Reader Recommendations!!!!!
aday...@cscu.csc.edu
Some of the books or authors I have read are:
Asimovs (Foundation Series, Robot Series)
Arthur C Clarke (2001: Space Odyssey Series and Rendevous with Rama Series)
Orson Scott Card (Ender's Game Series and Homecoming Series)
All Star Wars Books
Greg Bear (most all his stuff)
Joe Haldeman (Forver War)
Larry Niven (Most all of his stuff)
Some of the authors I have read and not enjoyed are
Piers Anthony
Kim Robinson
Robert Jordan
Any ideas are greatly appreciated, if possible give brief idea of what book
about, if not just author and title are fine!!!
Thanks!!!!!!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Thom Porter
> I am looking for a good Science Fiction book to read!!!
> Some of the books or authors I have read are:
> Asimovs (Foundation Series, Robot Series)
> Arthur C Clarke (2001: Space Odyssey Series and Rendevous with Rama Series)
> Orson Scott Card (Ender's Game Series and Homecoming Series)
> All Star Wars Books
> Greg Bear (most all his stuff)
> Joe Haldeman (Forver War)
> Larry Niven (Most all of his stuff)
>
> Some of the authors I have read and not enjoyed are
> Piers Anthony
> Kim Robinson
> Robert Jordan
Your list indicates that you have diverse taste in books. I suspect you would
like the books of Lawerence Watt-Evans (the Ethshar books) and Joel Rosenberg
(the D'Shai books). Both of these authors post here and hence deserve mention.
Also, there is a service that I find very useful at http://web.alexlit.com that
can help in finding books that match your tastes.
Good Luck
Randal Morris
>
> I am looking for a good Science Fiction book to read!!!
> Some of the books or authors I have read are:
> Asimovs (Foundation Series, Robot Series)
> Arthur C Clarke (2001: Space Odyssey Series and Rendevous with Rama Series)
> Orson Scott Card (Ender's Game Series and Homecoming Series)
> All Star Wars Books
> Greg Bear (most all his stuff)
> Joe Haldeman (Forver War)
> Larry Niven (Most all of his stuff)
>
You might give Heinlein a try - Starship Troopers (if you liked the
Forever War, you will love this), The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, some of
the juveniles are very good.
Vernor Vinge - The Peace War, Marooned in Realtime, A Fire Upon the Deep
Neal Stephenson - Snow Crash and The Diamond Age
William Gibson - Neouromancer, Burning Chrome
Alfred Bester - The Stars My Destination, The Demolished Man
David Brin - The Postman, The Uplift Series
Dan Simmons - Hyperion and sequels
Cheers,
Ran
Ager
> I am looking for a good Science Fiction book to read!!!
>
<snip>
> Any ideas are greatly appreciated, if possible give brief idea of what
> book
> about, if not just author and title are fine!!!
> Thanks!!!!!!
I appreciate many of your previous choices. Let me recommend almost
anything by Heinlein or Egan to you, as well as almost anything by Joe
Haldeman (I'm partial to his WORLDS trilogy and just finished _1968_,
which, while not SF, is very moving. I don't know if it is because
Haldeman is a vet or what, but I've never read another writer who can
portray carnage the way Haldeman can. I don't mean gore for gore's
sake, either. As a veteran of ambulance work, I recognize in Haldeman's
fiction a kind of horror at the rapidity and scale of personal injury
and death. Maybe a horror that death is so banal and plays no
favorites. It's hard to explain. . .and it's not really depressing. .
.it seems more like a validation of my own horror by a person who has
also been there and done that). And last but not least, almost anything
by Varley, especially his Eight Worlds series. _Steel Beach_ was
rambling but wonderful, and the sequel, _Golden Globe_, promises to be
good. Check out his Gaea trilogy as well. . .he has a sense for the
fascinatingly grotesque.
Beth
--
We grok it. http://www.wegrokit.com
Irv Koch
> On Fri, 04 Dec 1998 08:38:00 -0500, Thom Porter <thp...@indiana.edu>
> wrote:
> >Your list indicates that you have diverse taste in books. I suspect you would
> >like the books of Lawerence Watt-Evans (the Ethshar books) and Joel Rosenberg
> >(the D'Shai books). Both of these authors post here and hence deserve mention.
> While I appreciate the mention, I'd rather it came because I write
> good stuff than because I post here...
> But since you didn't list ALL the authors who post here, I'll assume
> that was implied and just say thanks.
Your post got me thinking. For the benefit of others reading this post, I'm
speaking from having been reading SF&F for about 44 years, 35 years in fandom --
including hanging out with pro writers, and 6 or 8 years on network discussion
groups (yes, there was something before the Internet). To make matters more
interesting, I've been in Mystery "fandom" for about 2 or 3 years now, to boot. The
parallels are ... interesting. The above post made me ask "Is there a better chance
that books/stories by authors who post here are worth reading than those by the
random author?"
So I thought about a LOT of authors (and I owned half of an SF & Mystery Book Store
for 2 or so years and went REALLY deep into it). I concluded that, of the authors
on this newsgroup, there IS a better chance of the average reader being reasonably
happy after reading one of their books ... as a starter ... than picking one of some
other author. Why? It appears to be too small a sample to be significant, but the
only reason I can think of is that the authors who post here are less liable to
write something which appears mostly to consumers of comericial garbage.
Brenda Clough
Irv Koch wrote:
I concluded that, of the authors
> on this newsgroup, there IS a better chance of the average reader being reasonably
> happy after reading one of their books ... as a starter ... than picking one of some
> other author. Why? It appears to be too small a sample to be significant, but the
> only reason I can think of is that the authors who post here are less liable to
> write something which appears mostly to consumers of comericial garbage.
There are other things you can deduce. For instance, almost certainly every writer you
see here is using a computer to write with. (It is just conceivable that Jane Hack
turns every day from her Internet surfing to pick up her quill pen to write her novels I
suppose, but not likely.)
Furthermore, observation over time allows you to pick up quite a bit about any poster's
word style, pace of discourse, position on g*n control/abortion/Bill Clinton/Pakistan
reunification. If Jane holds a position you feel is asinine on any of these subjects
you might well avoid her books.
Brenda
--
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD from Tor Books
<clo...@erols.com> http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda
Beth and Richard Treitel
>Some of the books or authors I have read are:
>Asimovs (Foundation Series, Robot Series)
>Arthur C Clarke (2001: Space Odyssey Series and Rendevous with Rama Series)
>Orson Scott Card (Ender's Game Series and Homecoming Series)
>All Star Wars Books
>Greg Bear (most all his stuff)
>Joe Haldeman (Forver War)
>Larry Niven (Most all of his stuff)
What, no Heinlein?????????????????
-- Richard
------
I don't read Usenet as regularly as I used to. Please be patient.
See also http://www.sirius.com/~treitel/Mark/index.html
Garrett Wollman
Irv Koch <irv...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com> wrote:
>including hanging out with pro writers, and 6 or 8 years on network discussion
>groups (yes, there was something before the Internet).
I'm sorry. These two statements do not make any sense in the same
sentence. (Unless, of course, you meant to say ``16 or 18 years on
network discussion groups'', or perhaps ``yes, there was something
before AOL''.)
This newsgroup is the direct descendant of a mailing-list started in
the late 1970s. There are even a few people (not me) who were around
then.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same
wol...@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom
Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick
Gary Farber
: In article <3668AC47...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com>,
: Irv Koch <irv...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com> wrote:
:>including hanging out with pro writers, and 6 or 8 years on network discussion
:>groups (yes, there was something before the Internet).
: I'm sorry. These two statements do not make any sense in the same
: sentence. (Unless, of course, you meant to say ``16 or 18 years on
: network discussion groups'', or perhaps ``yes, there was something
: before AOL''.)
Hmm? Irv was saying that he's been hanging out in fandom for decades, and
has been online for six or eight years. What's the problem with such a
statement? Lots of people could make similar statements truthfully (like,
hmm, me).
: This newsgroup is the direct descendant of a mailing-list started in
: the late 1970s. There are even a few people (not me) who were around
: then.
Um, so what?
--
Copyright 1998 by Gary Farber; Web Researcher; Nonfiction Writer,
Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC, US
Irv Koch
<snip>
> reunification. If Jane holds a position you feel is asinine on any of these subjects
> you might well avoid her books.
The reverse if more likely to be true. If the author holds objectionable positions, or is
objectionable in person, I, at least, am just as likely to browse their book on the stands.
It has the same chance of being read, based on what I see, as any other.
Joe Mason
>In <74coi8$39d$1...@grapevine.lcs.mit.edu> Garrett Wollman <wol...@lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>: In article <3668AC47...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com>,
>: Irv Koch <irv...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
>:>including hanging out with pro writers, and 6 or 8 years on network discussion
>:>groups (yes, there was something before the Internet).
>
>: I'm sorry. These two statements do not make any sense in the same
>: sentence. (Unless, of course, you meant to say ``16 or 18 years on
>: network discussion groups'', or perhaps ``yes, there was something
>: before AOL''.)
>
>Hmm? Irv was saying that he's been hanging out in fandom for decades, and
>has been online for six or eight years. What's the problem with such a
>statement? Lots of people could make similar statements truthfully (like,
>hmm, me).
He wrote, "6 or 8 years on network discussion groups (yes, there was something
before the Internet)" which implies that the Internet has existed for less than
6 or 8 years. In fact, the Internet (including this group's precursor) has
been around since the 70's.
Joe
--
Surely you're not trying to tell us that you've never, nay _never_ walked
across miles and miles of Scottish heath searching for a witch only to
find that three go by all at once? -- Den of Iniquity
Reed Andrus
That's true. I don't know how many times I've heard fellow fans make a
comment somewhat like, "I wish I hadn't met Larry Niven or Jerry
Pournelle in person. I _like_ their books!"
... Reed
Ian
>Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote (not insribed, ok? wrote):
>>In <74coi8$39d$1...@grapevine.lcs.mit.edu> Garrett Wollman <wol...@lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>>: In article <3668AC47...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com>,
>>: Irv Koch <irv...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>:>including hanging out with pro writers, and 6 or 8 years on network discussion
>>:>groups (yes, there was something before the Internet).
>>
>>: I'm sorry. These two statements do not make any sense in the same
>>: sentence. (Unless, of course, you meant to say ``16 or 18 years on
>>: network discussion groups'', or perhaps ``yes, there was something
>>: before AOL''.)
>>
>>Hmm? Irv was saying that he's been hanging out in fandom for decades, and
>>has been online for six or eight years. What's the problem with such a
>>statement? Lots of people could make similar statements truthfully (like,
>>hmm, me).
>
>He wrote, "6 or 8 years on network discussion groups (yes, there was something
>before the Internet)" which implies that the Internet has existed for less than
>6 or 8 years. In fact, the Internet (including this group's precursor) has
>been around since the 70's.
The Internet existed 6 or 8 years ago, but it was _not_ well known or
widely used. The average person _with a computer_ 6 or 8 years ago had no
clue that the Internet existed (let alone the general populace). Commercial
providers were virtually nonexistant. That long ago, you generally weren't
on the net unless you had an educational or corporate account. Major online
services offered various forms of net access, but often it was quite
limited.
Joe Mason
>jcm...@uwaterloo.ca (Joe Mason) wrote:
>
>>Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote (not insribed, ok? wrote):
Irv Koch wrote:
>including hanging out with pro writers, and 6 or 8 years on network discussion
>groups (yes, there was something before the Internet).
Garrett Wollman replied:
>I'm sorry. These two statements do not make any sense in the same
>sentence. (Unless, of course, you meant to say ``16 or 18 years on
>network discussion groups'', or perhaps ``yes, there was something
>before AOL''.)
Gary Farber asked:
>Hmm? Irv was saying that he's been hanging out in fandom for decades, and
>has been online for six or eight years. What's the problem with such a
>statement? Lots of people could make similar statements truthfully (like,
>hmm, me).
I explained:
>He wrote, "6 or 8 years on network discussion groups (yes, there was something
>before the Internet)" which implies that the Internet has existed for less than
>6 or 8 years. In fact, the Internet (including this group's precursor) has
>been around since the 70's.
Ian wrote:
>The Internet existed 6 or 8 years ago, but it was _not_ well known or
>widely used. The average person _with a computer_ 6 or 8 years ago had no
>clue that the Internet existed (let alone the general populace). Commercial
>providers were virtually nonexistant. That long ago, you generally weren't
>on the net unless you had an educational or corporate account. Major online
>services offered various forms of net access, but often it was quite
>limited.
Hope that makes it clear who wrote what to who.
Yes, this is the source of the common misconception which Irv fell into, and
which Garrett corrected.
I spent a while composing a snarky reply which boiled down to, "That's what
we said, so why are you arguing with me?" Then I realized that you could have
been adding to my explanation and not contradicting it. Good thing I didn't
post that.
And now I hope this is explained to everybody's satisfaction, so that we can
all move on.
MattH...@my-dejanews.com
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
> In <74coi8$39d$1...@grapevine.lcs.mit.edu> Garrett Wollman <wol...@lcs.mit.edu>
wrote:
> : In article <3668AC47...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com>,
> : Irv Koch <irv...@pop.a001.sprintmail.com> wrote:
> : This newsgroup is the direct descendant of a mailing-list started in
> : the late 1970s. There are even a few people (not me) who were around
> : then.
>
> Um, so what?
Those guys might have some insight into how the Secret Masters of Fandom
got their ears boxed when they belatedly attempted a coup to usurp power from
the Secret Masters of the Internet. Geez.
--
Matt Hickman
I want that egg to be just barely dead.
If it is cooked solid, I'll nail it to the wall as
a warning to others. (Red)
- Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)
_Starman Jones_ (c. 1953)
Beth and Richard Treitel
wrote:
>So I thought about a LOT of authors (and I owned half of an SF & Mystery Book Store
>for 2 or so years and went REALLY deep into it). I concluded that, of the authors
>on this newsgroup, there IS a better chance of the average reader being reasonably
>happy after reading one of their books ... as a starter ... than picking one of some
>other author. Why? It appears to be too small a sample to be significant, but the
>only reason I can think of is that the authors who post here are less liable to
>write something which appears mostly to consumers of comericial garbage.
Let's say, at least, they are less liable to be the ones who despise SF
readers (and write their books accordingly). Upon brief reflection, I
think that the authors I regard most highly don't post here (with one
exception, and it's been a year or two ... or three ... since I saw a
message from him) but neither, in most cases, do the real dorks.
Mind you, there is one author who semi-regularly favours us with
thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions, but whose books I wouldn't
read even if the alternative involved staring out of the window at a
blank sky; and there is, or was, another whose books are quite fun but
who exhibited such ferocious bad manners (as distinct from views that
disagreed with mine) that I take care to avoid buying anything with
their name on it.
John Moreno
> On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 18:58:01 GMT, tre...@sirius.com (Beth and Richard
> Treitel) wrote:
>
> >Mind you, there is one author who semi-regularly favours us with
> >thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions, but whose books I wouldn't
> >read even if the alternative involved staring out of the window at a
> >blank sky; and there is, or was, another whose books are quite fun but
> >who exhibited such ferocious bad manners (as distinct from views that
> >disagreed with mine) that I take care to avoid buying anything with
> >their name on it.
>
> And of course, now you have us wondering which authors you refer to
> here, and each of us is secretly thinking, "Well, the first is
> probably me, but who's the second?"
Lawrence -- I think you can safely assume that you aren't either (you're
definitely not a semi-regular and I think the "was" refers to being a
regular too and you still seem to be here).
--
John Moreno
John Moreno
> phe...@interpath.com (John Moreno) wrote:
>
> >Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
> >
> >> tre...@sirius.com (Beth and Richard Treitel) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mind you, there is one author who semi-regularly favours us with
> >> >thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions, but whose books I wouldn't
> >> >read even if the alternative involved staring out of the window at a
> >> >blank sky; and there is, or was, another whose books are quite fun but
> >> >who exhibited such ferocious bad manners (as distinct from views that
> >> >disagreed with mine) that I take care to avoid buying anything with
> >> >their name on it.
> >>
> >> And of course, now you have us wondering which authors you refer to
> >> here, and each of us is secretly thinking, "Well, the first is
> >> probably me, but who's the second?"
> >
> >Lawrence -- I think you can safely assume that you aren't either (you're
> >definitely not a semi-regular and I think the "was" refers to being a
> >regular too and you still seem to be here).
>
> Am I definitely not a semi-regular? I occasionally take a long hiatus
> from posting, and as has been recently pointed out, I'm largely
> invisible to people who read rasfw through DejaNews.
No, I don't think you've been absent enough to drop to semi-regular
status, and as for dejanews -- Richard uses Forte Agent so I don't think
that's a problem.
> I don't, in fact, think I'm either author mentioned above, but I'm not
> so certain of it as you seem to be. People can often have amazingly
> disparate views of the same observed phenomena.
I could name a good dozen authors who post infrequently enough to be
called semi-regular, but you are one of the most regular (in fact
probably /the/ most regular) of the authors who post here so it'd take
quite a stretch for someone to consider you a semi-regular.
I haven't a clue as to who he is referring to, but I'd be willing to bet
significant sums of money (with anybody but Richard -- wouldn't want to
tempt him) that it isn't you.
--
John Moreno
Beth and Richard Treitel
wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 18:58:01 GMT, tre...@sirius.com (Beth and Richard
>Treitel) wrote:
>
>>Mind you, there is one author who semi-regularly favours us with
>>thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions, but whose books I wouldn't
>>read even if the alternative involved staring out of the window at a
>>blank sky; and there is, or was, another whose books are quite fun but
>>who exhibited such ferocious bad manners (as distinct from views that
>>disagreed with mine) that I take care to avoid buying anything with
>>their name on it.
>
>And of course, now you have us wondering which authors you refer to
>here, and each of us is secretly thinking, "Well, the first is
>probably me, but who's the second?"
As to the second, I have no intention of identifying them in public
(though they probably wouldn't pay any attention even if I did).
As to the first, I enjoyed _With a Single Spell_ and would gladly read
more Ethshar books if the occasion arose (though I am not your most
devoted fan). Don't take this as implying anything about my opinion of
your contributions to r.a.sf.w. {:-)
John Moreno
> And now I get to paranoiacally read all sorts of vile imputations into
> that last sentence...
It's not paranoid if they (we?) are out to get you...
--
John Moreno
Captain Button
Paranoia is the delusion that your enemies are organized.
[ One of Nancy's buttons ]
ObSF: "They" by Robert A. Heinlein
--
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in
tolerance and free speech," - David Brin
Captain Button - but...@io.com
Paul T. Riddell
would anyone want to!
Cordially,
Paul T. Riddell
The Healing Power of Obnoxiousness:
The Paul T. Riddell Essay Archive
http://www.cyberramp.net/~priddell/
"Subscribe to the 'Hell's Half-Acre Herald' and win potentially
valuable prizes!"
Beth and Richard Treitel
wrote:
>You know, I'm surprised no one commented on my implied suggestion that
>authors have no trouble believing their work uninteresting
I took it as a suggestion that authors have become resigned to my
failures to appreciate the excellence of their writing. Which are,
let's face it, pretty frequent.
Kevin Brown
Beth and Richard Treitel wrote:
> To my surprise and delight, lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans)
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 18:58:01 GMT, tre...@sirius.com (Beth and Richard
> >Treitel) wrote:
> >
> >>Mind you, there is one author who semi-regularly favours us with
> >>thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions, but whose books I wouldn't
> >>read even if the alternative involved staring out of the window at a
> >>blank sky; and there is, or was, another whose books are quite fun but
> >>who exhibited such ferocious bad manners (as distinct from views that
> >>disagreed with mine) that I take care to avoid buying anything with
> >>their name on it.
> >
> >And of course, now you have us wondering which authors you refer to
> >here, and each of us is secretly thinking, "Well, the first is
> >probably me, but who's the second?"
>
> As to the second, I have no intention of identifying them in public
> (though they probably wouldn't pay any attention even if I did).
>
Do you mean Mr. S.M. Stirling? I was so thrilled to learn that one of my
favourite authors was on the newsgroups, and then utterly devastated when I
learned that he was apparently a borish and obnoxious jerk... Very
disillusioning... Of course, I'll probably forgive all when the next draka
book comes out.
Maybe this was just some guy pretending to be Stirling...?
Joe Slater
>Do you mean Mr. S.M. Stirling? I was so thrilled to learn that one of my
>favourite authors was on the newsgroups, and then utterly devastated when I
>learned that he was apparently a borish and obnoxious jerk...
And so are we all, boorish and obnoxious jerks.
Oddly enough, I was rather annoyed that someone who writes such
appalling books can be so pleasant in conversation.
jds
kara...@my-dejanews.com
kbr...@his.com wrote:
>
>
> Beth and Richard Treitel wrote:
>
> > To my surprise and delight, lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 18:58:01 GMT, tre...@sirius.com (Beth and Richard
> > >Treitel) wrote:
> > >
> > >>Mind you, there is one author who semi-regularly favours us with
> > >>thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions, but whose books I wouldn't
> > >>read even if the alternative involved staring out of the window at a
> > >>blank sky; and there is, or was, another whose books are quite fun but
> > >>who exhibited such ferocious bad manners (as distinct from views that
> > >>disagreed with mine) that I take care to avoid buying anything with
> > >>their name on it.
> > >
> > >And of course, now you have us wondering which authors you refer to
> > >here, and each of us is secretly thinking, "Well, the first is
> > >probably me, but who's the second?"
> >
> > As to the second, I have no intention of identifying them in public
> > (though they probably wouldn't pay any attention even if I did).
> >
>
> favourite authors was on the newsgroups, and then utterly devastated when I
> disillusioning... Of course, I'll probably forgive all when the next draka
> book comes out.
> Maybe this was just some guy pretending to be Stirling...?
>
>
me. He has answered my emails and been very help in explaining some of the
things in the Draka books and the General books as well. I have seen him get
to heat "discussions", but we all ahve been in those on this forum at one time
or another. (I hate my computer!!)
Let's not jump to concuslion based on a few comments of others.
--
Karagin:)
"Allow me to introduce myself. I am a man of wealth and taste."
Mike Arnautov
>Do you mean Mr. S.M. Stirling? I was so thrilled to learn that one of my
>favourite authors was on the newsgroups, and then utterly devastated when I
>learned that he was apparently a borish and obnoxious jerk... Very
>disillusioning...
You do surprise me. I found his contributions to be amusing and
informative. OTOH there is every indication that I wouldn't like his
books (meaning no offence to anybody).
--
Mike Arnautov
m...@mipmip.demon-co-antispam-uk
Replace dashes with dots and remove the antispam component.
MattH...@my-dejanews.com
kbr...@his.com wrote:
> Do you mean Mr. S.M. Stirling? I was so thrilled to learn that one of my
> favourite authors was on the newsgroups, and then utterly devastated when I
> learned that he was apparently a borish and obnoxious jerk... Very
> disillusioning... Of course, I'll probably forgive all when the next draka
> book comes out.
> Maybe this was just some guy pretending to be Stirling...?
I look forward to Stirling's articles on USENET. They tend to be incisive,
thought-provoking, opinionated and interesting. However, calling someone who
has established a certain level of respect on this newsgroup "apparently a
borish and obnoxious jerk", tends to reflect poorly on the accuser.
--
Matt Hickman
I've built her an hydraulic bed that I think I will patent.
Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
_The Door Into Summer_ 1956
Kevin Brown
Mike Arnautov wrote:
> Kevin Brown <kbr...@his.com> wrote:
>
> >Do you mean Mr. S.M. Stirling? I was so thrilled to learn that one of my
> >favourite authors was on the newsgroups, and then utterly devastated when I
> >learned that he was apparently a borish and obnoxious jerk... Very
> >disillusioning...
>
> You do surprise me. I found his contributions to be amusing and
> informative. OTOH there is every indication that I wouldn't like his
> books (meaning no offence to anybody).
Amusing if you enjoy seeing him belittle people, which I don't, so perhaps this
is the wrong place for me.
Kevin Brown
kara...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <367FE089...@his.com>,
> kbr...@his.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Do you mean Mr. S.M. Stirling? I was so thrilled to learn that one of my
> > favourite authors was on the newsgroups, and then utterly devastated when I
> > learned that he was apparently a borish and obnoxious jerk... Very
> > disillusioning... Of course, I'll probably forgive all when the next draka
> > book comes out.
> > Maybe this was just some guy pretending to be Stirling...?
> >
> >
> I must say that Mr. Stirling has never been a "boorish and obnoxious jerk" to
> me. He has answered my emails and been very help in explaining some of the
> things in the Draka books and the General books as well. I have seen him get
> to heat "discussions", but we all ahve been in those on this forum at one time
> or another. (I hate my computer!!)
>
> Let's not jump to concuslion based on a few comments of others.
I thought I might have been mistaken, so I checked dejanews for the person who is
allegedly Stirling's posts. Maybe I'm being too hard on the guy, but the posts I
read by him where in some thread about some series called "GOR", and he was just
trashing everyone and their ideas to the point that it became silly and offensive
to me, and I've never even read "GOR". Now I don't read this group much, and it
may be that discussion here is always like this, but I just called it like I saw
it.
> --
> Karagin:)
Ailsa Murphy
MattH...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <367FE089...@his.com>,
> kbr...@his.com wrote:
>
> > Do you mean Mr. S.M. Stirling? I was so thrilled to learn that one of my
> > favourite authors was on the newsgroups, and then utterly devastated when I
> > learned that he was apparently a borish and obnoxious jerk... Very
> > disillusioning... Of course, I'll probably forgive all when the next draka
> > book comes out.
> > Maybe this was just some guy pretending to be Stirling...?
>
> thought-provoking, opinionated and interesting. However, calling someone who
> has established a certain level of respect on this newsgroup "apparently a
> borish and obnoxious jerk", tends to reflect poorly on the accuser.
>
I haven't met him yet that I've noticed (if I should have noticed, I
apologize), so this is just a comment on writers in general, not in specific.
But, why should a writer be any more or less of a jerk than someone who is
not a writer? Everyone's annoying sometime, and the more you post, the more
you take the chance that the sometime will be broadcast for all the world to
read.
-Ailsa
--
But to explicitly advocate cultural relativism ailsa....@tfn.com
on the grounds that it promotes tolerance is to Ailsa N.T. Murphy
implicitly assume that tolerance is an absolute value. If there are any
absolute values, however, cultural relativism is false. -Theodore Schick
John Moreno
> kara...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > kbr...@his.com wrote:
> >
> > > Do you mean Mr. S.M. Stirling? I was so thrilled to learn that one of
> > > my favourite authors was on the newsgroups, and then utterly
> > > devastated when I learned that he was apparently a borish and
> > > obnoxious jerk... Very disillusioning... Of course, I'll probably
> > > forgive all when the next draka book comes out. Maybe this was just
> > > some guy pretending to be Stirling...?
> >
> > I must say that Mr. Stirling has never been a "boorish and obnoxious
> > jerk" to me. He has answered my emails and been very help in explaining
> > some of the things in the Draka books and the General books as well. I
> > have seen him get to heat "discussions", but we all ahve been in those
> > on this forum at one time or another. (I hate my computer!!)
> >
> > Let's not jump to concuslion based on a few comments of others.
>
> I thought I might have been mistaken, so I checked dejanews for the person
> who is allegedly Stirling's posts
I don't believe that I've ever seen someone say that they were writer X
and that latter turn out not to be the case -- and there's just too many
writers/fans here for me to think that is just because they've never
been discovered.
> Maybe I'm being too hard on the guy, but the posts I read by him where in
> some thread about some series called "GOR", and he was just trashing
> everyone and their ideas to the point that it became silly and offensive
> to me, and I've never even read "GOR". Now I don't read this group much,
> and it may be that discussion here is always like this, but I just called
> it like I saw it.
This is usenet -- arguments get heated, and sometimes someone's hot
button is pushed. I'd say that is what happened in the GOR case, and
you'd have to at least be familiar with the books before you could say
whether his attitude was unwarranted.
But in particular this is rasfw and sometimes you've got to have a thick
skin, I know of groups where you hardly ever hear a disparaging word and
this group is nothing like that (still, I like it and most of the people
here too).
--
John Moreno
Evelyn C. Leeper
Ailsa Murphy <ailsa....@tfn.com> wrote:
> But, why should a writer be any more or less of a jerk than someone who is
> not a writer? Everyone's annoying sometime, and the more you post, the more
> you take the chance that the sometime will be broadcast for all the world to
> read.
Or as I say, on the Internet everyone may not know you're a dog, but
everyone can know you're a jerk.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | evelyn...@geocities.com
+1 732 957 2070 | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
"If everyone in Congress who has ever had an affair resigned, I have a feeling
Barney Frank would have the place to himself." -Ailsa Murphy
Gareth Wilson
> Amusing if you enjoy seeing him belittle people, which I don't, so perhaps this
> is the wrong place for me.
The great lesson of the internet is that some people _need_
belittling....
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
Christchurch
New Zealand
e-mail gr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
>
> I thought I might have been mistaken, so I checked dejanews for the person who is
> read by him where in some thread about some series called "GOR", and he was just
> trashing everyone and their ideas to the point that it became silly and offensive
> to me, and I've never even read "GOR".
That seems to be an exception, something about the GOR books and their
author seems to enrage Stirling. I did think he went slighty over the
top in that thread. Check his posts on other newsgroups,
soc.history.what-if in particular. He's always well informed, reasonably
polite, and able to explain things clearly. If he has a fault it's in
being a little too quick to fire back responses at posts that don't
really deserve them, and being a little too reluctant to stop fruitless
arguments with people who disagree with him.
Martin Soederstroem
[M. S. Stirling]
>He's always well informed, reasonably
>polite, and able to explain things clearly. If he has a fault it's in
>being a little too quick to fire back responses at posts that don't
>really deserve them, and being a little too reluctant to stop fruitless
>arguments with people who disagree with him.
But you have to admit that it's fun seeing Askew getting completely
and utterly obliterated.
Ahasuerus
> Kevin Brown <kbr...@his.com> wrote:
>
>>Do you mean Mr. S.M. Stirling? I was so thrilled to learn that one of my
>>favourite authors was on the newsgroups, and then utterly devastated when I
>>learned that he was apparently a borish and obnoxious jerk... Very
>>disillusioning...
>
> informative.
I am not sure your respective characterizations are necessarily
contradictory :-\
> OTOH there is every indication that I wouldn't like his
> books (meaning no offence to anybody).
_Island in the Sea of Time_ (1998) would be a good place to start. It's:
1. easy to find
2. relatively "clean":
2a. minimal - for Stirling - amounts of gore and sex
2b. the s&m component is very mild
3. the premise - _Lest Darkness Fall_ with an attitude - is kind of fun
4. it *feels* right, just like good old-fashioned pulp, with larger than
life villains and satisfyingly alien 'aliens'
5. it introduces you to some of Stirling's obsessions/themes (domination,
martial arts, lesbian protagonists, etc) while keeping you entertained
most of the time
On the other extremity:
1. the plot is quite predictable (alt.history "plot coupons", anyone?)
2. most characters are at best 2.5-dimensional
3. some of his expository lumps are way too unsubtle for 1998
On the gripping hand, you don't like Doc Smith, and _Island_ has been -
legitimately, IMHO - called _Skylark in Time_. I guess it's up to you :)
--
Ahasuerus
Mike Arnautov
>> You do surprise me. I found his contributions to be amusing and
>> informative. OTOH there is every indication that I wouldn't like his
>> books (meaning no offence to anybody).
>
>Amusing if you enjoy seeing him belittle people, which I don't, so perhaps this
>is the wrong place for me.
Oh... Hi there, Joseph. Didn't recognise you straight away. :-)
Mike Arnautov
>>> I was so thrilled to learn that one of my
>>>favourite authors was on the newsgroups, and then utterly devastated when I
>>>learned that he was apparently a borish and obnoxious jerk... Very
>>>disillusioning...
>>
>> You do surprise me. I found his contributions to be amusing and
>> informative.
>
>I am not sure your respective characterizations are necessarily
>contradictory :-\
Not wishing to pick an argument, I don't recall meeting a "borish and
obnoxious jerk" [sic.] who was also informative in any other than a
purely unintentional manner. I guess it depends on your derivation of
the neologism "borish". You know that I prefer to go for the less
obvious options. :-)
>5. it introduces you to some of Stirling's obsessions/themes (domination,
>martial arts, lesbian protagonists, etc) while keeping you entertained
>most of the time
But do I wish to be so introduced? There are so many other ways of being
entertained, I haven't got the time for all of them as it is!
>On the gripping hand, you don't like Doc Smith, and _Island_ has been -
>legitimately, IMHO - called _Skylark in Time_. I guess it's up to you :)
"Don't like" is putting it a bit strongly. More like "fail to be
enthused by". Or is that too subtle a distinction in the context? :-)
Kevin Brown
Gareth Wilson wrote:
> Kevin Brown wrote:
> > Amusing if you enjoy seeing him belittle people, which I don't, so perhaps this
> > is the wrong place for me.
>
> The great lesson of the internet is that some people _need_
> belittling....
Maybe, but this sentiment is a bit too elitist for my taste. I see no reason to be
insensitive and rude. But hey, I checked out some of Mr. Stirling's other posts to
threads, and on the whole he doesn't seem such a bad guy. Everyone posts rashly now
and then; take my posts to this newsgroup for example...
(reengaging lurk mode)
Silvirado
>ahas...@not-for-mail.org> wrote:
>
>>>> I was so thrilled to learn that one of my
>>>>favourite authors was on the newsgroups, and then utterly devastated when
>I
>>>>learned that he was apparently a borish and obnoxious jerk
As an artist in NY I met quite a few 'name' painters and writers. It was most
often a very disillusioning experience until I realised that the work was the
essence of the best that was in them, and then quit expecting them to be able
to live up to their 'art' in person.
Nancy Lebovitz
It may not have been the best that's within them--just the best that
they're able to communicate.
Zara Baxter
: >>favourite authors was on the newsgroups, and then utterly devastated when I
: >>disillusioning...
: >
: > You do surprise me. I found his contributions to be amusing and
: > informative.
:
: I am not sure your respective characterizations are necessarily
: contradictory :-\
Ditto. I find him by turns amusing and appalling, in his posting. One
moment I am nodding and agreeing, the next, my mouth hangs open as he
crushes opposition in an argument. I think admiration at his..er..
strong will is my current standing.
: > OTOH there is every indication that I wouldn't like his
: > books (meaning no offence to anybody).
:
: _Island in the Sea of Time_ (1998) would be a good place to start. It's:
: 1. easy to find
: 2. relatively "clean":
: 2a. minimal - for Stirling - amounts of gore and sex
: 2b. the s&m component is very mild
: 3. the premise - _Lest Darkness Fall_ with an attitude - is kind of fun
: 4. it *feels* right, just like good old-fashioned pulp, with larger than
: life villains and satisfyingly alien 'aliens'
: 5. it introduces you to some of Stirling's obsessions/themes (domination,
: martial arts, lesbian protagonists, etc) while keeping you entertained
: most of the time
Damn. All the discussions of his books in threads this year have *not*
convinced me one whit that I ought to read it. Now your brisk summary has
reversed that.
Having said that, I _was_ browsing for IiTSoT at Galaxy[1] on Wednesday.
Ahem. Mostly to see if his writing had the balance of ego and wit that his
posting does.
Have you been banned in any countries as a subversive influence,
Ahasuerus?
Zara Baxter
[1] I ended up buying Freedom and Necessity, Bridge of Birds and Ammonite,
and forgot to get the new Susan Matthews. No sign of any SM Stirling.
William George Ferguson
<m...@mipmip.demon-co-antispam-uk> wrote:
>Ahasuerus <ahas...@not-for-mail.org> wrote:
[no he didn't, at least not all of it]
[Kevin Brown wrote this]
>>>> I was so thrilled to learn that one of my
>>>>favourite authors was on the newsgroups, and then utterly devastated when I
>>>>learned that he was apparently a borish and obnoxious jerk... Very
>>>>disillusioning...
[you wrote this]
>>> You do surprise me. I found his contributions to be amusing and
>>> informative.
[This is the only part that Ahasuerus wrote, attribs are important]
>>I am not sure your respective characterizations are necessarily
>>contradictory :-\
[back to you]
>Not wishing to pick an argument, I don't recall meeting a "borish and
>obnoxious jerk" [sic.] who was also informative in any other than a
>purely unintentional manner. I guess it depends on your derivation of
>the neologism "borish". You know that I prefer to go for the less
>obvious options. :-)
Ferguson's Law:
Everybody in the world (including you and me) is an asshole at one
time or another.
1st Corollary:
Some people greatly exceed their quota.
Ahasuerus only said (in effect) one person can be both, not that they
would be both at the same time.
Joseph Askew
>But you have to admit that it's fun seeing Askew getting completely
>and utterly obliterated.
It might be something about the time of year, or indeed my very
deep failings of character, but I totally fail to see the humour
in this. But I shall try to put aside whatever feelings of open
hatred I might feel and in the spirit of the season give you what
you seem to enjoy so much - a chance to see me get completely and
utterly obliterated. After all I'm sure that you're not the sort
of nasty little gutless turd who only lives vicariously through other's
hard work. I'm sure you're dying for a chance to completely and
utterly obliterate me personally. So as my first New Years Resolu-
tion I'm going to pass up no chance whatsoever to allow you to try.
This means I'm going to reply to each and every one of your posts
in any and every newsgroup you post in I can find if there is just
the slightest chance I might have something to say. Or indeed even
if there is not. Just because I'm feeling so very generous I'm going
to set aside half an hour each and every day for the next year to
reply to all your posts with the full force of what I like to call
my personality. Aren't I generous? Let's see how much fun you're
having this time next year. Who wants to put money on how long I
can retain interest? I think that there is a form of spineless
smugness that annoys me quite a lot. Easily last longer than June.
Joseph
--
Reason Why I'm Never Going to Get an Academic Job Number Three:
"[Monsanto] said that they had carried out 'extensive safety
assessments of new biotech crops' including tests using rats
that have results published in journals" (http://news.bbc.co.uk)
Joseph Askew
>Not wishing to pick an argument, I don't recall meeting a "borish and
>obnoxious jerk" [sic.] who was also informative in any other than a
>purely unintentional manner. I guess it depends on your derivation of
>the neologism "borish". You know that I prefer to go for the less
>obvious options. :-)
Ummm, how long were you in Higher Education for?
I wouldn't want to list SF authors who might fit into this
description for fear of flames but I would like to point out
that many people have found Pournelle's column informative.
Joseph Askew
>Kevin Brown <kbr...@his.com> wrote:
>>Amusing if you enjoy seeing him belittle people,
>>which I don't, so perhaps this
>>is the wrong place for me.
>Oh... Hi there, Joseph. Didn't recognise you straight away. :-)
Hi Mike, wasn't me but. I have a lot of time for Stirling, even if
he is well let's not go there. I certainly don't mind him belittling
people and if I did I would hardly be throwing stones would I?
Nor of course do I post under anything but my own name. Except
perhaps twice by mistake earlier this year.
Nancy Lebovitz
Martin Soederstroem <Martin.S...@NOSPAMswipnet.se> wrote:
>
>But you have to admit that it's fun seeing Askew getting completely
>and utterly obliterated.
I don't have to admit any such thing. Firstly, I find Punch and
Judy shows fairly boring and secondly, people don't get obliterated
on the net. Their ideas may be refuted and/or they may decide that
a particular argument or the net itself isn't worth their time,
but neither of these is anything close to obliteration.
Ahasuerus
> Ahasuerus (ahas...@not-for-mail.org) wrote:
[snip snap review of _Island in the Sea of Time_]
> Damn. All the discussions of his books in threads this year have *not*
> convinced me one whit that I ought to read it. Now your brisk summary has
> reversed that.
All right, then! I want 10% of Steve's fabulous profits and I want it now!
> Have you been banned in any countries as a subversive influence,
> Ahasuerus?
Sure. One hopes that at least some of them - or what's left of them - have
learned that I do believe in reciprocity :)
--
Ahasuerus
Jo Walton
na...@unix3.netaxs.com "Nancy Lebovitz" writes:
Sometimes they even change their minds in a civilised fashion.
And anyway, I'd say that the argument in question was anything but
fun - Mr. Stirling was attacking Joseph on tiny niggling errors
while ignoring the substantive arguments, and Joseph was getting
painted into a corner on his actual errors and getting angry. Mr.
Stirling was also doing this in a way that violated netiqette and
one line at a time. Then he abandoned the argument in the middle for
the second time in a short period. Joseph wasn't, in my medium-informed
estimation of the issue, by any means entirely wrong in the broad
lines of his substantive argument (odd details yes), even though he
wasn't entirely right either. As someone who's about 60-70% right is
hard to argue with anyway, as it was a complex off-topic argument, as
it's not my period and as the whole thing was as dull as ditchwater, I
didn't bother getting into it.
I believe there is an alt group called alt.flame for people who enjoy
them to conduct art flamewars? I'd hate to see rasfw become like
that.
Joseph is a long term and valued member of this group, though he
does have a regrettable tendency to get angry and start insulting
people. Mr. Stirling was, in my estimation, doing the equivalent of
poking a chained dog with a stick, deliberately baiting him into
getting angry and then laughing at him for it. That looked nothing
like an enjoyable intellectual argument and a lot like cruelty,
whoever was in the right.
I've defended Stirling's Draka books here as being about the evils of
colonialism being imposed on Europe instead of by Europe, against
people saying the author is taking delight in sado-masochism and cruelty
for its own sake. I try to hold books and their authors separately,
or authors and people separately to some extent, but I'm still going to
find that case a lot harder to argue another time after seeing Mr.
Stirling's behaviour in that thread.
Fun? Like pulling the wings off flies.
Furthermore, I'm quite sure that it wasn't Mr. Stirling that Richard
Treitel was referencing in that first reference that started this
thread, but rather Will Shetterly - or at least, that's how I read it.
ObSF: "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" Ursula LeGuin. "The Last
Step" Zenna Henderson.
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - Blood of Kings Poetry; rasfw FAQ;
Reviews; Interstichia; Momentum - a paying market for real poetry.
=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan()
Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I've defended Stirling's Draka books here as being about the evils of
>colonialism being imposed on Europe instead of by Europe
Um. Would you care to expand on that? That seems... less than plausible
to me; maybe I don't know enough about colonialism, but I can't think of
any of the European colonial powers treating the populace in colonized
countries the way the Draka treat everyone.
I know Graydon's made the argument that the Draka books can be seen as a
response to anti-colonialism, but this is a new twist on the issue.
--Josh
Jo Walton
j...@lana.uucp "=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan(" writes:
They weren't so organised about it, generally, but I don't think there's
much the Draka do systematically that wasn't _ever_ done in some European
colonial situation. It's the dark side of colonialism, definitely, and
it's given an organised philosophy very different from the original, but
I think it's a defensible position.
I happen to have a book here called :The Story of Exploration and Adventure:
(vol 1) published in 1938. There's an article about Abyssinia with
photographs. One of them shows some people sitting at desks with books
in front of them. The caption runs "A sight such as this is not uncommon
in Africa today, but this class is unique in that it is composed of slaves.
The Abyssinians were the last slace-raiding people on that continent. Though
modern methods are desirable, the school clothing, of German manufacture,
kills much that is picturesque." No, this book didn't fall through from
the Draka universe, it was possible for some human being to write those
words in which other human beings are incidental curiosities, not as cute
as they might be, in a book intended for children, only sixty years ago.
(We've come a long way in that 60 years, it's easy to forget where we
were coming from.)
I think it's quite interesting to look at the different ways Stirling uses
the Draka "bringing colonialism home to Europe". In :Marching Through
Georgia: there's the slow realisation that these people really are worse
than the Nazis. In :Under the Yoke: it's direct and horrible. In :The
Stone Dogs: it's done best, I think, in the subtleties.
Coyu
>Date: Fri, Dec 25, 1998 13:24 EST
>Um. Would you care to expand on that? That seems... less than plausible
>to me; maybe I don't know enough about colonialism, but I can't think of
>any of the European colonial powers treating the populace in colonized
>countries the way the Draka treat everyone.
The Germans in general were worse; the Japanese in China about par
with the Draka.
The Japanese connection I think shouldn't be overlooked; the Chosen
(a Draka analog jointly created by SMS and David Drake) had as their
emblem a golden rayed sun on a black background...
Coyu
>Date: Fri, Dec 25, 1998 14:05 EST
>They weren't so organised about it, generally, but I don't think there's
>much the Draka do systematically that wasn't _ever_ done in some European
>colonial situation. It's the dark side of colonialism, definitely, and
>it's given an organised philosophy very different from the original, but
>I think it's a defensible position.
It's a world where George Fitzhugh was as influential as Karl Marx,
roughly; look at _Cannibals All! or Slaves without Masters_.
The philosophy was there; now it's a footnote.
=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan()
Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <9LQg2.2026$wx1....@news6.ispnews.com>
> j...@lana.uucp "=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan(" writes:
>
>> In article <914585...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>,
>> Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >I've defended Stirling's Draka books here as being about the evils of
>> >colonialism being imposed on Europe instead of by Europe
>>
>> to me; maybe I don't know enough about colonialism, but I can't think of
>> any of the European colonial powers treating the populace in colonized
>> countries the way the Draka treat everyone.
>
>much the Draka do systematically that wasn't _ever_ done in some European
>colonial situation. It's the dark side of colonialism, definitely, and
>it's given an organised philosophy very different from the original, but
>I think it's a defensible position.
It may be the dark side of colonialism, but I don't think that anyone
would argue that it was the *norm* (except perhaps in Tasmania). Whereas
in the Draka books, it quite clearly is, and as you state, it's given an
organized philosophy; and that makes a big difference to me. If Stirling
had presented a more balanced representation of what colonialism meant to
the people on the ground, I'd be more inclined to accept your position.
As patronizing as the concept of the "White Man's Burden" is, it's
a far cry from saying, "We're going to bring all of you under the yoke."
>kills much that is picturesque." No, this book didn't fall through from
>the Draka universe, it was possible for some human being to write those
>words in which other human beings are incidental curiosities, not as cute
>as they might be, in a book intended for children, only sixty years ago.
>(We've come a long way in that 60 years, it's easy to forget where we
>were coming from.)
I'm well aware of many situations like the one you describe. But as I
noted above, going from that to the behavior the Draka exhibit is a big
leap. Too big for me to accept (at the moment, anyway) the books as a
credible criticism of the evils of colonialism.
>I think it's quite interesting to look at the different ways Stirling uses
>the Draka "bringing colonialism home to Europe". In :Marching Through
>Georgia: there's the slow realisation that these people really are worse
>than the Nazis. In :Under the Yoke: it's direct and horrible. In :The
>Stone Dogs: it's done best, I think, in the subtleties.
It didn't take me long in "Marching Through Georgia." That was probably
influenced by the fact that I'd read a lot about the books here before I
picked it up, though.
--Josh
=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan()
Coyu <co...@aol.com> wrote:
>>From: j...@lana.uucp (=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan())
>>Date: Fri, Dec 25, 1998 13:24 EST
>
>>Um. Would you care to expand on that? That seems... less than plausible
>>to me; maybe I don't know enough about colonialism, but I can't think of
>>any of the European colonial powers treating the populace in colonized
>>countries the way the Draka treat everyone.
>
Could you expand on that? Do you mean German colonialism, or German
treatment of conquered territory during World War II?
>the Japanese in China about par
>with the Draka.
This leads me to believe you're talking about World War II (although I
will admit to being underinformed about East Asian history prior to the
war). But we were talking about *colonialism*, which is a different issue
entirely, carrying as it does a 19th-century European connotation.
>The Japanese connection I think shouldn't be overlooked; the Chosen
>(a Draka analog jointly created by SMS and David Drake) had as their
>emblem a golden rayed sun on a black background...
I've never read any of the Chosen books. Are they any good?
--Josh
Coyu
>Date: Fri, Dec 25, 1998 15:06 EST
>>The Germans in general were worse;
>
>Could you expand on that? Do you mean German colonialism, or German
>treatment of conquered territory during World War II?
Both. In German South-West Africa the Hereros were, hm, _reduced_
to a third their original population.
>>the Japanese in China about par with the Draka.
>
>This leads me to believe you're talking about World War II
When do you consider WWII to have started? The fall, sack and rape
of Nanking, that unfortunate city, occured in 1937.
>But we were talking about *colonialism*, which is a different issue
>entirely, carrying as it does a 19th-century European connotation.
That connotation is wrong. Sorry.
>I've never read any of the Chosen books. Are they any good?
There's only the one; it's very good, especially the ending.
Nancy Lebovitz
>
_Farnham's Freehold_?
Graydon
=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan() <j...@lana.uucp> wrote:
>In article <914585...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>,
>Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I've defended Stirling's Draka books here as being about the evils of
>>colonialism being imposed on Europe instead of by Europe
>
>to me; maybe I don't know enough about colonialism, but I can't think of
>any of the European colonial powers treating the populace in colonized
>countries the way the Draka treat everyone.
It's _fiction_, and therefor unnaturally clear-cut, but you can't
find _anything_ the Draka do that the USG hasn't done to people in
this century.
Less systematically; not without cries of horror when it was found
out; not as conciously, not as coherently, not with such a developed
rationale, sure, but try and find one such thing. (The only reason
I'm excepting the Government of the Dominion of Canada from this
list is that we haven't nuked anyone directly.)
The whole _point_ of the Domination is that they're _us_, Western
Civilization's iron skeleton uninformed by desire to be likeable
that is humanism.
--
"But how powerful, how stimulating to the very faculty which produced
it, was the invention of the adjective: no spell or incantation in
Faerie is more potent." -- "On Fairy-Stories", J.R.R. Tolkien
Coyu
>Date: Fri, Dec 25, 1998 16:00 EST
>It's _fiction_, and therefor unnaturally clear-cut, but you can't
>find _anything_ the Draka do that the USG hasn't done to people in
>this century.
Well, we haven't used human genes to create a new species of slave-soldier
from baboons...
Coyu
>Date: Fri, Dec 25, 1998 15:57 EST
>I haven't read the book either--any connection to the Chosen in
>_Farnham's Freehold_?
Dunno. None overt that I recall.
=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan()
>
>>>The Germans in general were worse;
>>
>>Could you expand on that? Do you mean German colonialism, or German
>>treatment of conquered territory during World War II?
>
>Both. In German South-West Africa the Hereros were, hm, _reduced_
>to a third their original population.
I didn't know that.
>>>the Japanese in China about par with the Draka.
>>
>>This leads me to believe you're talking about World War II
>
>When do you consider WWII to have started? The fall, sack and rape
>of Nanking, that unfortunate city, occured in 1937.
Sorry, I was imprecise. I meant, more generally, Japanese involvement in
China in the early-to-mid-20th century.
>>But we were talking about *colonialism*, which is a different issue
>>entirely, carrying as it does a 19th-century European connotation.
>
>That connotation is wrong. Sorry.
What do you mean? That when people use the word colonialism, they're not
generally speaking of the behavior of European powers in the 19th century?
I've certainly never heard the Japanese experience in China described as
colonialism; the "19th century" part of the previous sentence may not
always be understood, but in my experience, the "European" part of it is.
--Josh
=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan()
>In article <9LQg2.2026$wx1....@news6.ispnews.com>,
>=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan() <j...@lana.uucp> wrote:
>>In article <914585...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>,
>>Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>I've defended Stirling's Draka books here as being about the evils of
>>>colonialism being imposed on Europe instead of by Europe
>>
>>Um. Would you care to expand on that? That seems... less than plausible
>>to me; maybe I don't know enough about colonialism, but I can't think of
>>any of the European colonial powers treating the populace in colonized
>>countries the way the Draka treat everyone.
>
>find _anything_ the Draka do that the USG hasn't done to people in
>this century.
>
>out; not as conciously, not as coherently, not with such a developed
>rationale, sure, but try and find one such thing. (The only reason
>I'm excepting the Government of the Dominion of Canada from this
>list is that we haven't nuked anyone directly.)
I was less than precise in my previous post. I should have added "as a
general, default rule" to the last sentence quoted above.
The USG may have done all of those things. But the mitigating factors you
cite in your second paragraph make a huge difference to me. Why don't
they to you?
>The whole _point_ of the Domination is that they're _us_, Western
>Civilization's iron skeleton uninformed by desire to be likeable
>that is humanism.
I don't buy it. Maybe we weight these things differently, but humanism
seems fundamental enough to the idea of "Western Civilization" to me that
the Draka *aren't* us, not in any meaningful way. Germany between 1933
and 1945, now *that's* us.
Now I guess I wait to have everything I just said refuted. :)
--Josh
Jo Walton
j...@lana.uucp "=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan(" writes:
> In article <914612...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>,
> Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >They weren't so organised about it, generally, but I don't think there's
> >much the Draka do systematically that wasn't _ever_ done in some European
> >colonial situation. It's the dark side of colonialism, definitely, and
> >it's given an organised philosophy very different from the original, but
> >I think it's a defensible position.
>
> It may be the dark side of colonialism, but I don't think that anyone
> would argue that it was the *norm* (except perhaps in Tasmania). Whereas
> in the Draka books, it quite clearly is, and as you state, it's given an
> organized philosophy; and that makes a big difference to me. If Stirling
> had presented a more balanced representation of what colonialism meant to
> the people on the ground, I'd be more inclined to accept your position.
> As patronizing as the concept of the "White Man's Burden" is, it's
> a far cry from saying, "We're going to bring all of you under the yoke."
Well, yes. I agree with that. It definitely wasn't anything like the norm.
But I still think that's what he was doing - deliberately taking the
worst, systematising it, bringing it into the 1930s, making it
efficient and doing it to Europe.
I don't think that's an illegitimate thing to be doing, and I do think
it's quite an interesting thing to do and nothing at all like what
other people have done with political systems within SF in the last
few decades.
The Draka books stir up a lot of feeling because they break a lot
of "rules" I think - some of them fairly blatantly button pushing
and others more interesting like what can be done with political
and economic systems and what he does with Eric - something like a
consideration of how far into monstrosity someone can go and remain
admirable and/or likeable.
> I'm well aware of many situations like the one you describe. But as I
> noted above, going from that to the behavior the Draka exhibit is a big
> leap. Too big for me to accept (at the moment, anyway) the books as a
> credible criticism of the evils of colonialism.
Do you find the Draka's history - how they got to be who they were and
where they were - credible in their own terms.
Also note the sub-text all through :Island in the Sea of Time: about
the third world colonial situation the Nantucketers are pushing on,
yes, Europe again. It's explicitly stated by Alston at one point,
beads for the bare-ass savages of Britain, and again towards the end
the idea is quite explicitly colonial, though in a much more paternal
(and historical and traditional) way.
> >I think it's quite interesting to look at the different ways Stirling uses
> >the Draka "bringing colonialism home to Europe". In :Marching Through
> >Georgia: there's the slow realisation that these people really are worse
> >than the Nazis. In :Under the Yoke: it's direct and horrible. In :The
> >Stone Dogs: it's done best, I think, in the subtleties.
>
> It didn't take me long in "Marching Through Georgia." That was probably
> influenced by the fact that I'd read a lot about the books here before I
> picked it up, though.
I was very impressed with :Marching Through Georgia: for making me cheer
for the Nazis. It really made me emotionally understand the concept of
lesser of two evils.
Mike Arnautov
>>Not wishing to pick an argument, I don't recall meeting a "borish and
>>obnoxious jerk" [sic.] who was also informative in any other than a
>>purely unintentional manner. I guess it depends on your derivation of
>>the neologism "borish". You know that I prefer to go for the less
>>obvious options. :-)
>
>Ferguson's Law:
>Everybody in the world (including you and me) is an asshole at one
>time or another.
Quite true, of course. I hate explaining jokes. Let's just say that you
appear to have missed the substance of my response.
>Ahasuerus only said (in effect) one person can be both, not that they
>would be both at the same time.
r.a.sf.w First Law: *Never* try to explain what Ahasuerus said. His
words are sufficient onto themselves and any clarification by others
runs the risk of merely obfuscating the initial clarity. :-)
In this particular case Ahasuerus said:
: I am not sure your respective characterizations are necessarily
: contradictory :-\
I am sure he is perfectly capable of elaborating if he feels that these
profound words have been somehow misunderstood.
--
Mike Arnautov
m...@mipmip.demon-co-antispam-uk
Replace dashes with dots and remove the antispam component.
Mike Arnautov
>> Have you been banned in any countries as a subversive influence,
>> Ahasuerus?
>
>Sure. One hopes that at least some of them - or what's left of them - have
>learned that I do believe in reciprocity :)
Hehehe... Manifestly true! I doubt, however, that their bans on you were
of a personal nature. Or am I making the cardinal error of
underestimating your fame? :-) Now that various archives are being
opened, have you had any chance to investigate?
Mike Arnautov
>>Not wishing to pick an argument, I don't recall meeting a "borish and
>>obnoxious jerk" [sic.] who was also informative in any other than a
>>purely unintentional manner. I guess it depends on your derivation of
>>the neologism "borish". You know that I prefer to go for the less
>>obvious options. :-)
>
>Ummm, how long were you in Higher Education for?
Wouldn't you like to know? :-)
>I wouldn't want to list SF authors who might fit into this
>description for fear of flames but I would like to point out
>that many people have found Pournelle's column informative.
Sigh... It's such a nuisance when one's joke turns out to be too
unobvious and requires explaining. I think I'll pass. Forget I squoke.
Ahasuerus
> Ahasuerus <ahas...@not-for-mail.org> wrote:
>>> Have you been banned in any countries as a subversive influence,
>>> Ahasuerus?
>>
>>Sure. One hopes that at least some of them - or what's left of them - have
>>learned that I do believe in reciprocity :)
>
> Hehehe... Manifestly true! I doubt, however, that their bans on you were
> of a personal nature. Or am I making the cardinal error of
> underestimating your fame? :-) Now that various archives are being
> opened, have you had any chance to investigate?
Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions... :) A good source for aspiring
students of doublethink and censorship under totalitarian regimes is
_Istoriia sovetskoi politicheskoi tsenzury_, aka _History of Soviet
Political Censorship: Documents and Commentaries_, Moscow, ROSSPEN, 1997,
672p, ISBN 5-86004-121-7. Scarier than Orwell! Funnier than Draka! Buy it
before supplies (2,000 copies printed) run out! Don't post without it!
--
Ahasuerus
Joseph Askew
>It may be the dark side of colonialism, but I don't think that anyone
>would argue that it was the *norm* (except perhaps in Tasmania). Whereas
>in the Draka books, it quite clearly is, and as you state, it's given an
>organized philosophy; and that makes a big difference to me. If Stirling
>had presented a more balanced representation of what colonialism meant to
>the people on the ground, I'd be more inclined to accept your position.
>As patronizing as the concept of the "White Man's Burden" is, it's
>a far cry from saying, "We're going to bring all of you under the yoke."
The concept of the White Man's burden is, though, a product of the
end of Empire. It only arises in the United Kingdom when the Empire
is slowly declining. The English did not go to India and then conquer
large parts of it for any other purpose than to bring Indians under
the yoke and make a fast buck out of it. The idea that a colonial power
has to be good is, imo, a product of the conflict with the Russians
over who was going to screw over the Afghans and Iranians. The British
came up with a series of self-serving justifications intended, mostly,
for home and near-abroad consumption. Then they started to take them
seriously and that was the end of that. Tasmania is odd in being so
well organised but colonialism involves ruling people who don't really
want you there. You have to teach them that challenging your rule is
worse than accepting it. Or just kill them all. Neither is a pretty
process.
And just in passing I don't think Stirling criticises Colonialism.
Coyu
>Date: Fri, Dec 25, 1998 16:55 EST
>>>But we were talking about *colonialism*, which is a different issue
>>>entirely, carrying as it does a 19th-century European connotation.
>>
>>That connotation is wrong. Sorry.
>
>What do you mean? That when people use the word colonialism, they're not
>generally speaking of the behavior of European powers in the 19th century?
>I've certainly never heard the Japanese experience in China described as
>colonialism; the "19th century" part of the previous sentence may not
>always be understood, but in my experience, the "European" part of it is.
Well, this steps into a thorny debate on definitions. But the Japanese
administered Korea, Manchuria and Formosa as colonies, later German
Polynesia after WWI, and still later much of the rest of east Asia. Telling
point:
after the close of WWII, the French in Vietnam (a colony, you agree?)
used Japanese PoWs to administer and control that country.
John Moreno
> Also note the sub-text all through :Island in the Sea of Time: about
> the third world colonial situation the Nantucketers are pushing on,
> yes, Europe again. It's explicitly stated by Alston at one point,
> beads for the bare-ass savages of Britain, and again towards the end
> the idea is quite explicitly colonial, though in a much more paternal
> (and historical and traditional) way.
Yep, other than doing the old Connecticut Yankee bit, _Island in the Sea
of TIme_ is contrasting good and bad Colonization -- and the necessary
evils that even the good have to do.
--
John Moreno
Phil Fraering
>And anyway, I'd say that the argument in question was anything but
>fun - Mr. Stirling was attacking Joseph on tiny niggling errors
>while ignoring the substantive arguments, and Joseph was getting
>painted into a corner on his actual errors and getting angry. Mr.
>Stirling was also doing this in a way that violated netiqette and
>one line at a time.
Notice the sheer possibilities of line-at-a-time responses
with regard to being able to verbally skewer someone even when
you're wrong.
>Then he abandoned the argument in the middle for
>the second time in a short period.
I think that time he was arguing with me too.
The funny thing was that I eventually had a _civilized_ conversation
with Graydon about the same subject.
Phil
--
Phil Fraering "People living their lives for you on TV,
p...@globalreach.net they say they're better than you,
/Will work for *tape*/ and, you agree"
--
Phil Fraering "People living their lives for you on TV,
p...@globalreach.net they say they're better than you,
/Will work for *tape*/ and, you agree"
Phil Fraering
>Nor of course do I post under anything but my own name. Except
>perhaps twice by mistake earlier this year.
BTW, Joseph, was that _the_ Anne Geddes?
If so, could you please get her to try something else?
Coyu
>Date: Fri, Dec 25, 1998 21:32 EST
There's a throwaway line in I think _The Stone Dogs_ where it's
mentioned that the Draka have kept a hunter-gatherer people
relatively untouched for the anthropologists to study on a game reserve,
I guess what would be the San in Botswana on this timeline?
A _very_ telling detail.
=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan()
Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <YaSg2.3241$tr4....@news7.ispnews.com>
> j...@lana.uucp "=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan(" writes:
>
>> In article <914612...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>,
>> Jo Walton <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> would argue that it was the *norm* (except perhaps in Tasmania). Whereas
>> in the Draka books, it quite clearly is, and as you state, it's given an
>> organized philosophy; and that makes a big difference to me. If Stirling
>> had presented a more balanced representation of what colonialism meant to
>> the people on the ground, I'd be more inclined to accept your position.
>> As patronizing as the concept of the "White Man's Burden" is, it's
>> a far cry from saying, "We're going to bring all of you under the yoke."
>
>But I still think that's what he was doing - deliberately taking the
>worst, systematising it, bringing it into the 1930s, making it
>efficient and doing it to Europe.
But why take the worst, and then make it *even worse*? That seems to me
to be overkill; and I think it risks obfuscating the point Stirling was
trying to make. When I read (insofar as I read) the Draka books, they
didn't feel like a critique of colonialism to me, because the Draka didn't
feel like colonialists to me. They're too over-the-top, IMAO.
>I don't think that's an illegitimate thing to be doing, and I do think
>it's quite an interesting thing to do and nothing at all like what
>other people have done with political systems within SF in the last
>few decades.
Personally, I think the discussion they engender is far more interesting
than the books themselves. Kudos to Stirling for writing food for
thought, I suppose.
>The Draka books stir up a lot of feeling because they break a lot
>of "rules" I think - some of them fairly blatantly button pushing
>and others more interesting like what can be done with political
>and economic systems and what he does with Eric - something like a
>consideration of how far into monstrosity someone can go and remain
>admirable and/or likeable.
Yes, I've seen that position expounded on here (probably more times than I
can count), but my objections to the Draka books are not related to
the rule-breaking aspects.
>> I'm well aware of many situations like the one you describe. But as I
>> noted above, going from that to the behavior the Draka exhibit is a big
>> leap. Too big for me to accept (at the moment, anyway) the books as a
>> credible criticism of the evils of colonialism.
>
>Do you find the Draka's history - how they got to be who they were and
>where they were - credible in their own terms.
No, not in the least. The Draka feel like a kludge to me; it feels like
Stirling's thrown everyone who was on the losing side over the past 200
years into the same country and then made them the winners. Not only are
there Loyalists from the American Civil War, but escaped French
aristocrats *and* Confederates too!
>Also note the sub-text all through :Island in the Sea of Time: about
>the third world colonial situation the Nantucketers are pushing on,
>yes, Europe again. It's explicitly stated by Alston at one point,
>beads for the bare-ass savages of Britain, and again towards the end
>the idea is quite explicitly colonial, though in a much more paternal
>(and historical and traditional) way.
I've never read "Island in the Sea of Time," and Ahasuerus's recent
comments lead me to believe that it's quite unlikely I ever will read it.
If I want commentary on colonialism, I can think of a number of writers
I'd be more likely to pick up.
>I was very impressed with :Marching Through Georgia: for making me cheer
>for the Nazis. It really made me emotionally understand the concept of
>lesser of two evils.
Hmm. I didn't cheer for anyone in that book (as far as I got in it,
anyway). It seemed to me that *everyone* would be better off dead.
--Josh
=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan()
>
>>>>But we were talking about *colonialism*, which is a different issue
>>>>entirely, carrying as it does a 19th-century European connotation.
>>>
>>>That connotation is wrong. Sorry.
>>
>>What do you mean? That when people use the word colonialism, they're not
>>generally speaking of the behavior of European powers in the 19th century?
>>I've certainly never heard the Japanese experience in China described as
>>colonialism; the "19th century" part of the previous sentence may not
>>always be understood, but in my experience, the "European" part of it is.
>
>Well, this steps into a thorny debate on definitions. But the Japanese
>administered Korea, Manchuria and Formosa as colonies, later German
>Polynesia after WWI, and still later much of the rest of east Asia.
No question. I wasn't out to deny that the Japanese did such; but since
the word seems to me to have such specific connotations, it seems that
there should be another word to describe the Japanese experience in East
Asia.
--Josh
Ahasuerus
> I've never read "Island in the Sea of Time," and Ahasuerus's recent
> comments lead me to believe that it's quite unlikely I ever will read it.
So it's a wash then? I guess now I have to return all that money. Sigh.
And right before I started building my very own castle in Spain :-(
--
Ahasuerus
Coyu
>Date: Fri, Dec 25, 1998 22:13 EST
>No question. I wasn't out to deny that the Japanese did such; but since
>the word seems to me to have such specific connotations, it seems that
>there should be another word to describe the Japanese experience in East
>Asia.
Well, my grandfather, who lived through the Japanese 'experience',
described it as an 'inferno'.
Gareth Wilson
>
> There's a throwaway line in I think _The Stone Dogs_ where it's
> mentioned that the Draka have kept a hunter-gatherer people
> relatively untouched for the anthropologists to study on a game reserve,
> I guess what would be the San in Botswana on this timeline?
>
> A _very_ telling detail.
I agree. Those hunter-gathers got the best deal out of all humanity in
the Draka timeline. They didn't get enserfed, shot, impaled, nuked,
infected, exiled to Alpha Centauri, or genetically engineered into
vicious alien predators.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
Christchurch
New Zealand
e-mail gr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Graydon
=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan() <j...@lana.uucp> wrote:
>But why take the worst, and then make it *even worse*? That seems to me
But he doesn't; all he does is make a cohesive society out of one of
the three main philosophical lines of approach to colonial
expansion. (extermination, enslavement, and comprehensive
co-option. It is only that the British were wildly successful with
the third that made it a major philosophical approach, at that.)
>>Do you find the Draka's history - how they got to be who they were and
>>where they were - credible in their own terms.
>
>No, not in the least. The Draka feel like a kludge to me; it feels like
>Stirling's thrown everyone who was on the losing side over the past 200
>years into the same country and then made them the winners. Not only are
>there Loyalists from the American Civil War, but escaped French
>aristocrats *and* Confederates too!
All the doomed aristocracts; damn few slaughtered Albanians,
Prussian-oppressed Poles, or similar. It says something about the
Draka, who they _wanted_ to include.
Graydon
Coyu <co...@aol.com> wrote:
>>From: gra...@lara.on.ca (Graydon)
>>Date: Fri, Dec 25, 1998 16:00 EST
>>It's _fiction_, and therefor unnaturally clear-cut, but you can't
>>find _anything_ the Draka do that the USG hasn't done to people in
>>this century.
>
>from baboons...
There is that; I was thinking of the pre-:Stone Dogs: Draka, because
after the first two, it's not really a comment on colonialism, it
starts to be a comment on power.
But you're right -- no horrid genetic engineering projects.
Graydon
=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan() <j...@lana.uucp> wrote:
>In article <760ucl$v17$1...@lara.on.ca>, Graydon <gra...@lara.on.ca> wrote:
>>find _anything_ the Draka do that the USG hasn't done to people in
>>this century.
>>
>>out; not as conciously, not as coherently, not with such a developed
>>rationale, sure, but try and find one such thing. (The only reason
>>I'm excepting the Government of the Dominion of Canada from this
>>list is that we haven't nuked anyone directly.)
>
>I was less than precise in my previous post. I should have added "as a
>general, default rule" to the last sentence quoted above.
>
>The USG may have done all of those things. But the mitigating factors you
>cite in your second paragraph make a huge difference to me. Why don't
>they to you?
Why on the wide earth ought they to do?
Modern industrialized nations are politically complex; there is a
thread of wanting to be good, of wanting to be liked, of a 'belief
in human decency' that runs along with the naked reaching after
power, and so the reaching after power is constrained by some
approximation of the rule of law.
This does not _begin_ to alter the ethical status of those instances
of reaching after power in disdain for the human cost.
>>The whole _point_ of the Domination is that they're _us_, Western
>>Civilization's iron skeleton uninformed by desire to be likeable
>>that is humanism.
>
>I don't buy it. Maybe we weight these things differently, but humanism
>seems fundamental enough to the idea of "Western Civilization" to me that
Oh, oh no, not at all. _Nothing_ like as fundamental as the concept
of heirarchy; Western Civilization, at the last analysis, is the
Machine that Wins Wars, and it does it by putting everyone into a
very narrow job indeed. The only real variation is how much effort
it's deemed worthwhile to make to see that people are happy in their
narrow jobs.
>the Draka *aren't* us, not in any meaningful way. Germany between 1933
>and 1945, now *that's* us.
Well, sure, but think how much of the Nazi adgenda was motivated by
wanting to be liked; really, really wanting to be liked.
Then think about Dreisler's comments on the Draka culture on the
subject of being liked.
>Now I guess I wait to have everything I just said refuted. :)
I can hardly refute your own opinions.
Nor would I want to; the tendency of complete cultural aliens to
post to this group is one of the things I like about it.
Nancy Lebovitz
>In article <FZTg2.2454$ya2....@news14.ispnews.com>,
>=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan() <j...@lana.uucp> wrote:
>>In article <760ucl$v17$1...@lara.on.ca>, Graydon <gra...@lara.on.ca> wrote:
>>>
>
>Why on the wide earth ought they to do?
>
>Modern industrialized nations are politically complex; there is a
>thread of wanting to be good, of wanting to be liked, of a 'belief
>in human decency' that runs along with the naked reaching after
>power, and so the reaching after power is constrained by some
>approximation of the rule of law.
>
>This does not _begin_ to alter the ethical status of those instances
>of reaching after power in disdain for the human cost.
>
>>>The whole _point_ of the Domination is that they're _us_, Western
>>>Civilization's iron skeleton uninformed by desire to be likeable
>>>that is humanism.
Both of the above are quotes from Graydon--I don't think they quite
match up. To me "iron skeleton" implies an intrinsic part. (Or, Graydon,
did you mean skeleton-in-the-closet rather than skeleton-in-the-body?)
If something can be changed because it doesn't work very well, and
the change doesn't disrupt the whole system, it isn't a skeleton.
Also, describing humanism as the desire to be likeable makes it sound
like disposable fluff. Was this intended?
>>
(....)
>Well, sure, but think how much of the Nazi adgenda was motivated by
>wanting to be liked; really, really wanting to be liked.
Details?
>
I have no idea how much the Nazis wanted to be liked, though
concealling the Holocaust suggests that they cared something for the
world's opinion.
Coyu
>Date: Sat, Dec 26, 1998 00:53 EST
>I agree. Those hunter-gathers got the best deal out of all humanity in
>the Draka timeline. They didn't get enserfed, shot, impaled, nuked,
>infected, exiled to Alpha Centauri, or genetically engineered into
>vicious alien predators.
But they aren't there in _Drakon_. Experiment over; reset.
James Nicoll
>In article <19981225163739...@ng-fa1.aol.com>,
>Coyu <co...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>From: gra...@lara.on.ca (Graydon)
>>>Date: Fri, Dec 25, 1998 16:00 EST
>>>find _anything_ the Draka do that the USG hasn't done to people in
>>>this century.
>>
>>from baboons...
>
>There is that; I was thinking of the pre-:Stone Dogs: Draka, because
>after the first two, it's not really a comment on colonialism, it
>starts to be a comment on power.
>
>But you're right -- no horrid genetic engineering projects.
And when we do, it'll be to serve some consumer economic
end: gene tweeked monkeys to sell on the teletubbie market perhaps...
--
March 20, 1999: Imperiums To Order's 15th Anniversary Party. Guests include
Rob Sawyer [SF author], Jo Walton [game designer and soon to be published
fantasy author] and James Gardner [SF author]. DP9 is a definite maybe.
Imperiums is at 12 Church Street, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.
J. Brad Hicks
jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
> And when we do, it'll be to serve some consumer economic
>end: gene tweeked monkeys to sell on the teletubbie market perhaps...
Trying to lite on the spoilers, but there's a plot twist along these lines
in Nancy Kress's latest book, _Maximum Light_. Good stuff, Maynard.
--
J. Brad Hicks
U.S. Shamanics & Mechanical Zen
mailto:in...@us-shamanics.com
http://www.us-shamanics.com
Mike Arnautov
>Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions... :)
We are all prone to these.
>A good source for aspiring
>students of doublethink and censorship under totalitarian regimes is
>_Istoriia sovetskoi politicheskoi tsenzury_, aka _History of Soviet
>Political Censorship: Documents and Commentaries_, Moscow, ROSSPEN, 1997,
>672p, ISBN 5-86004-121-7. Scarier than Orwell! Funnier than Draka! Buy it
>before supplies (2,000 copies printed) run out! Don't post without it!
I'll have to take your word for it. I already have a pile of books about
a metre tall which I should be getting around to. Adding another 672
pages doesn't exactly appeal, fascinating stuff though it undoubtedly
is. (OTOH, I wonder whether the local library could be persuaded to
acquire a copy...)
Phil Fraering
>I was very impressed with :Marching Through Georgia: for making me cheer
>for the Nazis. It really made me emotionally understand the concept of
>lesser of two evils.
Wasn't siding with the Soviets against the Nazis in WWII a good
enough example?
Phil Fraering
>All the doomed aristocracts; damn few slaughtered Albanians,
>Prussian-oppressed Poles, or similar. It says something about the
>Draka, who they _wanted_ to include.
In The Real World (tm) would an aristocracy alone have been
enough to build a country from?
=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan()
>In article <urYg2.2740$wx1....@news6.ispnews.com>,
>=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan() <j...@lana.uucp> wrote:
>>But why take the worst, and then make it *even worse*? That seems to me
>
>But he doesn't; all he does is make a cohesive society out of one of
>the three main philosophical lines of approach to colonial
>expansion.
That *is* making it worse. It's a distillation of one of those
approaches; the distillate may be related to the original, but it's a
different product.
>>>Do you find the Draka's history - how they got to be who they were and
>>>where they were - credible in their own terms.
>>
>>No, not in the least. The Draka feel like a kludge to me; it feels like
>>Stirling's thrown everyone who was on the losing side over the past 200
>>years into the same country and then made them the winners. Not only are
>>there Loyalists from the American Civil War, but escaped French
>>aristocrats *and* Confederates too!
>
>All the doomed aristocracts; damn few slaughtered Albanians,
>Prussian-oppressed Poles, or similar. It says something about the
>Draka, who they _wanted_ to include.
It may say something about the Draka, but it doesn't make it any more
plausible to me. I can certainly understand why Stirling didn't include
any Albanians or Poles or other oppressed people: it makes for much easier
storytelling (and emotional identification on the part of the reader) if
you take the historical baddies and turn them into the baddies in your
books. The closest comparison I can come to how I regard the Draka is
S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
--Josh
=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan()
A reminder that the issues we discuss in the abstract have real-life
impacts. I apologize if it seems that I've been minimizing or ignoring
the horrible things the Japanese did in China and East Asia; that was
certainly not my intent.
--Josh
=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan()
>In article <FZTg2.2454$ya2....@news14.ispnews.com>,
>=JK4=Joshua Kaderlan() <j...@lana.uucp> wrote:
>>In article <760ucl$v17$1...@lara.on.ca>, Graydon <gra...@lara.on.ca> wrote:
>>>find _anything_ the Draka do that the USG hasn't done to people in
>>>this century.
>>>
>>>out; not as conciously, not as coherently, not with such a developed
>>>rationale, sure, but try and find one such thing. (The only reason
>>>I'm excepting the Government of the Dominion of Canada from this
>>>list is that we haven't nuked anyone directly.)
>>
>>I was less than precise in my previous post. I should have added "as a
>>general, default rule" to the last sentence quoted above.
>>
>>The USG may have done all of those things. But the mitigating factors you
>>cite in your second paragraph make a huge difference to me. Why don't
>>they to you?
>
>
>Modern industrialized nations are politically complex; there is a
>thread of wanting to be good, of wanting to be liked, of a 'belief
>in human decency' that runs along with the naked reaching after
>power, and so the reaching after power is constrained by some
>approximation of the rule of law.
>
>This does not _begin_ to alter the ethical status of those instances
>of reaching after power in disdain for the human cost.
I suspect we're talking about slightly different things. I'm not saying
that the ethical cost of all of the things the U.S. Government has done is
lessened by the idea of the rule of law; I'm saying that it's
somewhat counterbalanced by it. It seems to me that in your
comments above, you're adding up the debits side of the register and not
even considering the credits side.
>>>The whole _point_ of the Domination is that they're _us_, Western
>>>Civilization's iron skeleton uninformed by desire to be likeable
>>>that is humanism.
As your quote here demonstrates. Without the credit side (that is to say,
humanism), the Draka *aren't* us. Attempting to use them to demonstrate
anything about Western Civilization is like attempting to use "Ilse:
She-Wolf of the S.S." to demonstrate anything about the German experience
during the Holocaust.
>>I don't buy it. Maybe we weight these things differently, but humanism
>>seems fundamental enough to the idea of "Western Civilization" to me that
>
>Oh, oh no, not at all. _Nothing_ like as fundamental as the concept
>of heirarchy; Western Civilization, at the last analysis, is the
>Machine that Wins Wars, and it does it by putting everyone into a
>very narrow job indeed. The only real variation is how much effort
>it's deemed worthwhile to make to see that people are happy in their
>narrow jobs.
That seems to me to be redefining the term "Western Civilization" to
suit your own purposes; or at the least, conflating the concepts of what
it *is* and what it *does*. It seems to me that there are other,
different philosophical threads running through the history of Western
Civilization.
>>the Draka *aren't* us, not in any meaningful way. Germany between 1933
>>and 1945, now *that's* us.
>
>Well, sure, but think how much of the Nazi adgenda was motivated by
>wanting to be liked; really, really wanting to be liked.
>
>Then think about Dreisler's comments on the Draka culture on the
>subject of being liked.
I don't know which comments you're thinking of off-hand (although I'd
guess it goes something along the lines of "they really *don't* care if
anyone else likes them"). And if so, then I fail to see what the Draka
are supposed to teach us. The Nazis, if we accept your analysis, at least
share the basic desire to be liked with the rest of Western Civilization;
the Draka don't.
>>Now I guess I wait to have everything I just said refuted. :)
>
>I can hardly refute your own opinions.
>
>Nor would I want to; the tendency of complete cultural aliens to
>post to this group is one of the things I like about it.
One might get confused about which one of us is the complete cultural
alien here. :)
--Josh
Gareth Wilson
>
> In The Real World (tm) would an aristocracy alone have been
> enough to build a country from?
>
Of course not. But the Draka didn't build a country from an aristocracy.
They built an aristocracy from an aristocracy. The serfs are the
"country".
Coyu
>Date: Sat, Dec 26, 1998 20:32 EST
>A reminder that the issues we discuss in the abstract have real-life
>impacts. I apologize if it seems that I've been minimizing or ignoring
>the horrible things the Japanese did in China and East Asia; that was
>certainly not my intent.
No apologies necessary. Human history is a charnel house. <shrug>
For some people the abbatoir is a little nearer in the past than others,
that's all.
Del Cotter
Joseph Askew wrote:
>>But you have to admit that it's fun seeing Askew getting completely
>>and utterly obliterated.
>
>It might be something about the time of year, or indeed my very
>deep failings of character, but I totally fail to see the humour
>in this. But I shall try to put aside whatever feelings of open
>hatred I might feel and in the spirit of the season give you what
>you seem to enjoy so much - a chance to see me get completely and
>utterly obliterated. After all I'm sure that you're not the sort
>of nasty little gutless turd who only lives vicariously through other's
>hard work.
It doesn't take guts, but the sheer *persistence* to keep hammering away
long after anyone else would say ahfuckit. In his last day of posting
on this newsgroup during the Event In Question, I counted *sixty seven*
separate posts from Steve responding to yours in a single day.
Frankly, I'd rather he was doing something else, like writing books.
--
Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk
The Alien Design Bibliography
http://www.branta.demon.co.uk/alien-design/
Del Cotter
>Joseph is a long term and valued member of this group, though he
>does have a regrettable tendency to get angry and start insulting
>people. Mr. Stirling was, in my estimation, doing the equivalent of
>poking a chained dog with a stick, deliberately baiting him into
>getting angry and then laughing at him for it.
Unfair and untrue. I happen to know Steve was at least as angry as you
think Joseph was.
Actually, fond as I am of Joseph, I get the impression he never really
gets angry. Certainly where cages are concerned, he's usually far more
rattling than rattled against.
Jo Walton
> J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk (Jo Walton) writes:
>
> >I was very impressed with :Marching Through Georgia: for making me cheer
> >for the Nazis. It really made me emotionally understand the concept of
> >lesser of two evils.
>
> Wasn't siding with the Soviets against the Nazis in WWII a good
> enough example?
I didn't do that _myself_.
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - Blood of Kings Poetry; rasfw FAQ;
Reviews; Interstichia; Momentum - a paying market for real poetry.
t...@sliver.oulu.fi
Are you sure? They might not be mentioned but they could still be there...
--
Tapio Erola t...@paju.oulu.fi (No mail to t...@sliver.oulu.fi please)
I am the master of my fate, the captain of my soul.
Martin Soederstroem
<d...@branta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Dec 1998, in rec.arts.sf.written
>Jo Walton wrote:
>
>>Joseph is a long term and valued member of this group, though he
>>does have a regrettable tendency to get angry and start insulting
>>people. Mr. Stirling was, in my estimation, doing the equivalent of
>>poking a chained dog with a stick, deliberately baiting him into
>>getting angry and then laughing at him for it.
Interesting how differently we read things. What I saw was Joseph
making a large number of incorrect claims about history. And Stirling
continuing to correct them, long after anyone else would have given up
in disgust.
Mike Arnautov
I concur. I share JoatSimeon's apparent conviction that sweeping
generalisations need to be tested against the nitty-gritty of facts.
Alas, I do not have his erudition or command of sources, but I am glad
at least to see it done.
The Empire exchanges were particularly interesting for me, because of
the inclination native Brits seem to have to either bluster or to
apologise about the whole affair -- the latter attitude gradually
becoming the dominant one as the older generation is dying off. Joseph
was, in his inimitable manner :-), pushing this now conventional line,
but Steve's responses convinced me at least, that the conventional line
was at best a gross oversimplification and at worst a complete
distortion of historical reality -- the truth lying probably somewhere
in between. At the very least I will now keep an open mind on the
subject.