STARPLEX (currently on |
| Nebula Winner / Hugo Nominee | the Preliminary Nebula Ballot) |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/sawyer
saw...@compuserve.com
dave ewen
Well, it was a cute and silly little surrealistic story, but come on.
The story
goes nowhere builds up to nothing and explains nothing. The bears appear
for
the first time in the story using torches--hey building a torch that
will stay
lit is non-trivial. I'm surprised the bears didn't break out some
marshmellows
and weiners on sticks... seriously I'd never consider this story for an
award.
> dave ewen wrote:
> >Could someone please explain to me why "Bears Discover Fire" by Terry
> >Bisson was an award winning short story? Did I miss something?
>
Mike Berro
dave ewen <dave.ewen-@-circellar.com> wrote:
>Well, it was a cute and silly little surrealistic story, but come on.
Since I have not published any fiction, the world will have to wait
for the story that *everyone* thinks is great. <grin>
---Mike
Scott Colvin Beeler
dave ewen <dave.ewen-@-circellar.com> writes:
>Well, it was a cute and silly little surrealistic story, but come on.
>The story
>goes nowhere builds up to nothing and explains nothing. The bears appear
>for
>the first time in the story using torches--hey building a torch that
>will stay
>lit is non-trivial. I'm surprised the bears didn't break out some
>marshmellows
>and weiners on sticks... seriously I'd never consider this story for an
>award.
It definitely was cute, and yes, even a little silly, but I thought
it was obviously meant to be like that. It was not meant
to be a realistic exploration of evolution, but just a light-
hearted sentimental story about an impossible scenario. I read it
in the story collection of the same name, and a lot of the other
stories had the same type of feel.
Scott
dkn...@efn.org
Dave, thanks a bunch for quoting at the bottom of the screen. Really
appreciate it.
Damon
Michael Kozlowski
In article <32F16D...@efn.org>, <dkn...@efn.org> wrote:
>Dave, thanks a bunch for quoting at the bottom of the screen. Really
>appreciate it.
I don't. It makes it more difficult to read, since I have to scroll to
the bottom to see what the post is referring to.
And, of course, I have no idea at all what post this message is referring
to -- it hasn't showed up on my server yet.
--
Michael Kozlowski mkoz...@ssc.wisc.edu
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~mlk/index.html
"Weasels, weasels everywhere; Nor any drop to drink!"
Tombesh
< dave ewen wrote:
<Well, it was a cute and silly little surrealistic story, but come on.
<The story goes nowhere builds up to nothing and explains nothing.
Where is it said the purpose of a story is always to explain something?
Adam Lipkin
Robert J. Sawyer (7670...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
: > Why "Bears Discover Fire" ... was an award winning ...
: Well, all such things are matters of taste. I adored the story
: myself -- it's absolutely charming, in my view. And, really,
: a quite clever concept -- we never stop to think about the
: evolution going on in other lifeforms.
As Robert said, matters of taste. I liked that story, Bears Discover Fire, a
whole lot. Many of the other stories in that collection, however, I found
unreadable. I don't know what else he's written, other than Pirates Of The
Universe; which, according to his web page, is "The Most Reviewed SF Novel of
1996", whatever the hell that means. Well, I know what it means, but the
significance escapes me.
Adam
--
.________________________________________________.
| | Adam M. Lipkin | |
| ._______| ali...@bu.edu |______. |
| | http://acs.bu.edu:8001/~alipkin | |
|_______|__________"We got beets!"________|______|
Crawford Kilian
Adam Lipkin writes:
As Robert said, matters of taste. I liked that story, Bears Discover Fire, a
whole lot. Many of the other stories in that collection, however, I found
unreadable. I don't know what else he's written, other than Pirates Of The
Universe; which, according to his web page, is "The Most Reviewed SF Novel of
1996", whatever the hell that means. Well, I know what it means, but the
significance escapes me.
CK:
Escapes me too, but Terry Bisson is one of the most interesting people
working in F & SF these days. His fantasy novel Talking Man is one of the
very few I've re-read (and I've read it three times now); Journey to the Red
Planet is a very sharp satire on Hollywood, neocon economics, and SF itself;
Pirates is a continuation of that attack. The genres would be a lot duller
without him.
Crawford Kilian
cki...@hubcap.mlnet.com
Jorj Strumolo
Dave Ewen wrote:
DE> it was a cute and silly little surrealistic story, but come on.
> The story goes nowhere builds up to nothing and explains nothing.
tom...@aol.com (Tombesh) writes:
TB> Where is it said the purpose of a story is always to explain something?
Nowhere, but most of us do expect some point to a story. "One
perfect moment of beauty" or the like may be nice, but doesn't a
story make. If there's no point to a work (my memory of "Bears
Discover Fire" is too faint to say if there was any structural
flow to it, but I vaguely recall there wasn't -- more of a
"well, that's nice" emptiness to it) is it a story? Or rather
a vignette? A work needn't explain anything specific, but there
should be a feeling that there was a point to reading it, that
you don't reach the end and wonder where the story was.
-=-
Jorj.S...@chowda.com * Fido 1:323/140 * jo...@wsii.com
dave ewen
Is quoting at the bottom considered bad form? In SLMR I'd never quote
at the bottom, but these Windows readers are so tedious and slow I
have tended to quote at the bottom.
To throw in something on the topic of "Bears"... ARGH!!!
>dkn...@efn.org wrote:
>
>Dave, thanks a bunch for quoting at the bottom of the screen. Really
>appreciate it.
>
>Damon
>
sf thomas
Jorj Strumolo <jo...@wsii.com> wrote:
> Nowhere, but most of us do expect some point to a story. "One
> perfect moment of beauty" or the like may be nice, but doesn't a
> story make.
Actually, that's a matter of taste. Like gourmet food. Some
people, like me, prefer ordinary food over gourmet food all their
life (well, so far anyway). Some people gradually come to yearn
for only gourmet food. How could anyone ever explain to me
why caviar was better than a baked potato? Nope. I *know* a
baked potato is better. Can anyone explain to you why _Bears
Discover Fire_ is great? I doubt it.
Suffice to say, one perfect moment of beauty is something pretty
damn rare. A story with a _new_ point that I agree with is
pretty rare too, but a story with a point that I've seen fifty
times before is common.
RDClark
> Is quoting at the bottom considered bad form? In SLMR I'd
> never quote at the bottom, but these Windows readers are
> so tedious and slow I have tended to quote at the bottom.
I think people should quote appropriately. A short comment like yours is
best quoted at the top; the reader can *see* the relationship of quote to
response. But if there's a compelling need to quote more than, say, 25
lines, I prefer to see them quoted at the bottom so that I'm not *forced*
to scroll down to see the new material.
As for Mr Bisson's story, I was charmed. It may not have been full of
action or scientific wizardry, but it was full of wit and resonance.
Sometimes good writing is its own reward.
|--RichC-------------------------Interfacing is Easy--|
|--RD...@aol.com----Compatibility Takes a Lifetime--|
dave ewen
I'll have to go and see what else was in the running for that year,
because 1990 might have just been a weak year, and I'll admit it was a
cute story, but cute only goes so far with me. There has to be some
'zing' in there somewhere... the death of the main character's mother
should have been tied in to something. To see these lists of "The 100
Best SF Short-stories" and find this silly story as #1 is simply
unreal.
Even Damon Knight has written better short stories than "Bears on
Fire."
>ali...@bu.edu (Adam Lipkin) wrote:
>
>Robert J. Sawyer (7670...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
>: > Why "Bears Discover Fire" ... was an award winning ...
>
>: Well, all such things are matters of taste. I adored the story
>: myself -- it's absolutely charming, in my view. And, really,
>: a quite clever concept -- we never stop to think about the
>: evolution going on in other lifeforms.
>
Philip Chee
>Dave, thanks a bunch for quoting at the bottom of the screen. Really
>appreciate it.
What on earth are you mumbling about?
Phil
---=====================================================================---
Philip Chee: Tasek Cement Berhad, P.O.Box 254, 30908 Ipoh, MALAYSIA
e-mail: phi...@aleytys.pc.my Voice:+60-5-545-1011 Fax:+60-5-547-3932
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
---
ş 9831.54 ş And my special thanks to the Other Forty-Nine!
Al von Ruff
dave ewen (dave.ewen-@-circellar.com) wrote:
:
: I'll have to go and see what else was in the running for that year,
: because 1990 might have just been a weak year, and I'll admit it was a
: cute story, but cute only goes so far with me. There has to be some
: 'zing' in there somewhere... the death of the main character's mother
: should have been tied in to something. To see these lists of "The 100
: Best SF Short-stories" and find this silly story as #1 is simply
: unreal.
I don't think that anyone has a list which proclaims "Bears Discover Fire"
as the best SF story ever written. There *are* lists which show, that
following some method of scoring stories by the number of award nominations
and wins received, "Bears Discover Fire" consistantly scores very high.
Note that this is a quantitative, not a qualitative, statement.
The purpose of such lists is to simply present some subset of stories
which a large number of people seem to like. They don't pretend to be
the "Best" stories. The likelyhood is high that you will like some of
the stories on the list, and it is just as likely that you will dislike
some of the stories on the list. You should, however, like more of the
stories on the list than if you selected stories at random to read.
I don't even particularly like every story in one of the annual "Best Of"
anthologies - and they say it right on the label: Best.
: Even Damon Knight has written better short stories than "Bears on
: Fire."
Might as well make efficient use of your time and insult as many
authors as you can.
: >ali...@bu.edu (Adam Lipkin) wrote:
: >As Robert said, matters of taste. I liked that story, Bears Discover Fire, a
: >whole lot. Many of the other stories in that collection, however, I found
: >unreadable. I don't know what else he's written, other than Pirates Of The
: >Universe; which, according to his web page, is "The Most Reviewed SF Novel of
: >1996", whatever the hell that means. Well, I know what it means, but the
: >significance escapes me.
Well, I know what it means too, but I think that the significance is that
there isn't any. Just a little tongue-in-cheek poke at the use of blurbs.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Al von Ruff avon...@prairienet.org
Internet Speculative Fiction Database: http://cu-online.com/~avonruff
Michael Lichter
Dave Ewen wrote:
> it was a cute and silly little surrealistic story, but come on.
> The story goes nowhere builds up to nothing and explains nothing.
It was not surrealistic. Surrealism seeks to evade the rational, to get
at something deeper, by making, among other things, absurd juxtapositions.
If it were a surrealist story, the bears would have, for instance,
sprouted wings and flown south singing "I left my mother's breasts in San
Onofre" with voices eerily similar to Jackie O's. Magic realism comes
closer to the spirit of the thing, but since a clear (if implausible --
but no more implausible than Star Trek transporters) scientific
explanation is given, it's really just SF.
Jorj Strumolo <jo...@wsii.com> agreed with Dave, and said a "perfect moment
of beauty" (summing up what others had said in favor of the piece) does
not constitute a story.
I didn't find this piece to be particularly uncoventional. Why do you
want to exclude it from story-hood? It's not like Bisson just gave us a
set of randomly ordered paragraphs cut out of newspaper articles. It does
include all of the elements your high school English teacher would tell
you a story needs, even if some of them are underdeveloped. If you want
to look at stuff that really makes you question where the boundaries of
"story" are, you should look at one of the annual BEST AMERICAN SHORT
STORIES collections.
Michael
dkn...@efn.org
Dave Ewen, when I thanked you for quoting at the bottom, I really meant
it. (Is there an emoticon for "I really mean this"?)
Damon
Robert J. Sawyer
> I don't know what else [Terry Bisson] has written.
In addition to BEARS DISCOVER FIRE, he's probably best known for his
satiric -- and quite excellent -- novel VOYAGE TO THE RED PLANET.
He also, if memory serves, writes all the jacket copy for HarperPrism
titles.
Steven H Silver
Robert J. Sawyer wrote:
>
> > I don't know what else [Terry Bisson] has written.
>
> In addition to BEARS DISCOVER FIRE, he's probably best known for his
> satiric -- and quite excellent -- novel VOYAGE TO THE RED PLANET.
>
> He also, if memory serves, writes all the jacket copy for HarperPrism
> titles.
Bisson also ghost-wrote the book Car-Talk, based on the radio series and
is currently finishing the sequel to Canticle for Leibowitz which Walter
Miller began several years ago.
--
Steven H
Silver
silv...@earthlink.net
http://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/index.html
Harry Turtledove Bibliography, Jewish SF, Chicago SF, Debut SF, Book
Reviews
-----------------
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4208/index.html
Medieval History Bibliographies, Chicago, Random Links
dave ewen
>: Even Damon Knight has written better short stories than "Bears on
>: Fire."
>
>
>Might as well make efficient use of your time and insult as many
>authors as you can.
Well, did you notice him when he dropped in earlier in the thread just
to comment on usenet quoting? I've done a little checking now and I
_think_ that may actually have been the Grand Master himself. I think
he's about 75, so maybe his eyesight isn't what it was, and such
things are important to him (???).
>I don't think that anyone has a list which proclaims "Bears Discover Fire"
>as the best SF story ever written. There *are* lists which show, that
>following some method of scoring stories by the number of award nominations
>and wins received, "Bears Discover Fire" consistantly scores very high.
>Note that this is a quantitative, not a qualitative, statement.
I just looked at-
http://cu-online.com/~avonruff/top100.html
where it is #1. As I said, I don't mind the story, but I'd like to
understand why others like it so much more.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>Well, did you notice him when he dropped in earlier in the thread just
>to comment on usenet quoting? I've done a little checking now and I
>_think_ that may actually have been the Grand Master himself. I think
>he's about 75, so maybe his eyesight isn't what it was, and such
>things are important to him (???).
It's not his eyesight; it's that Damon's used to Genie, which has a
rigid topic structure and charges for connect time, so that quoting is
considered bad form -- the exact opposite of Usenet. He's having
problems making the transition, since he's been active on Genie for
years.
Right, Damon?
For information on Lawrence Watt-Evans, finger -l lawr...@clark.net
The Misenchanted Page is at http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/
Last major update: 11/17/96
Ron Henry
dkn...@efn.org wrote in article <32F49E...@efn.org>...
> Dave Ewen, when I thanked you for quoting at the bottom, I really meant
> it. (Is there an emoticon for "I really mean this"?)
>
> Damon
Maybe, but I don't think it's: ?)
--
rg...@cornell.edu
Email me for the official rec.music.rem FAQ
"Look into your glove-box heart."
Douglas Tricarico
In <32F49E...@efn.org> dkn...@efn.org writes:
>
>Dave Ewen, when I thanked you for quoting at the bottom, I really
meant
>it. (Is there an emoticon for "I really mean this"?)
>
>Damon
There used to be, but it was outlawed. Too many people were being
nailed down to actual opinions and had to back them up -- it was rather
unpleasant all the way 'round.
Doug
LAL
> Dave Ewen, when I thanked you for quoting at the bottom, I really meant
> it. (Is there an emoticon for "I really mean this"?)
I believe you are proposing to carry over a _cultural_ pattern possibly
viable in some "content based" on-line services (AOL & Genie come to mind)
but not viable on usenet where attributions and references are often lost.
Hence we get bizarre posts referring to nothing consisting entirely of "I
agree" from netizens whose's only experience base consists of AOL's fully
structured and monitored groups. Nearly as bad are posts that take off with
response and opinion while attaching the previous post onto the end. Leads
to confusion (what are you responding to so vehemently?) and bandwidth
excess since there's no incentive to trim the previous post to pertinent
content, and the likelihood of a growing series of full post "quotes"
attached to the bottom of everything.
I think, Damon, that this is one of those _Do As The Romans Do_ things.
Welcome to Rome.
_And I really mean this_
Bye
--
Standard disclaimers apply. Nobody here ever agrees with me on anything.
Brian Davies
dave.ewen-@-circellar.com (dave ewen) wrote:
> >avon...@prairienet.org (Al von Ruff) wrote:
> >I don't think that anyone has a list which proclaims "Bears Discover Fire"
> >as the best SF story ever written. There *are* lists which show, that
> >following some method of scoring stories by the number of award nominations
> >and wins received, "Bears Discover Fire" consistantly scores very high.
> >Note that this is a quantitative, not a qualitative, statement.
>
> I just looked at-
>
> http://cu-online.com/~avonruff/top100.html
>
> where it is #1. As I said, I don't mind the story, but I'd like to
> understand why others like it so much more.
Look how that list is compiled -- as Al pointed out, it's purely a rating
of how many awards a story won or was nominated for. "Bears Discover
Fire" pulled in a Hugo, a Nebula, and the Sturgeon award. Just for
contrast, consider that Asimov's brilliant "Nightfall" won none of them.
;)
In case anyone missed that smiley, the obvious reason for this is that
"Nightfall" was published before those awards even existed. Clarke's "The
Star" is pre-Nebula. The great classics didn't have the opportunity to
win two or three or even four awards. If my memory of publication dates
is right, no story from more than 10 years ago even made the top 10 on
that list that you reference.
So, the next question is why did enough people vote for "Bears" for best
short short of the year. One answer is that the competition wasn't very
strong that year -- "Bears" was the only thing in the short story
category even *nominated* for both the Hugo and the Nebula that year.
Another answer is that it's hard to make something even memorable, given
how short a true short story (as opposed to a novelette or novella) has to
be, and "Bears" was certainly memorable. (I know I read Cibola, but I
can't remember what is was about for the life of me.) But the truth is
probably that "Bears Discover Fire" is a cute and comfortable little tale
with a dash of originality, and that was what a number of people were in
the mood for at that moment.
If you want to see an attempt at listing the best SF short stories of all
time, rather than the luckiest SF stories of the multi-award era, check
out Tristrom Cooke's Top 100 SF Short Story list at:
http://www.clark.net/pub/iz/Books/Top100/stories100list.txt
That list is also skewed, though this time it's by the small number of
voters and the fact that all of them are 'netters, rather than the
peculiarities of the award structure.
- Brian
***************************************************************************
* Brian Davies (dav...@ils.nwu.edu) * There are three kinds of lies: *
* http://www.ils.nwu.edu/~davies/ * Lies, damned lies, and release *
* Institute For The Learning Sciences * dates. *
* 1890 Maple Ave, Evanston, IL, 60201 * - guess who *
***************************************************************************
dave ewen
Ha! It is pretty difficult to quickly rule out sarcasm when someone
says someone did something right <g>.
I guess the problem is that many people have seen quoting done both
ways. On Fidonet it is normally done at the top, but since many people
use DOS offline readers there (i.e. no mousing around to scroll) it is
not much of a problem.
Personally, I am not too thrilled with the Windows readers I have
tried so far. I don't want to have to touch the silly mouse when
reading, or have to go get the message bodies after guessing at
message headers.
OTOH, I would not have expected to find a Grand Master concerning
himself with quoting methods !!! It is often difficult enough to just
find intelligent conversation where people are not flaming each other
in heated exchanges of opinions.
Best Regards
>On Sun, 02 Feb 1997 06:01:42 -0800, dkn...@efn.org wrote:
>
>Dave Ewen, when I thanked you for quoting at the bottom, I really meant
>it. (Is there an emoticon for "I really mean this"?)
>
>Damon
Martha Soukup
In article <davies-0402...@davies.ils.nwu.edu>,
dav...@ils.nwu.edu (Brian Davies) wrote:
> So, the next question is why did enough people vote for "Bears" for best
> short short of the year. One answer is that the competition wasn't very
> strong that year -- "Bears" was the only thing in the short story
> category even *nominated* for both the Hugo and the Nebula that year.
> Another answer is that it's hard to make something even memorable, given
> how short a true short story (as opposed to a novelette or novella) has to
> be, and "Bears" was certainly memorable. (I know I read Cibola, but I
> can't remember what is was about for the life of me.) But the truth is
> probably that "Bears Discover Fire" is a cute and comfortable little tale
> with a dash of originality, and that was what a number of people were in
> the mood for at that moment.
The competition was stunning that year. Karen Joy Fowler's "Liesrl" was
also nominated for the Nebula, and I was only sorry one of those two
stories had to lose. I voted for the Fowler but also loved the Bisson,
and can hardly remember a harder choice.
Martha
Vicke Dovheden
In article <32F49E...@efn.org>,
dkn...@efn.org wrote:
>Dave Ewen, when I thanked you for quoting at the bottom, I really meant
>it. (Is there an emoticon for "I really mean this"?)
>
>Damon
>
>
Not that I know. Personally, I think that quoting at the bottom
sucks. I prefer the qouted text and the reply to come in a
chronological order. Replies interleaved among the quotes is also
fine. Quoting at the bottom just results in confusion, IMAO.
Vicke
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.
Christina Schulman
dave ewen <dave.ewen-@-circellar.com> wrote, about Terry Bisson's
"Bears Discover Fire":
>
>As I said, I don't mind the story, but I'd like to
>understand why others like it so much more.
When I first read it, in the year it won the Nebula (1991?), I was
underwhelmed. I read it again in 1995, when the Orb edition of the
collection _Bears Discover Fire_ came out, and found it charming. Perhaps
my taste has matured, or immatured, or outright migrated.
I liked it because Bisson took an original what-if ("what if bears
discovered fire?") and dropped it into such a prosaic setting that
the premise became very immediate and believable. The way he writes
about semi-rural Kentucky in both "Bears Discover Fire" and his surreal
fantasy novel _Talking Man_ makes me come over all nostalgic for places
I've never even seen.
I highly recommend the collection to anyone who liked the title story.
I didn't care for some of the stories (in particular, I thought "Necronauts"
read like a particularly bad "Twilight Zone" episode, and "Cancion Autentica
de Old Earth" was just drippy), but "Over Flat Mountain" is terrific, worth
the price of admission by itself. "They're Made Out of Meat" is also great;
it's been floating around the net for a few years, occasionally even
attributed to the author. It always reminds me of Lem's _Cyberiad_.
And I adore "Press Ann."
"WELCOME TO CASH-IN-A-FLASH
1324 LOCATIONS
TO SERVE YOU CITYWIDE
PLEASE DON'T KICK THE MACHINE"
--
Christina Schulman http://www.pitt.edu/~schulman schu...@pitt.edu
"This is an inherent risk in my business. If you tell some low-level
gatekeeper type you have a question about poultry, you may actually get
through. Tell them you want to know which end of the egg comes out of the
chicken first, on the other hand, and they'll have security trace the call."
-- Cecil Adams, "The Straight Dope"
dave ewen
>schu...@pitt.edu (Christina Schulman) wrote:
>"Bears Discover Fire":
>[...]
>I liked it because Bisson took an original what-if ("what if bears
>discovered fire?") and dropped it into such a prosaic setting that
>the premise became very immediate and believable. The way he writes
>about semi-rural Kentucky in both "Bears Discover Fire" and his surreal
>fantasy novel _Talking Man_ makes me come over all nostalgic for places
>I've never even seen.
The story introduces us to a surreal land, known to us as the highway
median, and in this strange place, strange things happen. Bears use
torches and build fires. They gather around them at night eating
strange berries from old hubcaps, and the strange berries are really
strange--an unknown type. Median wood has a particular color.
OTOH, none of the strange occurances in the median are ever used
toward any purpose and lead us only to a pointless and meaningless
death - IN A SHORT STORY????
Ian A. York
In article <5d97m0$m...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Christina Schulman <schu...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>
>about semi-rural Kentucky in both "Bears Discover Fire" and his surreal
>fantasy novel _Talking Man_ makes me come over all nostalgic for places
>I've never even seen.
Glad someone mentioned Talking Man. A great story, and proof that things
don't have to make sense to be a good story
Ian
--
Ian York (iay...@panix.com) <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
"-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England
Peter H. Granzeau
On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 03:48:28 +0100, vi...@df.lth.se (Vicke Dovheden)
wrote:
>In article <32F49E...@efn.org>,
>dkn...@efn.org wrote:
>
>>Dave Ewen, when I thanked you for quoting at the bottom, I really meant
>>it. (Is there an emoticon for "I really mean this"?)
>>
>>Damon
>>
>>
>
>Not that I know. Personally, I think that quoting at the bottom
>sucks. I prefer the qouted text and the reply to come in a
>chronological order. Replies interleaved among the quotes is also
>fine. Quoting at the bottom just results in confusion, IMAO.
I don't like quoting at the bottom (although generally follow whatever
convention has already been established), and I think that
interleaving replies in a text sucks green pus through a straw. It's
a pet peeve in my case, although occasionally, I do it, too. I just
refuse to do it more than a couple of times in a single reply, if
possible.
But when I quote, I usually delete anything (like signature lines)
that isn't part of the comment to which I am speaking; something you
didn't do, I notice. I didn't trim the quotation above because I
wanted to make the point.
Putting the new text at the top makes it easier to find without having
to scroll down several pages to hunt for it and then to read it.
Aaron Bergman
In article <32ffdfb2...@news.exis.net>, p...@exis.net wrote:
:I don't like quoting at the bottom (although generally follow whatever
:convention has already been established), and I think that
:interleaving replies in a text sucks green pus through a straw. It's
:a pet peeve in my case, although occasionally, I do it, too. I just
:refuse to do it more than a couple of times in a single reply, if
:possible.
It's pretty much the standard everywhere on Usenet. I think it's probably
the best way to go. It emphasizes the portion of the post to which one is
responding. If, for example, a person has a number of separate points in
an article, it does not make much sense to quote the entire article and
then respond to each in one long block. Also, responding with the
quotation at the end seems to be needlessly annoying and rather pointless.
A person wanting to see the relevant post has to scroll to the end of the
new text, read that, scroll back up, and then read the new text. It
doesn't make much sense.
As has been said any number of times, quoting style on Usenet was
developed because it works. There are a lot of posts on the Usenet, and a
lot of people (myself included) do not have the time to read all of them.
A poorly formatted post has a much higher likelihood of being read. It
also avoids the sort of prejudgements that are associated with poor
formatting, lack of capital letters and the like.
(munch)
:
:Putting the new text at the top makes it easier to find without having
:to scroll down several pages to hunt for it and then to read it.
This is what summaries are for. Normally I'll skip a post if it has more
than 2 screen-fulls (24 lines) of quoted text.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://pantheon.yale.edu/~abergman/>
Smoke a cigarette. Slit your throat. Same concept.
Crawford Kilian
Ian A. York,iay...@panix.com,Internet writes:
Glad someone mentioned Talking Man. A great story, and proof that things
don't have to make sense to be a good story
Gee, I thought Talking Man made more sense than most mainstream novels, not
to mention most mainstream SF and fantasy. I re-read it every couple of years
and it doesn't wear out. But it gives me the most terrific yen for a Collie
Bar...
Crawford Kilian
cki...@hubcap.mlnet.com
Robert J. Sawyer
Christina Schulman wrote:
> I liked it because Bisson took an original what-if ("what if bears
> discovered fire?") and dropped it into such a prosaic setting that
> the premise became very immediate and believable. The way he writes
> about semi-rural Kentucky in both "Bears Discover Fire" and his surreal
> fantasy novel _Talking Man_ makes me come over all nostalgic for places
> I've never even seen.
Very well put! I agree completely!
Christina Schulman
Beware of spoilers herein for "Bears Discover Fire." As Dave Ewen points
out in passing, however, it's not exactly a story you read for plot.
dave ewen <dave.ewen-@-circellar.com> wrote:
>>schu...@pitt.edu (Christina Schulman) wrote:
>>[...]
>>I liked it because Bisson took an original what-if ("what if bears
>>discovered fire?") and dropped it into such a prosaic setting that
>>the premise became very immediate and believable.
>
>The story introduces us to a surreal land, known to us as the highway
>median, and in this strange place, strange things happen. Bears use
>torches and build fires. [...]
I didn't find Bisson's highway medians surreal; I found them so tangible
that it seemed vaguely possible that I might encounter a tool-using bear
camping in the middle of I-80, splitting a hubcap full of berries with
a couple of guys from PennDOT.
>OTOH, none of the strange occurances in the median are ever used
>toward any purpose and lead us only to a pointless and meaningless
>death - IN A SHORT STORY????
I don't think whatsisface's mother's death was pointless, exactly; I just
considered it context. A batty old relative is a convenient device for
pulling the narrator into direct contact with the bears, and her death
is a more final note on which to end the story than "the sun rose, then
we dragged Mother back to the Home and went home to bed."
Consider the story a convenient dipstick. I don't think "Bears Discover
Fire" is Bisson's best story, but if it didn't grab you, his other work
probably won't, either.
--
Christina Schulman http://www.pitt.edu/~schulman schu...@pitt.edu
"The human animal differs from the lesser primates in his passion for
lists of 'Ten Best'." -- H. Allen Smith
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 6 Feb 1997 01:46:23 GMT, Robert J. Sawyer
<7670...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>Christina Schulman wrote:
>
>> I liked it because Bisson took an original what-if ("what if bears
>> discovered fire?") and dropped it into such a prosaic setting that
>> the premise became very immediate and believable. The way he writes
>> about semi-rural Kentucky in both "Bears Discover Fire" and his surreal
>> fantasy novel _Talking Man_ makes me come over all nostalgic for places
>> I've never even seen.
>
>Very well put! I agree completely!
Thing is, I spent nine years living in Kentucky, and I know the areas
Bisson describes. His descriptions are great -- but you STILL
couldn't pay me enough to get me to move back there, so I didn't get
nostalgic at all.
What you're getting your second-hand nostalgia for isn't really
Kentucky -- it's Terry Bisson's life in Kentucky, and you can't get
there, any more than you can ever find Ray Bradbury's Green Town,
Illinois.
TOUCHED BY THE GODS: Hardcover, Tor Books, November 1997
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Updated 11/17/96
Beyond Comics opens 2/22/97 at Lakeforest Mall, Gaithersburg MD
Philip Chee
In article <32f73b54...@news.clark.net> lawr...@clark.net writes:
>On Tue, 04 Feb 1997 10:05:13 GMT, dave.ewen-@-circellar.com (dave ewen) wrote:
>>he's about 75, so maybe his eyesight isn't what it was, and such
>>things are important to him (???).
>It's not his eyesight; it's that Damon's used to Genie, which has a
>rigid topic structure and charges for connect time, so that quoting is
>considered bad form -- the exact opposite of Usenet. He's having
>problems making the transition, since he's been active on Genie for
But he's a _SF_ writer. Surely he would be more aware of culture shock
when moving from Genie to Usenet than the usual newbie?
Phil
---=====================================================================---
Philip Chee: Tasek Cement Berhad, P.O.Box 254, 30908 Ipoh, MALAYSIA
e-mail: phi...@aleytys.pc.my Voice:+60-5-545-1011 Fax:+60-5-547-3932
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
---
ş 9907.64 ş Usenet can punch its way out of paper bags.
Ian A. York
In article <231105737...@hubcap.mlnet.com>,
Crawford Kilian <cki...@hubcap.mlnet.com> wrote:
.
>Gee, I thought Talking Man made more sense than most mainstream novels, not
>to mention most mainstream SF and fantasy. I re-read it every couple of years
I've re-read it a bunch of times, too; it's one of my favourites. It
makes sense according to its internal logic, but not according to
external, conventional logic. Of course, that's the *point* of the book,
or at least one of the points, I think.
It reminds me of some of Lafferty's stuff. Or (and I mean this in a good
way) the Goons: the same kind of fractured logic, of non-linear causality
(Oooh! Let's all play Buzzword Bingo(tm)!) I like this, if it's well
done. Of course, the problem is that if it's not done almost perfectly,
it collapses entirely. I think the trick is to sneak up with the premises
so that the reader doesn't notice that she's taken them in stride. If the
reader notices, then the double-takes start getting in the way.
dawic...@aol.com
In article <lettis1-ya0234800...@128.115.14.1>,
let...@llnl.gov (LAL) writes:
>In article <32F49E...@efn.org>, dkn...@efn.org wrote:
>
>> Dave Ewen, when I thanked you for quoting at the bottom, I really meant
>> it. (Is there an emoticon for "I really mean this"?)
>
>I believe you are proposing to carry over a _cultural_ pattern possibly
>viable in some "content based" on-line services (AOL & Genie come to
mind)
>but not viable on usenet where attributions and references are often
lost.
>Hence we get bizarre posts referring to nothing consisting entirely of "I
>agree" from netizens whose's only experience base consists of AOL's fully
>structured and monitored groups.
While the above may be true for Genie, it is definitely not true for AOL.
Quoted material is presented differently, but the convention is to place
quoted material first, and to respond after. Only the style of indicating
quoted material is different, and usually it isn't necessary to identify
the writer being quoted, as the groups are linear.
Douglas A. Wickstrom OS/32 Spoken Here
The above address refuses all E-mail SE T: 00:00:00,MM/DD/YY
E-mail to nimshubur(at)aol(dot)com.us MA D0:,ON,,CD=1024
VSUP
Peter H. Granzeau
Actually, I don't think much of quoting at all. I don't quote when I
write a letter; why should I quote here?
Kevin J. Maroney
cki...@hubcap.mlnet.com (Crawford Kilian) wrote:
>Gee, I thought Talking Man made more sense than most mainstream novels, not
>to mention most mainstream SF and fantasy. I re-read it every couple of years
>and it doesn't wear out. But it gives me the most terrific yen for a Collie
>Bar...
Mmmm.... Collie Bars. I haven't had one of those since I crossed the
Mississippi.
_Talking Man_ is a great book. I still describe it as "one of those
books that makes you glad you learned to read".
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@crossover.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor
The New York Review of Science Fiction
http://ebbs.english.vt.edu/olp/nyrsf/nyrsf.html
Dan Goodman
In article <32fb622a...@news.exis.net>,
Peter H. Granzeau <p...@exis.net> wrote:
>Actually, I don't think much of quoting at all. I don't quote when I
>write a letter; why should I quote here?
So people will know what you're replying to. It's _particularly_ useful
when you've totally misread the words you think you're replying to. It's
also useful when it's not immediately clear what you're responding to.
Myself, I don't care if you quote or not. As long as you don't care if I
hit the delete key when I see your name on a message.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Dave Goldman
When you write a letter, do you send it out for thousands of other people
to read? Without knowing whether they ever read the previous letter?
-- Dave Goldman
Portland, OR
P.S. For those who don't believe in quoting at all, please ignore the rest
of this message.
P.P.S. For those who believe in quoting at the bottom, here you go. (Do
you _still_ believe in always quoting at the bottom?)
Michael Kozlowski
In article <32fb622a...@news.exis.net>,
Peter H. Granzeau <p...@exis.net> wrote:
>Actually, I don't think much of quoting at all. I don't quote when I
>write a letter; why should I quote here?
I do hope this is a joke.
When you write a letter, you're writing to a single person, who will
presumably remember what they wrote in their last letter, and will not
have written any other letters since.
Here, your message will be read by many people, some of whom have not even
seen the original "letter," and none of whom are going to have it at the
forefront of their minds unless you put it there by quoting part of it.
--
Michael Kozlowski mkoz...@ssc.wisc.edu
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~mlk/index.html
"Weasels, weasels everywhere; Nor any drop to drink!"
Vicke Dovheden
In article <32ffdfb2...@news.exis.net>,
p...@exis.net (Peter H. Granzeau) wrote:
>
>I don't like quoting at the bottom (although generally follow whatever
>convention has already been established), and I think that
>interleaving replies in a text sucks green pus through a straw. It's
>a pet peeve in my case, although occasionally, I do it, too.
Why do you dislike it? I'm just curious, since I feel it to be a
rather rewarding way of replying to specific points. It's like
training dogs and kids: punish them directly in connection to the
offense, not later when they doesn't get the realtion between
action and reaction ,-).
>But when I quote, I usually delete anything (like signature lines)
>that isn't part of the comment to which I am speaking; something you
>didn't do, I notice. I didn't trim the quotation above because I
>wanted to make the point.
Sorry about that, but that little "Damon" at the end was left there
on half-purpose to make sure that everybody realised who had written
the comment I was replying to (a bit redundant, I know).
>Putting the new text at the top makes it easier to find without having
>to scroll down several pages to hunt for it and then to read it.
Au contrarire: I find it useful to get my memory refreshed on the way
down through the posts. On the other hand, I usually don't wade
through more than one or two screenfuls of quotes before giving up.
John S. Novak, III
>Actually, I don't think much of quoting at all. I don't quote when I
>write a letter; why should I quote here?
Because you're not writing letters, here, you're writing Usenet posts.
Quoting enough to give enough context for the discussion is an
indication that you give a damn about what you're actually saying, and
that you give a damn about the convenience of reading your words and
making sense of them in the larger scheme of any given discussion.
Fail to provide the illusion that you care, to provide that minimal
level of effort, and many people will simply stop reading your posts,
skipping over them whenever they come to them in the spool.
You're simply not important enough that I'm going to spend any effort
figuring out what you're trying to say. You're not that important,
I'm not that important, no one is important. Those posters on any
given group that I respect are respected _because_ they have made the
effort to express themselves clearly.
And since your only _possible_ reason for being here is the hope that
someone might actually read your words, it then behooves you to Make
The Effort.
Understand, now?
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cris.com
The Humblest Man on the Net
Vicke Dovheden
In article <32fb622a...@news.exis.net>,
p...@exis.net (Peter H. Granzeau) wrote:
>Actually, I don't think much of quoting at all. I don't quote when I
>write a letter; why should I quote here?
Cause you are not writing letters here. There are multiple recipients
of your messages, which propagate at different speed through different
parts of the 'Net. But why am I explaining this to you? You have been
here long enough to know the answer.
Elisabeth Carey
Peter H. Granzeau <p...@exis.net> wrote in article
<32fb622a...@news.exis.net>...
> Actually, I don't think much of quoting at all. I don't quote when I
> write a letter; why should I quote here?
>
When you write a letter, your correspondent isn't usually subject to much
potential for confusion about whose comments you're replying to.
Lis Carey
eyeb...@interpath.com
> Actually, I don't think much of quoting at all. I don't quote when I
> write a letter; why should I quote here?
Who are you responding to? I don't understand the context of your remark.
eyebrown
Steve Patterson
In article <85524815...@aleytys.pc.my>, phi...@aleytys.pc.my (Philip Chee) says:
>
>But [Damon Knight]'s a _SF_ writer. Surely he would be more aware of culture shock
>when moving from Genie to Usenet than the usual newbie?
Trust me. Writing SF doesn't grant you remission from all your sins and
beatify you. *Everybody* screws up now and then; hopefully SF will confer
the advantage of being able to more rapidly figure out that you've screwed
up, but writers are still mortal and vulnerable to mortal foibles.
(Pardon me, Mr. Wells, but would you lift your foot? I'm trying to smash
that pedestal you're on. Terribly sorry, hope you don't mind...)
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Note: My "from:" address has been altered to foil mailbots.
Please use the corrected address appearing below.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Steven J. Patterson spatt...@wwdc.com
W.O.R.L.D.'S....S..L..O..W..E..S..T....W...R...I...T...E...R
"Men may move mountains, but ideas move men."
-- M.N. Vorkosigan, per L.M. Bujold
Mike Berro
da...@rsd.com (Dave Goldman) wrote:
>P.P.S. For those who believe in quoting at the bottom, here you go. (Do
>you _still_ believe in always quoting at the bottom?)
I quote at the bottom if I'm quoting a lot of stuff. Why? When my
window is full of nothing but a quote, I eschew scrolling down to see
if the sender wrote anything worthwhile, because usually the answer is
no. First rule of writing ad copy; catch the reader's interest in the
first sentence. If you're not interested in catching the reader's
interest, that's fine too.
---Mike
Andrea Lynn Leistra
In article <32fb622a...@news.exis.net>,
Peter H. Granzeau <p...@exis.net> wrote:
>Actually, I don't think much of quoting at all. I don't quote when I
>write a letter; why should I quote here?
Because when you write a letter, you are (presumably) responding to only
one person, the writer of the previous letter. That is not the case on
Usenet; your communication will be seen by many people, who may or may not
have seen the post to which you are responding.
Additionally, the type of exchange on Usenet is much more of a
back-and-forth discussion, relying on details of what the other people
said, than most snail mail letters are.
--
Andrea Leistra http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~aleistra
-----
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
Emma Pease
>Actually, I don't think much of quoting at all. I don't quote when I
>write a letter; why should I quote here?
Perfectly fine as long as you remember you are writing something like
a letter to the editor not a letter to a single person.
A letter to the editor should contain enough information for a reader
to know what it is about without having read everything previously.
For instance,
"I feel this newspaper is grossly mistaken in supporting John Doe for
elected office. Rebecca Roe is a far better candidate despite
the outstanding indictment against her for embezzelment. She at least
knows how to act with the dignity befitting the office unlike Doe who
is always seen cavorting down at the local nudist beach."
or
"Do you not realize that Jack Sprat who wrote the letter in support of
the building project in the baylands is the fourth cousin once removed
of the building contractor and the fifth cousin by marriage of one of
the landowners? He has an obvious stake in the project."
Emma
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ em...@csli.stanford.edu Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Peter H. Granzeau
Presumably, this message is in response to your defense of quoting in
newsgroups.
If your browser shows you the thread structure of the newsgroup, then
you can go back and read the original message. That ought to be
sufficient.
I do quote a lot, but I still maintain that it isn't really necessary.
Peter H. Granzeau
If your browser does not show you the thread structure of the
newsgroup, you are using the wrong browser.
dawic...@aol.com
In article <32fccf4b...@news.earthlink.net>, mi...@massmedia.com
(Mike Berro) writes:
Ah. I see. You're writing *ad copy*. Now I shall know to ignore you.
Susan Stepney
In article <3300029e...@news.exis.net>, p...@exis.net wrote:
>
> If your browser shows you the thread structure of the newsgroup, then
> you can go back and read the original message. That ought to be
> sufficient.
>
*If* being the operative word.
And if it doesn't ... *quoting* ought to be sufficient.
_____________________________________________________________________
Susan Stepney tel +44 1223 366343 step...@logica.com
Logica UK Ltd, Betjeman House, 104 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 1LQ, UK
http://www.logica.com/ http://public.logica.com/~stepneys/
Andrea Lynn Leistra
In article <3300029e...@news.exis.net>,
Peter H. Granzeau <p...@exis.net> wrote:
[about why Quoting Is Bad, or at least Unnecessary]
>If your browser shows you the thread structure of the newsgroup, then
>you can go back and read the original message. That ought to be
>sufficient.
Unless the 'original message' has expired on your server already, or
hasn't reached it yet.
John S. Novak, III
>If your browser does not show you the thread structure of the
>newsgroup, you are using the wrong browser.
If you are using a _browser_ to read _news_ you're using the wrong
tool.
Elisabeth Carey
Peter H. Granzeau <p...@exis.net> wrote in article
<32fe4bde...@news.exis.net>...
> If your browser does not show you the thread structure of the
> newsgroup, you are using the wrong browser.
>
Tell us, Oh Mighty Sage, which browser *should* we be using? And does it
matter whether or not our ISP supports that browser?
Lis Carey
Mike Berro
Now that is an interesting addition to this discussion. See what I
mean? >sigh<
---Mike
dawic...@aol.com
In article <3300029e...@news.exis.net>, p...@exis.net (Peter H.
Granzeau) writes:
>Presumably, this message is in response to your defense of quoting in
>newsgroups.
>
>If your browser shows you the thread structure of the newsgroup, then
>you can go back and read the original message. That ought to be
>sufficient.
>
>I do quote a lot, but I still maintain that it isn't really necessary.
Who in the world are you responding to, and what did he/she say?
Gary Farber
In <32fe4bde...@news.exis.net> Peter H. Granzeau <p...@exis.net> wrote:
: If your browser does not show you the thread structure of the
: newsgroup, you are using the wrong browser.
Do I understand that you are recommending that people not use newsreaders
to read netnews, but should use Web browsers? Er, why?
Okay: I have a shell account. What "browser" should I use to read Usenet?
In your expert opinion?
And how would any change of newsreader deal with propagation delays,
exactly?
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1997 Brooklyn, NY, USA
Scott Colvin Beeler
alei...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Andrea Lynn Leistra) writes:
>Peter H. Granzeau <p...@exis.net> wrote:
>
>[about why Quoting Is Bad, or at least Unnecessary]
>
>>If your browser shows you the thread structure of the newsgroup, then
>>you can go back and read the original message. That ought to be
>>sufficient.
>
>Unless the 'original message' has expired on your server already, or
>hasn't reached it yet.
Or when many threads in fairly large newsgroups (such as this one)
actually contain several discussions on different topics.
Like all that Turtledove "Worldwar" stuff that got crammed
through here a while back. :)
Scott
Dave Goldman
In article <19970211183...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
dawic...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <3300029e...@news.exis.net>, p...@exis.net (Peter H.
> Granzeau) writes:
>
> >Presumably, this message is in response to your defense of quoting in
> >newsgroups.
> >
> >If your browser shows you the thread structure of the newsgroup, then
> >you can go back and read the original message. That ought to be
> >sufficient.
> >
> >I do quote a lot, but I still maintain that it isn't really necessary.
>
> Who in the world are you responding to, and what did he/she say?
To which one might recursively reply:
If your browser shows you the thread structure of the newsgroup, then
you can go back and read the original message. That ought to be
sufficient.
-- Dave Goldman
Portland, OR
P.S. Good thing these replies aren't automated!
Cally Soukup
Peter H. Granzeau (p...@exis.net) wrote:
: Presumably, this message is in response to your defense of quoting in
: newsgroups.
: If your browser shows you the thread structure of the newsgroup, then
: you can go back and read the original message. That ought to be
: sufficient.
: I do quote a lot, but I still maintain that it isn't really necessary.
Well, it's necessary here. I have absolutely NO idea to whom this is
addressed. You may remember me from Fidonet, so you know I wouldn't kid you
-- I really don't know who the "you" is in your first sentence. My browser
does show me the thread structure (unlike the bad old Fidonet days), but
there are several message to which this may have been the reply. Assuming I
even recieved the message you're replying to here. I'm not trying to be
snarky, but a little context is a wonderful thing.
(By the way -- Hi!)
Cally (I married Martin Maney last August -- remember him?)
dawic...@aol.com
In article <32fe4bde...@news.exis.net>, p...@exis.net (Peter H.
Granzeau) writes:
>If your browser does not show you the thread structure of the
>newsgroup, you are using the wrong browser.
And if you are using a browser for news, you are using either the wrong
sofgtware, or the wrong terminology for that software. WWW uses browsers.
USENET uses newsreaders.
Norman L. DeForest
: newsgroup, you are using the wrong browser.
For some people, what they are using is the only thing available.
Also, a posting responding to another may make it to some system without
the original ever arriving there. Some server upstream may have
discarded the previous posting if their system became overloaded.
A news-reader can't show a posting in a thread if it never arrives
at the news-server.
Norman De Forest
af...@chebucto.ns.ca
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html
(A Speech Friendly Site)
.........................................................................
Q. Which is the greater problem in the world today, ignorance or apathy?
A. I don't know and I couldn't care less.
.........................................................................
Sharon L Sbarsky
In article <32fe4bde...@news.exis.net>,
Peter H. Granzeau <p...@exis.net> wrote:
>If your browser does not show you the thread structure of the
>newsgroup, you are using the wrong browser.
Even if the newsreader shows the thread structure of the newsgroup, that
doesn't mean that you can read the whole thread.
i.e. I saw your previous message and the one I'm replying to, but the one
that you replied to (without quoting) has not appeared at my newsserver
yet.
I have no idea who said what to you until it does show up.
Sharon
Loki
In ashen ink, Dave Goldman (da...@rsd.com) inscribed:
: If your browser shows you the thread structure of the newsgroup, then
: you can go back and read the original message. That ought to be
: sufficient.
However, that reply was incorrect the first time round.
It -isn't- sufficient, and never has been on Usenet.
- Loki
--
+------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Geoffrey Wiseman | http://tdg.uoguelph.ca/~ontarion/users/geoff |
+------------------+----------------------------------------------+
"Pbhyq guvf or pbafvqrerq n fhoyvzvany zrffntr?"
David Kennedy
In article <3300029e...@news.exis.net>,
> newsgroups.
> If your browser shows you the thread structure of the newsgroup, then
It shows threads..indeed its rather good at showing threads nicely.
> you can go back and read the original message. That ought to be
> sufficient.
Er..no. You see, on my server the previous post has already expired, or
perhaps it hasn't reached here yet.
And besides, I'd much rather just use the 'next unread' key and flick
through the news quickly, using quotes to get context if I need it
rather than read answers without questions or bother flicking up and
down patchy threads trying to piece together the conversation.
--
David Kennedy, Dept. of Pure & Applied Physics, Queen's University of Belfast
Email: D.Ke...@Queens-Belfast.ac.uk | URL: http://star.pst.qub.ac.uk/~dcjk/
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into yours and join the fun!
Steve Patterson
In article <dave-11029...@ip-pdx11-13.teleport.com>, da...@rsd.com (Dave Goldman) says:
>
>In article <19970211183...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>dawic...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Who in the world are you responding to, and what did he/she say?
>
>To which one might recursively reply:
>
>sufficient.
And I shall repeat, that assumes that the original message arrives at
your server in reasonable time.
(Is there an echo in here? *...in here?* *...in here?* ...)
L. Shelton Bumgarner
aber...@pantheon.yale.edu (Aaron Bergman) wrote:
>As has been said any number of times, quoting style on Usenet was
>developed because it works. There are a lot of posts on the Usenet, and a
>lot of people (myself included) do not have the time to read all of them.
I've gotten so used to doing this that when people complain in private
email I have to think a moment about how best to respond. 8-) Besides,
if we didn't do it, we would spend half our time summerizing threads.
bum
--
L. Shelton Bumgarner
Keeper of the Great Renaming FAQ
Apologies in advance for errors and incoherencies -- $.02
[e-mailed copies of responses to my postings are welcomed]