A Civil Campaign: Does it get less boring???
LHeilb8013
books but this one is really dull so far...... Miles is currently all out of
sorts at a freaking dinner party!!!! Is this a bad attempt at Jane Austen??? Or
another example of one of those silly experiments that successful authors try
to show they don't need to stick to what works??? Oh well, maybe it will get
better.........
Lloyd Heilbrunn
Rachel Brown
other
> books but this one is really dull so far...... Miles is currently all out
of
> sorts at a freaking dinner party!!!!
If you didn't like the dinner party, you definitely won't enjoy the rest of
the book-- that's probably the highest of its many comic and emotional high
points. Myself, I thought the whole book was wonderful, but to each his
own.
Rachel
David Brukman
> If you didn't like the dinner party, you definitely won't enjoy the rest of
> the book-- that's probably the highest of its many comic and emotional high
> points. Myself, I thought the whole book was wonderful, but to each his
> own.
I thought the plot strings leading to it were a bit intrusive, and Miles'
behavior a bit too self-destructive. The party itself was too obvious
an illustration of Bujold's principle of "what else can I do to the character?"
On the other hand, some of the scenes post-party, where Miles
was actually in (more or less) clear-headed recovery mode,
especially his conversations with Ekaterin (epistolary and otherwise),
were excellent (if you like romantic subplots).
YMMV, as always.
--
David Brukman "Long live Jame Talissen!"
http://InOtherWorlds.com "Fantasy, SF & Mystery Reviews"
Jordan S. Bassior
>I know Bujold is very popular here, and I've read and enjoyed all her other
>books but this one is really dull so far...... Miles is currently all out of
>sorts at a freaking dinner party!!!! Is this a bad attempt at Jane Austen???
>Or another example of one of those silly experiments that successful authors
try
>to show they don't need to stick to what works???
I thought the dinner party scene was a hilarious climax to _several_ subplots.
I loved it :)
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
"Whoever would be a man must be a non-conformist" (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
--
Deann Allen
Most people consider the dinner party to be one of the high points
of the entire series. YMMV.
As for "Is this a bad attempt at Jane Austen???" did you read the
names in the dedication?
D.
--
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
-- Eleanor Roosevelt
-----------------------------------------
Robert Carnegie
Deann Allen <dal...@pcisys.net> wrote:
> of the entire series. YMMV.
>
> As for "Is this a bad attempt at Jane Austen???" did you read the
> names in the dedication?
Does that mean "Yes, it is"? ;-)
Robert Carnegie
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Henry Churchyard
David Brukman <david....@nofoodstuffs.iname.com> wrote:
>"Rachel Brown" <r.ph...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:01a8eadf$2d27ae60$d60d480c@default...
>> If you didn't like the dinner party, you definitely won't enjoy the
>> rest of the book-- that's probably the highest of its many comic
>> and emotional high points. Myself, I thought the whole book was
>> wonderful, but to each his own.
> I liked the book, but I found the party rather uncomfortable. I
> thought the plot strings leading to it were a bit intrusive, and
> Miles' behavior a bit too self-destructive. The party itself was
> too obvious an illustration of Bujold's principle of "what else can
> I do to the character?" On the other hand, some of the scenes
> post-party, where Miles was actually in (more or less) clear-headed
> recovery mode, especially his conversations with Ekaterin
> (epistolary and otherwise), were excellent (if you like romantic
> subplots).
I agree -- I had the book out from two different libraries in two
different states for two months total, and for most of that time was
halted by the heavy-handed signals of Impending Humilation (didn't get
much beyond the switching of the place settings), and finally had to
skip over the dinner because I was never going to finish the book
otherwise (even though I've read all of Bujold's books except _Falling
Free_, and ejoyed most of them).
--%!PS
10 10 scale/M{rmoveto}def/R{rlineto}def 12 45 moveto 0 5 R 4 -1 M 5.5 0 R
currentpoint 3 sub 3 90 0 arcn 0 -6 R 7.54 10.28 M 2.7067 -9.28 R -5.6333
2 setlinewidth 0 R 9.8867 8 M 7 0 R 0 -9 R -6 4 M 0 -4 R stroke showpage
% Henry Churchyard chu...@usa.net http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/
M. Northstar
>
> "Rachel Brown" <r.ph...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:01a8eadf$2d27ae60$d60d480c@default...
> > If you didn't like the dinner party, you definitely won't enjoy the rest of
> > the book-- that's probably the highest of its many comic and emotional high
> > points. Myself, I thought the whole book was wonderful, but to each his
> > own.
> I liked the book, but I found the party rather uncomfortable.
> I thought the plot strings leading to it were a bit intrusive, and Miles'
> behavior a bit too self-destructive.
Let's not mince words: his behavior was downright priggish up to that
point. I believe it was a result of his latest "persona",
the_very_old-vor_lord_Auditor_high_and_almighty, and quite frankly, he
amply deserved everything he got. However, he makes a very nice comeback
when ...
<entering the Spoiler Space, a strange and scary dimension coexisting
with our own>
<exiting spoiler space, shutting down the sub-space shields, spoiler
generators recycling... recycling... ready>
> The party itself was too obvious
> an illustration of Bujold's principle of "what else can I do to the character?"
>
> On the other hand, some of the scenes post-party, where Miles
> was actually in (more or less) clear-headed recovery mode,
> especially his conversations with Ekaterin (epistolary and otherwise),
> were excellent (if you like romantic subplots).
...he apologizes to Ekaterin in that letter. But he doesn't come
completely out of it until Richars Vorrutyer tries to blackmail him. The
scene where he is raving internally after Richars' departure is the
first gleam of the real Miles in the entire book. It's a shame the idiot
boy always needs a needle grenade to get his head out of his a... um...
out of his hinther anatomy. Fun though.
M. Northstar
adrian...@hotmail.com
>> I know Bujold is very popular here, and I've read and enjoyed
>>all her other books but this one is really dull so far......
>>Miles is currently all out of sorts at a freaking dinner party!!!!
Rachel Brown:
>If you didn't like the dinner party, you definitely won't enjoy the rest of
>the book-- that's probably the highest of its many comic and emotional high
>points. Myself, I thought the whole book was wonderful, but to each his
>own.
Agreed. The big dinner party scene is also about halfway through
the book. While I had some problems with that scene, itself, I had
really enjoyed most of what led up to it, so I knew I was likely to
enjoy the rest of the book.
As a general rule, if you read a book past the midpoint and still
dislike it, it's usually safe to give up on it. That doesn't mean
it's a bad book, just that it's not to your taste. I'm pretty
stubborn, and I used to feel oddly uncomfortable about having a book
in the house that I hadn't read all the way through, so I've read a
fair number of books even though I didn't much like them. (Now that
I have less time, more money, and more compatible people sharing the
house, it's very different.) I'm trying to think of a book that I
disliked by the midpoint, but ended up liking overall...I can't think
of any. Can any of you?
Adrian
adrian...@hotmail.com
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
Deann Allen
>
> In article <39EC525E...@pcisys.net>,
> Deann Allen <dal...@pcisys.net> wrote:
> > LHeilb8013 wrote:
> > >
> > points of the entire series. YMMV.
> >
> > As for "Is this a bad attempt at Jane Austen???" did you read
> > the names in the dedication?
>
> Does that mean "Yes, it is"? ;-)
Whether the attempt is good or bad, I cannot say; I don't read
Austen or any of the others named in said dedication (although I
now have some interest in someday doing so). I meant it is done in
that style. As the title says, a comedy of biology and manners.
I do know it took me longer than usual to read the dinner scene,
as I actually fell out of my chair laughing, a couple of times. :)
Abigail Ann Young
> of the entire series. YMMV.
>
> As for "Is this a bad attempt at Jane Austen???" did you read the
> names in the dedication?
>
I do think the dedication was a mistake, though -- it invites comparisons
which are inevitably to Bujold's detriment. Don't mistake me, I enjoy her
books tremendously, especially now that Miles is starting to learn about
morally-responsible behaviour(!), but she's no Jane Austen or Charlotte
Bronte (or even Dorothy Sayers or Georgette Heyer). And parts of ACC were
terribly contrived to make them more Heyer-esque, in my opinion. But it
grows on you! I liked it much better the second time (partly because my
expectations are not so high as they were after _Memory_ and _Komarr_ but
before reading ACC). I think it exposes a great weakness in LMB's writing,
and that's world-building as opposed to people and situation building.....
As always, however, YMMV
Abigail
--
Abigail Ann Young (Dr), Associate Editor/Records of Early English Drama/
Victoria College/ 150 Charles Street W/ Toronto Ontario Canada
Phone (416) 585-4504/ FAX (416) 813-4093/ abigai...@utoronto.ca
List-owner of REED-L <http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/reed-l.html>
<http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/reed.html> REED's home page
<http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/stage.html> our theatre resource page
<http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~young> my home page
Louann Miller
wrote:
>I agree -- I had the book out from two different libraries in two
>different states for two months total, and for most of that time was
>halted by the heavy-handed signals of Impending Humilation (didn't get
>much beyond the switching of the place settings), and finally had to
>skip over the dinner because I was never going to finish the book
>otherwise
Were you finding it funny up to that point? Because it's primarily a
comedy (in the modern as well as classical senses of the word) and it
plays by comedic rules. Compare to the ever-larger series of double
takes that Mortimer Brewster does in "Arsenic and Old Lace" as he
reacts to the slowly unfolding explanation of his two sweet little old
aunt's hobbies. You can see that one coming too, but seeing it coming
is a major part of the fun.
Comedy is like sex (including that small subset of comedy which is not
in some way about sex). Either you like a particular thing or you
don't, and if you don't then having someone who does like it explain
it doesn't help. Probably better to leave it alone if it isn't funny
to you; tastes differ. Heck, there are probably people who read
"Cryptonomicon" without laughing once.
Louann
Heather Garvey
(SPOILERS HO!)
.
.
.
.
.
.
Henry Churchyard <chu...@usa.net> wrote:
>David Brukman <david....@nofoodstuffs.iname.com> wrote:
>> I liked the book, but I found the party rather uncomfortable. I
>> thought the plot strings leading to it were a bit intrusive, and
>> Miles' behavior a bit too self-destructive.
>
>and for most of that time was
>halted by the heavy-handed signals of Impending Humilation (didn't get
>much beyond the switching of the place settings),
I was cringing throughout the book because there's a limit
to my ability to handle heavy-handed farce. I tend to spend the entire
time yelling "Why didn't you just <do incredibly obvious thing to keep
the situation from becoming a circus of humiliation>?!?!" and then
I start hating characters-I-previously-liked for their idiocy. Mark,
for example. And Ivan. The farce required them to be complete asses
with an actual desire to inflict suffering and humiliation on others.
All the non-farce bits were great, though. I'd suggest
grinning and bearing it through the annoying bits (For example, I
completely skimmed the butter fight at the end. It's nice to know
the Vorkosigans harbor criminals if it means financial gain... :( )
--
Heather Garvey | We who stride like giants across the
ra...@xnet.com | world and allow all the systems to
The Lady with the LART | speak, each unto the other.
http://home.xnet.com/~raven/ | -- Chad Robinson, BOFH
ale...@my-deja.com
ra...@typhoon.xnet.com (Heather Garvey) wrote:
> I was cringing throughout the book because there's a limit
> to my ability to handle heavy-handed farce. I tend to spend the entire
> time yelling "Why didn't you just <do incredibly obvious thing to keep
> the situation from becoming a circus of humiliation>?!?!" and then
> I start hating characters-I-previously-liked for their idiocy. Mark,
> for example. And Ivan. The farce required them to be complete asses
> with an actual desire to inflict suffering and humiliation on others.
You are not the only one. I've been hanging out here bitchin' 'bout
_ACC_ and _Komarr_ for so long it must start seem like an obsession.
Still, I think that a series that contains books like _Mirror Dance_
and _Memory_ was too good to meet with the kind of ignoble end that
_Komarr_ and _ACC_, IMHO, are. I simply expected so much more from
Bujold since she has shown she is capable of writing very good books
in the past.
The main problem with _ACC_ is that it requires half the cast (the men)
to behave like larger-than-life morons in order to have the plot
develop as she wants it. I'm unsure why Bujold hasn't been taken to
task over this to a far larger extent in this group - it's a sin that
usually carries a hefty reviewer penalty. To be sure, Bujold has always
been partial to the "men are stupid and need to get at taste of superior
female wisdom" idea, but up to _Komarr_ she kept this streak to a
tolerable level. In _Komarr_ and _ACC_ she goes hogwild with the notion,
to the serious detriment to her writing.
Bujold managed to take herself out of my buy-in-hardcover list with
_Komarr_ and out of my buy-at-all list with _ACC_. I understand she's
doing fanatsy next, so I probably won't return to her anytime soon. If
she ever does a Vorkoverse novel again, I'll be sure to borrow it it
first - she has a lot of things to prove now.
To the original poster of this thread; drop _ACC_ now. If you aren't
among those who are charmed by Bujolds admittedly superior skill in
handling language and find the plot and theme of _ACC_ too much to
put up with so far, you won't enjoy the rest either.
/Alex
Steven Brust
LHeilb8013 wrote:
I haven't read that one yet, but I agree with your point. I don't know what these
writers are thinking about, to try experiments and things when there are people out
there who want stuff that's just the same as they've been buying. They don't seem
to understand that a book is just a product, the same as a can of beans or a pair
of shoes or a three-speed vibrator. Mostly like a three-speed vibrator, I guess.
Think what it would be like if you bought what you thought was a three-speed
vibrator and it turned out to be a Ming vase or something. I mean, nothing against
Ming vases, but when you want a three-speed vibrator, well, you want a three-speed
vibrator. Is that so hard for these writers to understand?
The really, really good writers, like PIers Anthony and John Norman and guys like
that don't waste their readers time and money with silly "experiments." That's why
they're so successful. Why won't these people learn?
--
Steven K. Zoltan Brust "The less you bet, the more
sk...@dreamcafe.com you lose when you win."
Wyatt Earp
Eimear Ni Mhealoid
Steven Brust <sk...@dreamcafe.com> wrote in message
news:39EC9C42...@dreamcafe.com...
> I haven't read that one yet, but I agree with your point. I don't know
> what these writers are thinking about, to try experiments and things when
> there are people out there who want stuff that's just the same as they've
> been buying. They don't seem to understand that a book is just a product,
> the same as a can of beans or a pair of shoes or a three-speed vibrator.
> Mostly like a three-speed vibrator, I guess.
> Think what it would be like if you bought what you thought was a
> speed vibrator and it turned out to be a Ming vase or something. I
> mean, nothing against Ming vases, but when you want a three-speed
> vibrator, well, you want a three-speed vibrator. Is that so hard for
> these writers to understand?
>
> The really, really good writers, like PIers Anthony and John Norman and
> guys like that don't waste their readers time and money with silly
> "experiments." That's why they're so successful. Why won't these people
> learn?
Damn you, I am still giggling and wiping tears away from my eyes five
minutes later. If I didn't already own all those of your books that I can
get my hands on, I would go out and buy them.
--
Eimear Ni Mhealoid
Sean Eric Fagan
Steven Brust <sk...@dreamcafe.com> wrote:
[reformated. _Please_ only use 80 column lines.]
>I haven't read that one yet, but I agree with your point. I don't know what
>these writers are thinking about, to try experiments and things when there
>are people out there who want stuff that's just the same as they've been
>buying.
Obviously, you're being sarcastic. But perhaps you shouldn't be...
At what point does the "experiment" get in the way of just telling the story?
A few books ago, I came to the conclusion (whether true or false) that you
were _bored_ with writing, and so had to keep trying some new way of telling a
story. Iain M. Banks appears to do the same thing -- nearly every book is
told in a different style, usually by some internal chronology difference.
But consider _Feersum Enjinn_, of which a third is written in a very
hard-to-read format. Or your own Paarfi Romances, which are nearly as hard to
read.
(What this has to do with aCC, I dunno. Especially since I don't think it was
boring at all.)
Louann Miller
>The main problem with _ACC_ is that it requires half the cast (the men)
>to behave like larger-than-life morons in order to have the plot
>develop as she wants it.
Comedies tend to rely on people being dumb to generate conflict (as
opposed to people being evil) because it lowers the stakes and keeps
the intensity of conflict down. If someone does you great harm by a
deliberately calculated remark, you're going to think of him as an
enemy. If the remark was a medically-excusable brain glitch, then no
enmity is required.
A lot of male characters do make blunders, but so do some female ones
-- the nuclear-level response to Kareen's non-virginity seems to have
been her mom's doing as much as her dad's, for example. But it's not
by any means universal. I can't think of any dumb moves by Vorthys,
Gregor, Aral, or Nikki for example. Byerly and Ivan are both falsely
perceived as dumb but turn out to be smart.
Miles pulls some dumb moves (entirely in character with the
non-romantic self-sabotage he pulled in "Memory") but redeems them
with the splendid letter. (His mom may have had the idea of the letter
itself, just as she and his dad working together helped Miles
understand what his mistake had been, but the splendor was all Miles'
own work.)
I can't think of any dumb romantic moves by Mark, offhand. His
blunders are in the business world (helping Enrique jump bail) while
his handling of Kareen's family vs. romance conflicts is pretty much
perfect. He offers support at the right times, he steps back at the
right times. He does a bit of panicky blurting at the dinner party,
but it's nothing next to Miles' and the damage was already done by
that point.
Louann
J.B. Moreno
-snip-
> It's nice to know the Vorkosigans harbor criminals if it means financial
> gain... :( )
And you don't think there was even the tiniest element of giving a
second chance?
Frankly it rather boggles me that people object to that -- extradition
is denied all of the time in the real world (even within the US between
States) and is nothing exceptional.
And the crime he had committed was one of financial stupidity, not of
malice or violence.
The very fact that they tried to retrieve their criminal without first
going through all of the proper channels is in the real world quite
sufficient grounds for denying extradition then or in the future for
this case -- an excellent case to use to teach them a lesson (i.e.
unlike a case involving violence or something else unpleasant, the
Vorkosigans won't object to his being a resident in their territory).
--
JBM
"Moebius strippers only show you their back side." -- Unknown
iain.coleman
> Comedies tend to rely on people being dumb to generate conflict (as
> opposed to people being evil)
Only bad ones.
Iain
J.B. Moreno
> I can't think of any dumb romantic moves by Mark, offhand. His
> blunders are in the business world (helping Enrique jump bail)
Not even this -- this is a calculated risk, or at least should have
been. One that seems to have paid off thanks to his brother.
His financial mistake was in using the shares as payment without making
it clear that they were collateral against cash payments at a later
date.
Given that none of the services were of a capital nature, and were done
at least in part out of goodwill not as a profit making venture, his
best path probably would have been to have simply had them submit a bill
with payment to be made in the next quarter/budgetary period.
Mark Reichert
news:8shqkg$aao$1...@flood.xnet.com...
> the Vorkosigans harbor criminals if it means financial gain... :( )
Enrique will probably pay back the creditors exactly the money they
invested, just so he can leave the district and the planet. That the
creditors would rather have Enrique sitting in prison, rather than making
them money, just shows how stupid the creditors are.
--
Please respond only in the newsgroup. I will not respond
to newsgroup messages by e-mail.
Heather Garvey
>Heather Garvey <ra...@typhoon.xnet.com> wrote:
>
>> It's nice to know the Vorkosigans harbor criminals if it means financial
>> gain... :( )
>
>And you don't think there was even the tiniest element of giving a
>second chance?
There's a right way of accomplishing that and a wrong way.
Unless I see the Vorkosigans making some sort of attempt to right
Enrique's earlier wrongs (or make Enrique right them), then yes, I am
assuming that the Vorkosigans don't care if they are harboring a criminal
as long as they profit from it.
>And the crime he had committed was one of financial stupidity, not of
>malice or violence.
That doesn't help the people whom he bilked. They made good faith
investments in him, he took their money, used it and then ran out.
He's not an unjustly prosecuted political prisoner or anything - he's
a thief. Through incompetence, perhaps, but those people are out their
money regardless.
>The very fact that they tried to retrieve their criminal without first
>going through all of the proper channels is in the real world quite
>sufficient grounds for denying extradition then or in the future for
>this case -- an excellent case to use to teach them a lesson (i.e.
>unlike a case involving violence or something else unpleasant, the
>Vorkosigans won't object to his being a resident in their territory).
This is really stretching it. Those poor Escobarrans had
about a thousand pieces of paper, in an honest attempt to fulfill
every possible channel. How were they to know that a 'foreign'
embassy would be granting him asylum? (They already had the Vorbarran
approval for acting within that District.)
R. Tang
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:58:35 GMT, ale...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>The main problem with _ACC_ is that it requires half the cast (the men)
>>to behave like larger-than-life morons in order to have the plot
>>develop as she wants it.
>
>the intensity of conflict down.
And, of course, we are ALL so smart in real life, that we'd NEVER
do such dumb things, particularly with repsect to our romantic lives....
--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
R. Tang
iain.coleman <iain.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Louann Miller wrote:
>
>> Comedies tend to rely on people being dumb to generate conflict (as
>> opposed to people being evil)
>
I disagree.
More to the point, I believe good comedies MUST have people acting
dumb in very human, very forgiveable ways--you do not have that many
comedies where everybody acts smart...inevitably, there is at least one
person who allows his/her fears or his/her egos to get in the way....and
hijinks ensue.....
Mark Atwood
>
> >The very fact that they tried to retrieve their criminal without first
> >going through all of the proper channels is in the real world quite
> >sufficient grounds for denying extradition then or in the future for
> >this case -- an excellent case to use to teach them a lesson (i.e.
> >unlike a case involving violence or something else unpleasant, the
> >Vorkosigans won't object to his being a resident in their territory).
>
> This is really stretching it. Those poor Escobarrans had
> about a thousand pieces of paper, in an honest attempt to fulfill
> every possible channel.
They were going thru proper channels yes, but they they were also
trying for a "stealth" grab. The Esco cop even said that part of the
reason for his burucratic nightmare was his effort to get the
paperwork lined up without alerting their target.
What I didn't buy was that the final grab was being done by Esco cops.
In the "real world" an extradition arrest is done by the *local cops*,
who then turn over the detainee to the destination police.
The cops arresting Enrique should have been the local civil patrol,
which would have already *known* about the "A Residence is an Embassy"
rule. (That's *why* you have local cops do the arrest, because they
know the local arrest rules.)
--
Mark Atwood | Freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom from choice.
m...@pobox.com | Is that the freedom you want?
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
J.B. Moreno
> J.B. Moreno <pl...@newsreaders.com> wrote:
> >Heather Garvey <ra...@typhoon.xnet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It's nice to know the Vorkosigans harbor criminals if it means
> >> financial gain... :( )
> >
> >And you don't think there was even the tiniest element of giving a
> >second chance?
>
> There's a right way of accomplishing that and a wrong way.
> Unless I see the Vorkosigans making some sort of attempt to right
> Enrique's earlier wrongs (or make Enrique right them), then yes, I am
> assuming that the Vorkosigans don't care if they are harboring a criminal
> as long as they profit from it.
Miles was hardly doing it for person profit (in the form of cash),
although protecting his family and benefiting the people he is
responsible for could be covered under "profit" I guess.
As for harboring -- I'd say that contains the implication that such
actions are either illegal or immoral, and I don't believe either can be
justified in this case. Illegal, they have no jurisdiction to retrieve
him, so he isn't being "harbored" in that sense, he is simply out of
their reach. And immoral, they have a different idea as to what is the
best thing for him to be doing. The Vorkosigans have exactly as much
right to decide that he should be a free citizen as the Escobarans have
to decide that he should be rotting in jail.
I agree that it would be nice if Enrique attempted to compensate the
people that he harmed, but I don't think the Vorkosigan's are obligation
to ensure that he does so.
> >And the crime he had committed was one of financial stupidity, not of
> >malice or violence.
>
> That doesn't help the people whom he bilked. They made good faith
> investments in him, he took their money, used it and then ran out. He's
> not an unjustly prosecuted political prisoner or anything - he's a thief.
> Through incompetence, perhaps, but those people are out their money
> regardless.
Yes, he's a thief, and yes, they are out their money -- but there is
still a vast difference between incompetence and malice.
> >The very fact that they tried to retrieve their criminal without first
> >going through all of the proper channels is in the real world quite
> >sufficient grounds for denying extradition then or in the future for
> >this case -- an excellent case to use to teach them a lesson (i.e.
> >unlike a case involving violence or something else unpleasant, the
> >Vorkosigans won't object to his being a resident in their territory).
>
> This is really stretching it. Those poor Escobarrans had
> about a thousand pieces of paper, in an honest attempt to fulfill
> every possible channel. How were they to know that a 'foreign'
> embassy would be granting him asylum? (They already had the Vorbarran
> approval for acting within that District.)
So? They could have been denied anywhere along that path -- the fact
that it was the last and final authorization that was required is
irrelevant as is the fact that they were unaware that they needed to do
so; they still didn't cross all of their t's.
BTW -- you might notice that you are willing to let THEM off on a
"technicality" while not affording the same right to either the
Vorkosigan's or Enrique. Both would be well within their "rights" to
charge the Escobaran's with a crime -- attempted kidnapping, assault,
attempted assault, damage to a Vor lord's property, trespassing.
It wouldn't help his victims any (but then again, neither would him
doing jail time), but the two governments (Vorkosigan District and
Escobar's Planetary government) might just be willing to call it
even-steven on that basis alone (i.e. they stop trying to retrieve him
while he is within the Imperium, and no charges are made against their
agent).
The Vorkosigan's are every bit as much a government as the Escobar is,
and both have obligations to their people -- not to any abstract concept
of "justice". Both acted in what they thought were the people's best
interest. Given the nature of the crime, I think any appeal to a wider
sense of humanities best interest would be rather exaggerated.
Mike Schilling
without first
> going through all of the proper channels is in the real world quite
> sufficient grounds for denying extradition then or in the future for
> this case -- an excellent case to use to teach them a lesson (i.e.
> unlike a case involving violence or something else unpleasant, the
> Vorkosigans won't object to his being a resident in their territory).
If Miles was telling the truth, of course; I have some doubt.
Taki Kogoma
to rec.arts.sf.written decree...
>I agree that it would be nice if Enrique attempted to compensate the
>people that he harmed, but I don't think the Vorkosigan's are obligation
>to ensure that he does so.
ISTR that Mark was planning on paying Enrique's fines and restitution
when his cash-flow situation had cleared up.
Gym "Gee...Another excuse to re-read...;-)" Quirk
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
quirk @ swcp.com | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
LHeilb8013
>>> I know Bujold is very popular here, and I've read and enjoyed
>>>all her other books but this one is really dull so far......
>>>Miles is currently all out of sorts at a freaking dinner party!!!!
>
>>If you didn't like the dinner party, you definitely won't enjoy the rest of
>>the book-- that's probably the highest of its many comic and emotional high
>>points. Myself, I thought the whole book was wonderful, but to each his
>>own.
>
>Agreed. The big dinner party scene is also about halfway through
>the book. While I had some problems with that scene, itself, I had
>really enjoyed most of what led up to it, so I knew I was likely to
>enjoy the rest of the book.
>
>As a general rule, if you read a book past the midpoint and still
>dislike it, it's usually safe to give up on it. That doesn't mean
>it's a bad book, just that it's not to your taste. I'm pretty
>stubborn, and I used to feel oddly uncomfortable about having a book
>in the house that I hadn't read all the way through, so I've read a
>fair number of books even though I didn't much like them.
I'll have to admit my original post was made at the stage of the party where
Miles was bent out of shape because someone upset his seating arrangements, and
I thought that was pretty silly considering how he's handled slightly more
serious crises in the past in this series.There was some humor in the rest of
the party but I still don't buy Miles as the part incompetent, part
manipulative lovestruck teenager......I will probaly stay with it but only
because the series is one of the few which often expects the reader to know
what has happened in other volumes and I do have some interest in the Donna
subplot. No spoilers please:)
Lloyd Heilbrunn
LHeilb8013
>
>> I know Bujold is very popular here, and I've read and enjoyed all her other
>> books but this one is really dull so far...... Miles is currently all out
>of
>Austen??? Or
>> another example of one of those silly experiments that successful authors
>try
>> to show they don't need to stick to what works??? Oh well, maybe it will
>get
>> better.........
>
>these
>writers are thinking about, to try experiments and things when there are
>people out
>seem
>to understand that a book is just a product, the same as a can of beans or a
>pair
>of shoes or a three-speed vibrator. Mostly like a three-speed vibrator, I
>guess.
>vibrator and it turned out to be a Ming vase or something. I mean, nothing
>against
>Ming vases, but when you want a three-speed vibrator, well, you want a
>three-speed
>vibrator. Is that so hard for these writers to understand?
>
>The really, really good writers, like PIers Anthony and John Norman and guys
>like
>that don't waste their readers time and money with silly "experiments."
>That's why
>they're so successful. Why won't these people learn?
>
>Steven K. Zoltan Brust "The less you bet, the more
>sk...@dreamcafe.com you lose when you win."
> Wyatt Earp
>
>
>
Touche. I think its just me. Probably a personality defect relating to my
disliking change in my life!!:) But in general one of the reason I like series
authors is probably the familiarity.......... I do prefer experiments in
style to be at least based on new characters or surroundings rather than to
have old characters act out of character, as Miles does here, IMO, to prove a
creative point!!
But at least I'm consistent, I prefer your Vlad books to the Khaavren
romances......:)
Lloyd Heilbrunn
Heather Garvey
>pl...@newsreaders.com (J.B. Moreno), to rec.arts.sf.written decree...
>>I agree that it would be nice if Enrique attempted to compensate the
>>people that he harmed, but I don't think the Vorkosigan's are obligation
>>to ensure that he does so.
>
>ISTR that Mark was planning on paying Enrique's fines and restitution
>when his cash-flow situation had cleared up.
I didn't catch that, but then the whole Mark thing had me
wincing so much, I might have skimmed that. See, that, to me, is
workable. If the Vorkosigans expect to at least make some kind of
restitution when things start turning a profit, then to me, their
honor is served well enough.
I'm not saying that Enrique needs to be "punished" - but I
do think it's really unjust for him to jump bond and go make himself
and Mark immensely rich while ignoring the fact that he stole from
a bunch of people. Reasonable restitution is all I would ask of him,
and enough to keep me from thinking the Vorkosigans have turned into
the Bad Guys. :)
Mike Schilling
> LHeilb8013 wrote:
>
> > I know Bujold is very popular here, and I've read and enjoyed all her other
> > books but this one is really dull so far...... Miles is currently all out of
> > sorts at a freaking dinner party!!!! Is this a bad attempt at Jane Austen??? Or
> > another example of one of those silly experiments that successful authors try
> > to show they don't need to stick to what works??? Oh well, maybe it will get
> > better.........
>
> I haven't read that one yet, but I agree with your point. I don't know what these
> writers are thinking about, to try experiments and things when there are people out
> there who want stuff that's just the same as they've been buying. They don't seem
> to understand that a book is just a product, the same as a can of beans or a pair
> of shoes or a three-speed vibrator. Mostly like a three-speed vibrator, I guess.
> Think what it would be like if you bought what you thought was a three-speed
> vibrator and it turned out to be a Ming vase or something. I mean, nothing against
> Ming vases, but when you want a three-speed vibrator, well, you want a three-speed
> vibrator. Is that so hard for these writers to understand?
>
> The really, really good writers, like PIers Anthony and John Norman and guys like
> that don't waste their readers time and money with silly "experiments." That's why
> they're so successful. Why won't these people learn?
Too bad for Vlad you don't take your own advice -- you could be finishing up your 15th
or 20th book of him and Cawti happily "working" together.
J.B. Moreno
> "J.B. Moreno" wrote:
> >The very fact that they tried to retrieve their criminal without first
> >going through all of the proper channels is in the real world quite
> >sufficient grounds for denying extradition then or in the future for this
> >case [...]
>
> If Miles was telling the truth, of course; I have some doubt.
I don't, it's too easy to check.
Kate Nepveu
> The main problem with _ACC_ is that it requires half the cast (the men)
> to behave like larger-than-life morons in order to have the plot
> develop as she wants it.
Could you specify who and how?
Kate
--
http://lynx.neu.edu/k/knepveu/ -- The Paired Reading Page; Reviews
"I can't promise that I'll grow those wings
Or keep this tarnished halo shined
But I'll never betray your trust
Angel mine" --Cowboy Junkies, "Angel Mine"
Kate Nepveu
> In article <39EC9C42...@dreamcafe.com>,
> Steven Brust <sk...@dreamcafe.com> wrote:
> >I haven't read that one yet, but I agree with your point. I don't know what
> >these writers are thinking about, to try experiments and things when there
> >are people out there who want stuff that's just the same as they've been
> >buying.
> Obviously, you're being sarcastic. But perhaps you shouldn't be...
> At what point does the "experiment" get in the way of just telling the story?
When the form no longer serves the content.
> A few books ago, I came to the conclusion (whether true or false) that you
> were _bored_ with writing, and so had to keep trying some new way of telling a
> story.
Another way of looking at the same thing would be the need to continue
to challenge oneself/grow as a writer.
> Iain M. Banks appears to do the same thing -- nearly every book is
> told in a different style, usually by some internal chronology difference.
> But consider _Feersum Enjinn_, of which a third is written in a very
> hard-to-read format.
And the latest, _Look to Windward_, I'm not entirely sure if playing
with the povs hasn't gone to far. There are one or two things that
seem a little too close to *phbbbt*ing the reader for my taste.
> Or your own Paarfi Romances, which are nearly as hard to
> read.
You think? Wow.
Richard Horton
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:16:01 GMT, Abigail Ann Young
<abigai...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
> but she's no Jane Austen or Charlotte
>Bronte (or even Dorothy Sayers or Georgette Heyer).
Preferred form: she's no Jane Austen, nor yet a Dorothy Sayers or
Georgette Heyer (though she does what she does almost as well as they
do what they do), and neither is she a Charlotte Bronte, thank Ghod.
(OK, that's a bit unfair. But there is a huge gulf between Austen and
Bronte, seems to me.)
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.sfsite.com/tangent)
Robert A. Woodward
jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
> LHeilb said:
>
> >I know Bujold is very popular here, and I've read and enjoyed all her other
> >books but this one is really dull so far...... Miles is currently all out of
> >sorts at a freaking dinner party!!!! Is this a bad attempt at Jane Austen???
> >Or another example of one of those silly experiments that successful authors
> try
> >to show they don't need to stick to what works???
>
> I thought the dinner party scene was a hilarious climax to _several_ subplots.
> I loved it :)
>
I really didn't like the party itself - the parts of chapter 9 before and
after the party I liked. Aral managed to arrive in time to deliver one of
his devastating lines - "Which one."
--
rawoo...@aol.com
robe...@halcyon.com http://www.halcyon.com/robertaw/
raks...@my-deja.com
> Steven Brust <sk...@dreamcafe.com> wrote:
>
> >I haven't read that one yet, but I agree with your point. I don't
know what
> >these writers are thinking about, to try experiments and things when
there
> >are people out there who want stuff that's just the same as they've
been
> >buying.
>
> Obviously, you're being sarcastic. But perhaps you shouldn't be...
>
> At what point does the "experiment" get in the way of just telling
the story?
Sometimes the "experimental" style or structure is essential to the
story. For instance, the "I am typing right now" style and structure
of Steve Brust's _Agyar_. Tell that story in a more ordinary way, and
it completely ruins both the beginning and the ending, and much of the
space in between.
Or the chapters alternating in place and time, as Ursula Le Guin does
in _The Dispossessed_ and Iain Banks does in _Use of Weapons_. In the
case of the former, the structure illustrates and reflects what and
where the book is about, and the main character's central conflict and
character arc; in the latter, it's the only way to keep suspense
building on two time-lines simultaneously, and get to a genuinely
devastating ending.
> A few books ago, I came to the conclusion (whether true or false)
that you
> were _bored_ with writing, and so had to keep trying some new way of
telling a
> story.
If you really love writing, you'll try new ways of doing it, for the
love of alone, and because you're always hoping to push it to better
levels. And, of course, because if you feel like you're doing the same
thing every time, you will bore yourself, and quite possibly bore many
of your readers.
>Iain M. Banks appears to do the same thing -- nearly every book is
> told in a different style, usually by some internal chronology
difference.
> But consider _Feersum Enjinn_, of which a third is written in a very
> hard-to-read format. Or your own Paarfi Romances, which are nearly
as hard to
> read.
To each his own. Some people love the Paarfi Romances. Some people
even love Hoban's _Riddley Walker_, which is written completely
phonetically.
I'd rather writers take more risks that excite them and occasionally
produce books I don't like, than play it too safe and end up driving me
away completely.
Rachel
Michael S. Schiffer
>...
>Touche. I think its just me. Probably a personality defect relating to my
>disliking change in my life!!:) But in general one of the reason I like series
>authors is probably the familiarity.......... I do prefer experiments in
>style to be at least based on new characters or surroundings rather than to
>have old characters act out of character, as Miles does here, IMO, to prove a
>creative point!!
> But at least I'm consistent, I prefer your Vlad books to the Khaavren
>romances......:)
You don't think the Vlad books have undergone one or more changes in
tone and character between _Jhereg_ and _Dragon_? Especially around,
say, _Teckla_?
Now, personally I like the Khaavren romances far more than _Teckla_
(though I've enjoyed several of the Vlad books after _Teckla_, so I'd
chalk that up to some experiments working for me and some not). But a
more static Vlad series would have seen our assassin-for-hire's
personal and professional lives remain comparatively static (or at
most evolving-- gaining or losing territory and status, Vlad and Cawti
having kids or not, etc.) Instead, his life's been turned upside down
two or three times, and at the same time we've seen experiments with
different narrators, chronological jumping around both within and
between books, and some reexamination of the actions and motivations
of Vlad and his associates and how they affect other people.
I like some of what's been done and dislike some of it, but I don't
think the Vlad series has been much less varied than the Miles books.
(Perhaps less varied than the Vorkosigan books as a whole, but for
that the comparison would be all the books in the world of Dragaera,
including the Khaavren romances and _Brokedown Palace_.)
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS If reading in an archive, please do
ms...@mediaone.net not click on words highlighted as links
msch...@condor.depaul.edu by Deja or other archives. They violate
the author's copyright and his wishes.
David T. Bilek
>s...@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) wrote:
><
>> Iain M. Banks appears to do the same thing -- nearly every book is
>> told in a different style, usually by some internal chronology difference.
>> But consider _Feersum Enjinn_, of which a third is written in a very
>> hard-to-read format.
>
>with the povs hasn't gone to far. There are one or two things that
>seem a little too close to *phbbbt*ing the reader for my taste.
>
Hmm, can you be more specific? I just read _Look to Windward_ and
thought it was by far the most straightforward of the Culture books.
Nothing at all like the pov games in _Use of Weapons_ or the
identity games in _Player of Games_.
Did I miss something?
-David
Randall Miyashiro
wrote:
>I haven't read that one yet, but I agree with your point. I don't know what these
>writers are thinking about, to try experiments and things when there are people out
>there who want stuff that's just the same as they've been buying. They don't seem
>to understand that a book is just a product, the same as a can of beans or a pair
>of shoes or a three-speed vibrator. Mostly like a three-speed vibrator, I guess.
>Think what it would be like if you bought what you thought was a three-speed
>vibrator and it turned out to be a Ming vase or something. I mean, nothing against
>Ming vases, but when you want a three-speed vibrator, well, you want a three-speed
>vibrator. Is that so hard for these writers to understand?
I know what you mean! Reading creepy stuff typed in an attic, or
reading a pile of letters... its all too strange for my conservative
tastes. And why is that novel about a bunch of artists struggling to
survive in today's world in the SF section?
>The really, really good writers, like PIers Anthony and John Norman and guys like
>that don't waste their readers time and money with silly "experiments." That's why
>they're so successful. Why won't these people learn?
Indeed! Avoid people like Zelazny, Bester and Ellison at all costs.
Their books are filled with strange ideas and should have gone out of
print with the sixties. I can't wait for the next 20 Xanth novels!
-Randall Miyashiro
Brenda
Richard Horton wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:16:01 GMT, Abigail Ann Young
> <abigai...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> > but she's no Jane Austen or Charlotte
> >Bronte (or even Dorothy Sayers or Georgette Heyer).
>
> Preferred form: she's no Jane Austen, nor yet a Dorothy Sayers or
> Georgette Heyer (though she does what she does almost as well as they
> do what they do), and neither is she a Charlotte Bronte, thank Ghod.
>
> (OK, that's a bit unfair. But there is a huge gulf between Austen and
> Bronte, seems to me.)
Austen is definitely a Regency writer, whereas Bronte is an early Victorian.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough, author of DOORS OF DEATH AND LIFE
From Tor Books in May 2000
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
LHeilb8013
But , IMO, Vlad remained pretty true to his basic character. Now, if in the the
next volume Vlad becomes Maxwell Smart the incompetent assassin, then I would
have a similar gripe with Mr. Brust....... then again, if he writes the next
Vlad in Duma'sspeak, then I will probably find it as stylistically difficult to
read as the Romances, but I still would not be as annoyed as Miles and Mark as
suddenly comic characters.
Now, if The Civil Campaign had IVAN as the central figure, and Miles and Mark
in cameo roles then I would like it better, see Ivan has always been comic
relief........
Lloyd Heilbrunn
Sean Eric Fagan
Kate Nepveu <kate....@yale.edu> wrote:
>> At what point does the "experiment" get in the way of just telling the story?
In case it wasn't clear to everyone, this _was_ a real, serious question.
I've written a few "alternative style" pieces (which didn't work :)), but I
usually stick with just straight narrative.
>> Or your own Paarfi Romances, which are nearly as hard to
>> read.
>You think? Wow.
Yes, I do.
When the narration goes off on 2+ page rants that have no real relation to the
main story, but only serve to say, "See how clever I am for writing in a style
similar to Dumas?"... it gets hard to read. Not as hard as _Feersum Enjinn_,
but it takes me longer to read either _The Phoenix Guards_ or _Five Hundred
Years After_ than the first four or five Taltos books.
And my personal opinion on the books is: once was impressive, but I don't see
the need for any further in that style. I realize not everyone shares that
opinion, and it hasn't stopped me from buying the books... but I still find
myself wondering, "Why?"
Lucy Kemnitzer
<rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:16:01 GMT, Abigail Ann Young
><abigai...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> but she's no Jane Austen or Charlotte
>>Bronte (or even Dorothy Sayers or Georgette Heyer).
>
>Preferred form: she's no Jane Austen, nor yet a Dorothy Sayers or
>Georgette Heyer (though she does what she does almost as well as they
>do what they do), and neither is she a Charlotte Bronte, thank Ghod.
>
>(OK, that's a bit unfair. But there is a huge gulf between Austen and
>Bronte, seems to me.)
Yes, Charlotte Bronte is mine, I get to read them all, me, me. I
should own my own copy of _Shirley_.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Nancy Lebovitz
Kate Nepveu <kate....@yale.edu> wrote:
>ale...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> The main problem with _ACC_ is that it requires half the cast (the men)
>> to behave like larger-than-life morons in order to have the plot
>> develop as she wants it.
>
>Could you specify who and how?
>
was the *only* one in the book who was fouling up his love life. This
is not to say that I thought more of the male characters in particular
should have been, but rather that it seemed surprising that everyone
else was so sensible.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
.
<na...@unix3.netaxs.com> writes
Make that three :-).
I don`t think this book is meant to be taken too seriously. Some bits in
it were silly IMO, but in a good way. I had lots of fun reading the book
and my husband enjoyed it as well. When reading about the dinner party
the first time I was laughing all the time and wondering, what will
happen next?
To me it was a welcome change from the excellent but darker storyline
about Miles death, rebirth and growth. I think as a one-off ACC is
definitely all right. I can imagine that Bujold also had fun writing
this book. But I think the next book should come back to what we are
used in the Vorkosigan series. Me personally, I would love it if the
next book would be more adventure based, perhaps dealing with the
Dendarii Mercenaries and meeting some of Miles old friends. What I would
also love to read it seeing Miles working together with Bel Thorne
again.
Hm, the only man who behaved like a moron was IMO Enrique. He was a
likeable moron, but a moron nonetheless :-).
Concerning Miles, he made a serious mistake but there was nothing
moronic about it. I could understand why he made it, I could see that he
was genuinely sorry. He was willing to face the consequences and to
learn from it. Miles is watching his gift to be able to manipulate
people more closely now and I have the feeling Ekaterin was realizing
more towards the end of the book that Miles ability can be used for good
and evil - but that Miles never used it maliciously.
I can`t blame Illyan for his mistake either. The mistake was Miles, he
should have told him.
The contrary - I think never before was it shown more clearly that Ivan
is not an idiot as so many people think, who is, by the way, the only
guy left without a love life.
Baerbel Haddrell
Mark Reichert
> The main problem with _ACC_ is that it requires half the cast (the men)
> to behave like larger-than-life morons in order to have the plot
> develop as she wants it.
Oh, so men, particularly Miles, Mark, and Ivan, should always be competent
when it comes to serious relationships with women. What world are you
living in?
--
Please respond only in the newsgroup. I will not respond
to newsgroup messages by e-mail.
Mark Reichert
news:20001017182421...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
> Touche. I think its just me. Probably a personality defect relating to my
> disliking change in my life!!:) But in general one of the reason I like
series
> authors is probably the familiarity.......... I do prefer experiments in
> style to be at least based on new characters or surroundings rather than
to
> have old characters act out of character, as Miles does here, IMO, to
prove a
> creative point!!
In what way does Miles act out of character? His actions at the beginning
of ACC are completely consistent with his tendency to try to control things
on one hand and to let something snowball out of control on the other.
Mark Reichert
> Now, if The Civil Campaign had IVAN as the central figure, and Miles and
Mark
> in cameo roles then I would like it better, see Ivan has always been comic
> relief........
Miles and Mark have never been comic relief, but Miles at least has been in
a number of humorous situations.
Mark Reichert
news:39ECAA09...@ntlworld.com...
> Louann Miller wrote:
>
> > Comedies tend to rely on people being dumb to generate conflict (as
> > opposed to people being evil)
>
> Only bad ones.
You haven't read or seen many comedies.
Mark Reichert
news:8sijnv$n7v$1...@flood.xnet.com...
> I'm not saying that Enrique needs to be "punished" - but I
> do think it's really unjust for him to jump bond and go make himself
> and Mark immensely rich while ignoring the fact that he stole from
> a bunch of people. Reasonable restitution is all I would ask of him,
I don't. The people were incredibly stupid enough to prefer jailing Enrique
just when his venture was about to take off. They deserve to lose their
money.
Besides, bilking implies that he did it deliberately. Given his character
flaws, I assume he honestly forgot how much a percentage of the venture he'd
already sold off, and very much intended (and intends) to pay everybody back
their investment.
As for Mark, he saw that the creditors were being stupid, and that Barrayar
needed the technology. I also give him a little slack because any
Jacksonian wouldn't understand your complaint at all, and would think Mark
stupid for making any restitution whatsoever.
Mark Reichert
news:1einxgn.cetvgauu8wkpN%pl...@newsreaders.com...
> > If Miles was telling the truth, of course; I have some doubt.
>
> I don't, it's too easy to check.
Not only that, but if it isn't true, flying Enrique down to the district
wouldn't save him from being extradited.
ale...@my-deja.com
kate....@yale.edu wrote:
> ale...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > The main problem with _ACC_ is that it requires half the cast (the
men)
> > to behave like larger-than-life morons in order to have the plot
> > develop as she wants it.
>
I could, but I will instead specify the few I think don't behave like
morons - it's much easier. First of, we have Nikki. He's almost an
important character, so we grant Bujold one point. Although that
wrinting about him sitting and cheering his mother on with
"go mama, go" during Ekarins proposal was a bit, well, off, to
anyone who's ever seen how children react to the idea of their parents
remarring other people.
Prof Vorthys could arguably be considered not being overly stupid,
mostly because he doesn't much do anything except get out of the way
so the plot can develop.
That's it. So we learn men are good/smart when they are too young or
too old to be in the mating game. I guess John Norman would approve,
at least given the caveat that "too young" doesn't seem to be in his
vocabulary.
No let's play another fun game; can you spot the woman who has sold
out to the Patriarchy and became a Moron in the process? I knew you
could - Hugo's wife sure could use a bit of Betan liberalism to
improve her sad life.
About the only man in the whole book I had any kind of respect for
is that VorBabyFactory guy (forgot his name) who realises that all
this new, much-approved life technology empowers him to do something
profitable and address that girl shortage that Bujold's set up. Too
bad his innovative solutions don't meet with the kind of enthusiastic
approval all other liberal ideas seem to get - shouldn't the Vicereine
be delighted at the creative deconstruction of the stultifying
ingrained behavior patterns of yore?
/Alex
Kate Nepveu
> >> At what point does the "experiment" get in the way of just telling the story?
> >When the form no longer serves the content.
> In case it wasn't clear to everyone, this _was_ a real, serious question.
> I've written a few "alternative style" pieces (which didn't work :)), but I
> usually stick with just straight narrative.
I'm not a writer, so I can only speak from a reader's perspective (and
if I were doing otherwise, we should probably be taking this to
sf.comp anyway). I can tell when stories require a particular
format--_Use of Weapons_ is the canonical example, but taking John M.
Ford as an example (another writer with style all over the map), you
*have* to do "Erase/Record/Play" as a script, because that's part of
what the story's about. On the other hand, if Ford had done "Winter
Solstice, Camelot Station" as a play, it would have been ridiculous--
the pleasure of that poem is in the richness of the descriptive
language.
Maybe you just tell stories that require straight narrative. Lots of
stories are suited to that, of course.
> >> Or your own Paarfi Romances, which are nearly as hard to
> >> read.
> >You think? Wow.
> Yes, I do.
> When the narration goes off on 2+ page rants that have no real relation to the
> main story, but only serve to say, "See how clever I am for writing in a style
> similar to Dumas?"... it gets hard to read. Not as hard as _Feersum Enjinn_,
> but it takes me longer to read either _The Phoenix Guards_ or _Five Hundred
> Years After_ than the first four or five Taltos books.
I'm not sure whether you're saying "I don't like this style, thus it's
hard for me to read" or "This is objectively unnecessary to tell the
story, thus it's hard for me to read."
If the first, well, YMMV; if the second, see below.
> And my personal opinion on the books is: once was impressive, but I don't see
> the need for any further in that style. I realize not everyone shares that
> opinion, and it hasn't stopped me from buying the books... but I still find
> myself wondering, "Why?"
Just to clarify the areas in dispute here--
What is your opinion of pastiches in general? That is, do you think
that there are some stories which appropriately fit within the
tradition, style, and form of past efforts and gain something from
drawing off that tradition?
I think that the Paarfi books would be a very different story if they
were told in a different style. I haven't read them for a while, so
my memory on specifics might be hazy--but for instance, the treatment
of the characters' code of honor would be much different in the
language of the Vlad books. To believe in and sympathize with people
with a relatively antiquated concept of honor and insult, I think you
need a style that evokes a time when this antiquated (to us) idea was
current and had force. (I'm pretty sure Vlad, who likes to think of
himself as the pragmatic assassin among romantic fools, sneers at
dueling, though I can't bring textevd to mind at the moment.)
It will be interesting to see if and how the style in the third volume
changes, as we'll be closer to the "present," furthest end of the
timeline. Part of the way the style in the Paarfi books worked for me
was to remind me that this was a long time before Vlad; I don't know
how that might interact with seeing Aliera and the rest of the gang.
I look forward to seeing how this works out.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> Iain M. Banks appears to do the same thing -- nearly every book is
> told in a different style,
I wouldn't say that. Only SoS stands out from the others as far as I can
tell. Whit and The Business are a bit on the comedy side, but all the
others are told in a very good but actually quite consistent style.
He does occasionally use a bit of unusual spelling. I don't see what's
so tragic about it... Unless there's something that makes Anglosaxon
people intrinsically uneasy with phonetic spelling - which would explain
a lot of things. :-))
Seriously though, the funny bits in The Bridge are a good use of
dialect, something I am very much in favour of. The phonetic spelling in
FE is, as some reviewer put it, totally useless, but fun.
--
Cut out the attention signal in my address to mail me
Togliete l'avvertimento nel mio indirizzo per scrivermi
Matthew Austern
> Concerning Miles, he made a serious mistake but there was nothing
> moronic about it. I could understand why he made it, I could see that he
> was genuinely sorry. He was willing to face the consequences and to
> learn from it. Miles is watching his gift to be able to manipulate
> people more closely now and I have the feeling Ekaterin was realizing
> more towards the end of the book that Miles ability can be used for good
> and evil - but that Miles never used it maliciously.
I'd say that Miles made a smart mistake, not a stupid mistake. That
is, it was the kind of bad thing that a stupid person wouldn't do, but
that a very smart person who's proud of his own cleverness might.
Steven Brust
Sean Eric Fagan wrote:
> In article <39EC9C42...@dreamcafe.com>,
> Steven Brust <sk...@dreamcafe.com> wrote:
> [reformated. _Please_ only use 80 column lines.]
I'd love to. Does anyone know how to convince Netscape 4.75 to do that?
>
> Obviously, you're being sarcastic. But perhaps you shouldn't be...
>
> At what point does the "experiment" get in the way of just telling the story?
Generally, you write the book you wish someone else had written, because you want
to read it. You hope there are others out there who want to read the same thing
you want to read. You cannot outguess a market. I don't know of anyone who does
"experiments" that results in stories he wouldn't care to read.
--
Steven K. Zoltan Brust "Never let a better hand
sk...@dreamcafe.com improve free."
Steven Brust
Matthew Austern wrote:
> I'd say that Miles made a smart mistake, not a stupid mistake. That
> is, it was the kind of bad thing that a stupid person wouldn't do, but
> that a very smart person who's proud of his own cleverness might.
What a splendid distinction! I like that. Mr. Hoover will like that. "A
smart mistake." I think I'm going to steal that and pass it off as my own.
Captain Button
[ experimental writing techniques ]
> Generally, you write the book you wish someone else had written,
> because you want to read it. You hope there are others out there
> who want to read the same thing you want to read. You cannot
> outguess a market. I don't know of anyone who does "experiments"
> that results in stories he wouldn't care to read.
This gives me two SFnal ideas:
1) Write a book and then erase knowledge of it from your memory.
Then reread it, thinking it is someone else's work.
Could be very embarassing if you write a savage review of it...
2) Write a book and have your braintaped clone or transporter
accident duplicate read it.
<evil grin>
<horrific vision of a room full of Harlan Ellisons critiquing
each other>
--
"You may have trouble getting permission to aero or lithobrake
asteroids on Earth." - James Nicoll
Captain Button - [ but...@io.com ]
Justin Fang
Kate Nepveu <kate....@yale.edu> wrote:
>current and had force. (I'm pretty sure Vlad, who likes to think of
>himself as the pragmatic assassin among romantic fools, sneers at
>dueling, though I can't bring textevd to mind at the moment.)
In _Taltos_,
[spoiler]
when Vlad and Morrolan are in the Paths of the Dead, and have to defeat a
group of Dragonlords in single combat before they can continue. Morollan
wins his first duel in the conventional manner; Vlad just throws a knife
into the neck of his opponent. This does not go over well... ("It occured
to me that I might have committed some sort of social blunder.")
Louann Miller
wrote:
>This gives me two SFnal ideas:
>
>1) Write a book and then erase knowledge of it from your memory.
>Then reread it, thinking it is someone else's work.
>
>Could be very embarassing if you write a savage review of it...
I did this once. Editing a poetry magazine in college. The English
department secretary would block out the author's name on the copies
and assign each piece a number for the student editors to argue over.
We all put off the work until the last minute before staff meetings.
So I had this huge stack of numbered, anonymous poems which I was
reading through very quickly and putting on 'yes' 'no' and 'maybe'
piles. My sonnet hit the 'no' pile before I realized why it seemed so
familiar.
>2) Write a book and have your braintaped clone or transporter
>accident duplicate read it.
>
><evil grin>
>
><horrific vision of a room full of Harlan Ellisons critiquing
>each other>
<evil grin at horrific vision of etc. etc.>
Louann
J.B. Moreno
> Heather Garvey <ra...@typhoon.xnet.com> wrote
> > I'm not saying that Enrique needs to be "punished" - but I
> > do think it's really unjust for him to jump bond and go make himself
> > and Mark immensely rich while ignoring the fact that he stole from
> > a bunch of people. Reasonable restitution is all I would ask of him,
>
> I don't. The people were incredibly stupid enough to prefer jailing
> Enrique just when his venture was about to take off. They deserve to lose
> their money.
In any case that would be Enrique's moral obligation, not Vorkosigan's
District. As for them preferring that he be in jail -- you might not be
able to lay the blame for that at the feet of all of them (it's quite
possible that it was simply one spoil-sport that wanted him jailed, and
that the rest would have been quite happy to readjust the share
price/percentage so that everything came out square).
> Besides, bilking implies that he did it deliberately. Given his character
> flaws, I assume he honestly forgot how much a percentage of the venture
> he'd already sold off, and very much intended (and intends) to pay
> everybody back their investment.
It seemed to me more that he honestly didn't understand the concept of
"share", which is stretching it a bit, particularly as he didn't seem to
learn by his experience on Escobar.
> As for Mark, he saw that the creditors were being stupid, and that Barrayar
> needed the technology. I also give him a little slack because any
> Jacksonian wouldn't understand your complaint at all, and would think Mark
> stupid for making any restitution whatsoever.
Right. In Jacksonian terms he bought Enrique outright. He's being
really magnanimous in that he letting Enrique benefit from this, but
that's no concern of anyone else's.
This is actually one of the things I dislike about the argument that he
should have been turned over to the skip-tracers -- the people arguing
this don't seem to be acknowledging the cultural and governmental
conflicts that exist in this situation.
Saying that of course he should have been turned over immediately is
like saying that of course Morrolan should have turned out his guest in
order to prevent another Dragon/Jherg war -- but he didn't have any
obligation to prevent another D/J war, while he did have an obligation
to his guest.
Miles would be perfectly justified in refusing the request on the
grounds that it avoided a long argument with Mark which would have
interfered with his luncheon date with his prospective in-laws. He owes
Enrique's victims nothing, and given the potential benefit to his
District/planet, turning him over would have been negligence.
--
JBM
"Moebius strippers only show you their back side." -- Unknown
Mark Atwood
>
> This gives me two SFnal ideas:
>
> 1) Write a book and then erase knowledge of it from your memory.
> Then reread it, thinking it is someone else's work.
>
> Could be very embarassing if you write a savage review of it...
To be a decent writer of any sort, you have to be able to do savage
reviewing of your own work *anyway*, even without the selective
"mindwipe".
The same is true for programming.
--
Mark Atwood | Freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom from choice.
m...@pobox.com | Is that the freedom you want?
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Mark Atwood
>
> <horrific vision of a room full of Harlan Ellisons critiquing
> each other>
Wasn't that an episode of Red Dwarf?
Hell, I could easily see myself doing it to myself. My ideals have
always been higher than my performance. (How else can one imporve
their performace?)
Beth Friedman
Moreno), <1einjt5.1l57uefxdufrbN%pl...@newsreaders.com>, wrote:
>Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>
>> I can't think of any dumb romantic moves by Mark, offhand. His
>> blunders are in the business world (helping Enrique jump bail)
>
>Not even this -- this is a calculated risk, or at least should have
>been. One that seems to have paid off thanks to his brother.
>
>His financial mistake was in using the shares as payment without making
>it clear that they were collateral against cash payments at a later
>date.
Mark probably didn't consider that a mistake. This was an
opportunistic venture, and not his only one by any means. If friends
of his could become wealthy through the bug butter venture, I don't
think he would object at all.
I don't think there was any implication that he was giving up control
of the company by giving shares in lieu of payment; if he was, the
shares were too large.
--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Captain Button <but...@io.com> writes:
>>
>> This gives me two SFnal ideas:
>>
>> 1) Write a book and then erase knowledge of it from your memory.
>> Then reread it, thinking it is someone else's work.
Cf. C. S. Lewis's _The Great Divorce,_ in which people who get to
Heaven get to forget about having written/painted/etc. their own
works, and get to appreciate them as though they were someone
else's.
(One painter, on hearing this, deciedes to return to Hell.)
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
wrote:
>Sean Eric Fagan wrote:
>
>> In article <39EC9C42...@dreamcafe.com>,
>> Steven Brust <sk...@dreamcafe.com> wrote:
>> [reformated. _Please_ only use 80 column lines.]
>
>I'd love to. Does anyone know how to convince Netscape 4.75 to do that?
Should be in Edit>Preferences>Mail&Newsgroups>Messages. "Wrap the
outgoing messages to ..." The number should be 72 characters.
vlatko
--
vlatko.ju...@zg.tel.hr
Geoffrey Kidd
wrote:
><horrific vision of a room full of Harlan Ellisons critiquing
>each other>
Or, worse, *suing* each other for plagiarism. :P
Peter H. Granzeau
wrote:
>> [reformated. _Please_ only use 80 column lines.]
>
>I'd love to. Does anyone know how to convince Netscape 4.75 to do that?
You probably can't. I use Agent, instead.
--
Regards, PHG
To reply by mail, send to PGranzeau at the same site)
Don Croyle
> "J.B. Moreno" wrote:The very fact that they tried to retrieve their criminal
> without first
>
> > going through all of the proper channels is in the real world quite
> > sufficient grounds for denying extradition then or in the future for
> > this case -- an excellent case to use to teach them a lesson (i.e.
> > unlike a case involving violence or something else unpleasant, the
> > Vorkosigans won't object to his being a resident in their territory).
>
> If Miles was telling the truth, of course; I have some doubt.
I think he was. If he wasn't, as an Auditor it would have been just
as easy for him revoke all of the permissions the Escobarans already
had on the grounds that Enrique's work was of benefit to the Imperium.
--
I've always wanted to be a dilettante, but I've never quite been ready
to make the commitment.
Kate Nepveu
> In article <s21quscf1i5lb622h...@4ax.com>,
> kate....@yale.edu wrote:
> > ale...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > The main problem with _ACC_ is that it requires half the cast (the men)
> > > to behave like larger-than-life morons in order to have the plot
> > > develop as she wants it.
> > Could you specify who and how?
> I could, but I will instead specify the few I think don't behave like
> morons - it's much easier.
Yes, but that doesn't _help_. If I don't understand how all those
people you didn't mention were, in your opinion, acting like morons,
saying "well, these people didn't act like morons" illuminates nothing
of your thought processes. It's like explaining the statement "All
Mondays are rotten" by saying "Wednesdays are good." Mondays could be
rotten because they're the start of the workweek, there's a particular
class that day, the kid has to go back to the non-custodial parent
that day... Knowing that Wednesdays are good doesn't help me choose
between these options, or even among ones I haven't thought of.
Your answer is easier but doesn't contribute to the conversation at
all, and conversation is presumably why you're on Usenet.
So, once again: please explain who is being a moron, and how?
Kate Nepveu
> In article <p1hruso9jmgvii06q...@4ax.com>,
> Kate Nepveu <kate....@yale.edu> wrote:
> >current and had force. (I'm pretty sure Vlad, who likes to think of
> >himself as the pragmatic assassin among romantic fools, sneers at
> >dueling, though I can't bring textevd to mind at the moment.)
> In _Taltos_,
[snip textevd]
Thank you. I was sure there must have been something like that.
J.B. Moreno
> Sean Eric Fagan wrote:
>
> > In article <39EC9C42...@dreamcafe.com>,
> > Steven Brust <sk...@dreamcafe.com> wrote:
> > [reformated. _Please_ only use 80 column lines.]
>
> I'd love to. Does anyone know how to convince Netscape 4.75 to do that?
Edit->Preferences->Formatting: Use Plain Text editor to compose message
and
Edit->Preferences->Messages Wrap outgoing, plain text messages at: [72]
characters.
should do the trick.
J.B. Moreno
> pl...@newsreaders.com (J.B. Moreno) wrote:
>
> >Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I can't think of any dumb romantic moves by Mark, offhand. His
> >> blunders are in the business world (helping Enrique jump bail)
> >
> >Not even this -- this is a calculated risk, or at least should have
> >been. One that seems to have paid off thanks to his brother.
> >
> >His financial mistake was in using the shares as payment without making
> >it clear that they were collateral against cash payments at a later
> >date.
>
> Mark probably didn't consider that a mistake. This was an
> opportunistic venture, and not his only one by any means. If friends
> of his could become wealthy through the bug butter venture, I don't
> think he would object at all.
I'm not sure how hard he'd object, but he certainly intended to buy the
shares back
> I don't think there was any implication that he was giving up control
> of the company by giving shares in lieu of payment; if he was, the
> shares were too large.
You must have missed it -- several times the fact that he has given up
control is brought to our attention, and the final bit on that is that
it seems likely that Martya will end up in control (partly through
shares paid, and partly through controlling Enrique).
Ross Presser
Button)".wrote.posted.offered:
>2) Write a book and have your braintaped clone or transporter
>accident duplicate read it.
>
><evil grin>
>
><horrific vision of a room full of Harlan Ellisons critiquing
>each other>
** <spoilers for Varley and Rucker> **
John Varley (can't remember story; I think it was in _The
Persistence of Vision_) has a character named "Fox", an artist in the
environmental medium (she composes thunderstorms) do this. She
composes a storm, gets murdered (actually by *another* clone), then her
braintape-restored clone views the recordings and gets jealous, since
she felt ready to do a composition and it was already done.
She ended up composing another one, different.
Another similar one:
Rudy Rucker's _The Hollow Earth_ features Edgar Allen Poe, who passes
into the hollow Earth, through an Einstein-Rosen bridge at the center,
and out to "our" Earth, where he writes an exact duplicate of one of
Poe's poems and tries to sell it.
--
Ross Presser * ross_p...@imtek.com
A blank is ya know, like, a tab or a space. A name is like wow! a
sequence of ASCII letters, oh, baby, digits, like, or underscores,
fer shure, beginnin' with a letter or an underscore.
Craig S. Richardson
>I'll have to admit my original post was made at the stage of the party where
>Miles was bent out of shape because someone upset his seating arrangements, and
>I thought that was pretty silly considering how he's handled slightly more
>serious crises in the past in this series.There was some humor in the rest of
>the party but I still don't buy Miles as the part incompetent, part
>manipulative lovestruck teenager.
This was also the part I found least believable. The notion of an
early-thirties male who is highly competent in his field becoming
irrational when it comes to the impression he gives to the woman he's
extremely interested in is ludicrous.
I've never seen an example of such a thing in the real world[1].
--Craig
[1] Except for the one I shave every morning.
--
David Collins from Burnley: 70K pounds
Luke Weaver from Spurs: 500K pounds
Matthew Etherington from Grasshoppers-Zurich: 1.2M pounds
Leyton Orient 1-0 St. Mirren in the 2003 UEFA Cup Final: Priceless
Mike Mehl
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:32:36 -0500,
> Mark Reichert <ma...@messagelink.com> scripsit:
[snip]
> >
> >In what way does Miles act out of character? His actions at the beginning
> >of ACC are completely consistent with his tendency to try to control things
> >on one hand and to let something snowball out of control on the other.
>
> They are not, however, consistent with his respect for giving one's
> word [...]
Hmm. I seem to remember someone once using radioactive land to
secure a loan.
--
mjm
J.B. Moreno
> Mark Reichert <ma...@messagelink.com> scripsit:
> >LHeilb8013 <lheil...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> I do prefer experiments in style to be at least based on new
> >> characters or surroundings rather than to have old characters act out
> >> of character, as Miles does here, IMO, to prove a creative point!!
> >
> >In what way does Miles act out of character? His actions at the beginning
> >of ACC are completely consistent with his tendency to try to control things
> >on one hand and to let something snowball out of control on the other.
>
> They are not, however, consistent with his respect for giving one's
> word, nor with his -- seldom but powerfully evidenced when present --
> will to be honest with the people who actually matter to him as human
> beings.
Yeah, but he was doing it in part for her own good -- he's shown
previously that he is willing to lie to the people that he cares for in
order to save them pain.
Judy Trummer
only found the dinner party to be moderately funny. It wasn't the high
point of the series, or of the book, or anything. I dunno what's wrong
with me. I just didn't laugh out loud during the book, or cry, or have
that feeling of being moved by something sublimely wonderful. I did have
that feeling during several of the earlier books. I like ACC well enough,
but Adult Miles is perhaps a little harder for me to relate to than many
of the other characters (I found Mark an utter toad in Mirror Dance, quite
apart from his emotional issues (one might say that's hard to separate
out, but somehow I managed) but I really like him now that he's had a
little therapy. I like Ivan. I like Cordelia and Aral. I adore Gregor.
I liked Miles as Lieutenant Vorkosigan and as Admiral Naismith, but I'm
having trouble liking the Lord Auditor, and I only find Ekaterin
moderately appealing (I want Quinn, or Taura, or...). I'll enjoy reading
ACC, but I won't be talking about the classic dinner scene years from now.
Am I the only oddball? I don't think Bujold's Lost It or anything, but I
only find ACC a middling book when taken in the context of the whole
series.
Deann Allen (dal...@pcisys.net) wrote:
: LHeilb8013 wrote:
: >
: > I know Bujold is very popular here, and I've read and enjoyed
: > all her other books but this one is really dull so far......
: > Miles is currently all out of sorts at a freaking dinner party!!!!
: > Is this a bad attempt at Jane Austen??? Or another example of one
: > of those silly experiments that successful authors try to show
: > they don't need to stick to what works??? Oh well, maybe it will
: > get better.........
: Most people consider the dinner party to be one of the high points
: of the entire series. YMMV.
: As for "Is this a bad attempt at Jane Austen???" did you read the
: names in the dedication?
: D.
: --
: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
: -- Eleanor Roosevelt
: -----------------------------------------
Eileen Lufkin
> (I'm pretty sure Vlad, who likes to think of
> himself as the pragmatic assassin among romantic fools, sneers at
> dueling, though I can't bring textevd to mind at the moment.)
"My seconds will call on you in the alley."
--
Eileen Lufkin
Eileen Lufkin
news:8sj5gl$5enc$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
>
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:16:01 GMT, Abigail Ann Young
> <abigai...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> > but she's no Jane Austen or Charlotte
> >Bronte (or even Dorothy Sayers or Georgette Heyer).
>
> Preferred form: she's no Jane Austen, nor yet a Dorothy Sayers or
> Georgette Heyer (though she does what she does almost as well as
they
> do what they do), and neither is she a Charlotte Bronte, thank
Ghod.
>
> (OK, that's a bit unfair. But there is a huge gulf between Austen
and
> Bronte, seems to me.)
And that Harlan Ellison, he's no Hal Clement.
--
Eileen Lufkin
Mark Atwood
>
> I don't know, don't you think it is somewhat out of character for someone whose
> whole career was in Covert Ops to blab to the whole city about his lovelife
> when he knows the intended is not yet ready to know his feelings?? And then to
> be shocked when someone spills the beans??
Well, to be fair, he was never really into "covert" covert ops. He
never "kept a secret" by keeping his mouth shut. He instead "kepts
secrets" by telling so many lies and half-truths so fast that he
confuses everyone around them.
He's just never learned to zip his lip.
Joseph Dorsett
| In article <8shqkg$aao$1...@flood.xnet.com>,
| ra...@typhoon.xnet.com (Heather Garvey) wrote:
| > I was cringing throughout the book because there's a limit
| > to my ability to handle heavy-handed farce. I tend to spend the entire
| > time yelling "Why didn't you just <do incredibly obvious thing to keep
| > the situation from becoming a circus of humiliation>?!?!" and then
| > I start hating characters-I-previously-liked for their idiocy. Mark,
| > for example. And Ivan. The farce required them to be complete asses
| > with an actual desire to inflict suffering and humiliation on others.
|
| You are not the only one. I've been hanging out here bitchin' 'bout
| _ACC_ and _Komarr_ for so long it must start seem like an obsession.
| Still, I think that a series that contains books like _Mirror Dance_
| and _Memory_ was too good to meet with the kind of ignoble end that
| _Komarr_ and _ACC_, IMHO, are. I simply expected so much more from
| Bujold since she has shown she is capable of writing very good books
| in the past.
|
| The main problem with _ACC_ is that it requires half the cast (the men)
| to behave like larger-than-life morons in order to have the plot
| task over this to a far larger extent in this group - it's a sin that
| usually carries a hefty reviewer penalty. To be sure, Bujold has always
| been partial to the "men are stupid and need to get at taste of superior
| female wisdom" idea, but up to _Komarr_ she kept this streak to a
| tolerable level. In _Komarr_ and _ACC_ she goes hogwild with the notion,
| to the serious detriment to her writing.
|
| Bujold managed to take herself out of my buy-in-hardcover list with
| _Komarr_ and out of my buy-at-all list with _ACC_. I understand she's
| doing fanatsy next, so I probably won't return to her anytime soon. If
| she ever does a Vorkoverse novel again, I'll be sure to borrow it it
| first - she has a lot of things to prove now.
|
| To the original poster of this thread; drop _ACC_ now. If you aren't
| among those who are charmed by Bujolds admittedly superior skill in
| handling language and find the plot and theme of _ACC_ too much to
| put up with so far, you won't enjoy the rest either.
|
| /Alex
|
|
| Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
| Before you buy.
The problem is that Bujold has only one constant; good characterization. If
you are looking for the same book over and over (as most here do,IMHO) this
is not the book for you. Stop now. Enjoy no further, fore Bujold will not
always have exploding spaceships, battle scenes, exotic females ( werewolf
women withstanding), or crafty almost nonhuman enemies. What one will find
is people acting like asses, lackeys, villains and saints. More or less
like people dealing imperfectly with the problem at hand. Berayar makes it
all that more poignant.
Men are idiots
I are one, that's what makes us so loveable. We are perpetual children too.
Survival response.
QM
--
Joseph Dorsett
news:39EC9C42...@dreamcafe.com...
|
|
| LHeilb8013 wrote:
|
| > I know Bujold is very popular here, and I've read and enjoyed all her
other
| > books but this one is really dull so far...... Miles is currently all
out of
| > sorts at a freaking dinner party!!!! Is this a bad attempt at Jane
Austen??? Or
| > another example of one of those silly experiments that successful
authors try
| > to show they don't need to stick to what works??? Oh well, maybe it will
get
| > better.........
|
what these
| writers are thinking about, to try experiments and things when there are
people out
| there who want stuff that's just the same as they've been buying. They
don't seem
| to understand that a book is just a product, the same as a can of beans or
a pair
| of shoes or a three-speed vibrator. Mostly like a three-speed vibrator, I
guess.
| Think what it would be like if you bought what you thought was a
three-speed
| vibrator and it turned out to be a Ming vase or something. I mean,
nothing against
| Ming vases, but when you want a three-speed vibrator, well, you want a
three-speed
| vibrator. Is that so hard for these writers to understand?
|
| The really, really good writers, like PIers Anthony and John Norman and
guys like
| that don't waste their readers time and money with silly "experiments."
That's why
| they're so successful. Why won't these people learn?
|
| --
| Steven K. Zoltan Brust "The less you bet, the more
| sk...@dreamcafe.com you lose when you win."
| Wyatt Earp
|
|
God forbid someone try and produce craft. rec.arts.sf.written.mouse
Damn that Spinrad!
QM
--
Joseph Dorsett
news:surhsjh...@corp.supernews.com...
| iain.coleman <iain.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
| news:39ECAA09...@ntlworld.com...
| > Louann Miller wrote:
| >
| > > Comedies tend to rely on people being dumb to generate conflict (as
| > > opposed to people being evil)
| >
| > Only bad ones.
|
| You haven't read or seen many comedies.
| --
| Please respond only in the newsgroup. I will not respond
| to newsgroup messages by e-mail.
|
|
|
"She Stoops to Conquer".
QM
--
Joseph Dorsett
male centered world? That's the point that makes it work. In a era of PC,
these Vor folk ain't. It's about dealing with it all.
In case you haven't noticed, good SF presents an environment
(social,chemical,physcholical, physical...) that allows us to examine our
current situation in a different format. Thus we examine the people, not
the surrounding. Modern Fiction puts the characters in an environment to be
studied.
Real good SF does both. (AKA well written)
<ale...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8skic9$1cb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
| In article <|
| I could, but I will instead specify the few I think don't behave like
| morons - it's much easier. First of, we have Nikki. He's almost an
| important character, so we grant Bujold one point. Although that
| wrinting about him sitting and cheering his mother on with
| "go mama, go" during Ekarins proposal was a bit, well, off, to
| anyone who's ever seen how children react to the idea of their parents
| remarring other people.
|
| Prof Vorthys could arguably be considered not being overly stupid,
| mostly because he doesn't much do anything except get out of the way
| so the plot can develop.
|
| That's it. So we learn men are good/smart when they are too young or
| too old to be in the mating game. I guess John Norman would approve,
| at least given the caveat that "too young" doesn't seem to be in his
| vocabulary.
|
| No let's play another fun game; can you spot the woman who has sold
| out to the Patriarchy and became a Moron in the process? I knew you
| could - Hugo's wife sure could use a bit of Betan liberalism to
| improve her sad life.
|
| About the only man in the whole book I had any kind of respect for
| is that VorBabyFactory guy (forgot his name) who realises that all
| this new, much-approved life technology empowers him to do something
| profitable and address that girl shortage that Bujold's set up. Too
| bad his innovative solutions don't meet with the kind of enthusiastic
| approval all other liberal ideas seem to get - shouldn't the Vicereine
| be delighted at the creative deconstruction of the stultifying
| ingrained behavior patterns of yore?
|
| /Alex
QM
--
Joseph Dorsett
news:tmcsus0a4n85o54ce...@4ax.com...
Get one of those shavers which leave a small beard behind. The women don't
like it for shit, but _you_ will feel like a stud. It works.
Joseph Dorsett
| <ale...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8si405$q2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
| > The main problem with _ACC_ is that it requires half the cast (the men)
| > to behave like larger-than-life morons in order to have the plot
| > develop as she wants it.
|
| when it comes to serious relationships with women. What world are you
| living in?
| --
| Please respond only in the newsgroup. I will not respond
| to newsgroup messages by e-mail.
|
|
|
Here at the All Male, Female Women Haters Club, _we_ know how to handle
women. ::Spanky, get the tongs, the long ones::
Joseph Dorsett
news:8shll1$j2i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
| In article <39EC525E...@pcisys.net>,
| Deann Allen <dal...@pcisys.net> wrote:
| > LHeilb8013 wrote:
| > >
| > > I know Bujold is very popular here, and I've read and enjoyed
| > > all her other books but this one is really dull so far......
| > > Miles is currently all out of sorts at a freaking dinner party!!!!
| > > Is this a bad attempt at Jane Austen??? Or another example of one
| > > of those silly experiments that successful authors try to show
| > > they don't need to stick to what works??? Oh well, maybe it will
| > > get better.........
| >
| > of the entire series. YMMV.
| >
| > As for "Is this a bad attempt at Jane Austen???" did you read the
| > names in the dedication?
|
|
| Robert Carnegie
No, it is an appreciation.
Joseph Dorsett
news:viqousss34548isl4...@4ax.com...
| On 17 Oct 2000 08:45:46 -0500, "Henry Churchyard" <chu...@usa.net>
| wrote:
|
| >I agree -- I had the book out from two different libraries in two
| >different states for two months total, and for most of that time was
| >halted by the heavy-handed signals of Impending Humilation (didn't get
| >much beyond the switching of the place settings), and finally had to
| >skip over the dinner because I was never going to finish the book
| >otherwise
|
| Were you finding it funny up to that point? Because it's primarily a
| comedy (in the modern as well as classical senses of the word) and it
| plays by comedic rules. Compare to the ever-larger series of double
| takes that Mortimer Brewster does in "Arsenic and Old Lace" as he
| reacts to the slowly unfolding explanation of his two sweet little old
| aunt's hobbies. You can see that one coming too, but seeing it coming
| is a major part of the fun.
|
| Comedy is like sex (including that small subset of comedy which is not
| in some way about sex). Either you like a particular thing or you
| don't, and if you don't then having someone who does like it explain
| it doesn't help. Probably better to leave it alone if it isn't funny
| to you; tastes differ. Heck, there are probably people who read
| "Cryptonomicon" without laughing once.
|
| Louann
If done right you will always like that particular thing. From a Gentlemen
at least.
QM
--
Joseph Dorsett
news:G2L8I...@kithrup.com...
| In article <39EC9C42...@dreamcafe.com>,
| Steven Brust <sk...@dreamcafe.com> wrote:
| [reformated. _Please_ only use 80 column lines.]
|
what
| >these writers are thinking about, to try experiments and things when
there
| >are people out there who want stuff that's just the same as they've been
| >buying.
|
|
| At what point does the "experiment" get in the way of just telling the
story?
| A few books ago, I came to the conclusion (whether true or false) that you
| were _bored_ with writing, and so had to keep trying some new way of
telling a
| story. Iain M. Banks appears to do the same thing -- nearly every book is
| told in a different style, usually by some internal chronology difference.
| But consider _Feersum Enjinn_, of which a third is written in a very
| hard-to-read format. Or your own Paarfi Romances, which are nearly as
hard to
| read.
|
| (What this has to do with aCC, I dunno. Especially since I don't think it
was
| boring at all.)
|
Or Harry Turtledove's idea of what Niggers speak
Ev'er body a dumbass comin' ta relization.
I be mystified. .
Matthew Austern
> Hmm, can you be more specific? I just read _Look to Windward_ and
> thought it was by far the most straightforward of the Culture books.
> Nothing at all like the pov games in _Use of Weapons_ or the
> identity games in _Player of Games_.
There was a lot of chronology shuffling there. Not just the two
timelines like in Use of Weapons: there were two main timelines (one
from during the war, one on the orbital), and then a few other scenes
set elsewhen. You have to get a fair way into the book to figure out
the relationship between the two main timelines, and you have to get
pretty much to the end to figure out how the extra pieces fit in.
Not so very hard to understand, but also not a straightforward linear
narrative. I'd pick Consider Phlebas or Inversions as the most
straightforward Culture books.
Matthew Austern
> > >current and had force. (I'm pretty sure Vlad, who likes to think of
> > >himself as the pragmatic assassin among romantic fools, sneers at
> > >dueling, though I can't bring textevd to mind at the moment.)
>
> > In _Taltos_,
>
> [snip textevd]
>
> Thank you. I was sure there must have been something like that.
That was one of the interesting things about _Dragon_: Vlad is made to
realize that context matters, and that, in a different culture than
the one he is familiar with, the ridiculous and overly ornate custom
of starting a private war can be more practical than what he thinks of
as straightforward assasination.
Wayne Throop
:: I'd say that Miles made a smart mistake, not a stupid mistake. That
:: is, it was the kind of bad thing that a stupid person wouldn't do,
:: but that a very smart person who's proud of his own cleverness might.
: Steven Brust <sk...@dreamcafe.com>
: What a splendid distinction!
Well... yes, agreed, but it doesn't capture the distinction between
a intended-bad-thing and an unintended-bad-thing that was the original
point of discussion; it only adds the clever-bad-thing / simple-bad-thing
distinction. Not to mention the malicious-bad-thing vs unfeeling-bad-thing,
which is not quite the same as the intended/unintended spectrum, even
though malice implies intent...
ANYways, to get back to Miles, I think the point is that Miles' blunder
was a too-clever-for-his-own-good/well-meant/unintended-consequences
kind of bad-thing. The kind of thing that's the foundation of a
learning experience of the "a man's got to know his limitations" kind.
It's the mismatch between intent and outcome that's the key which leads
to the lesson that stupid things can happen to clever people...
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
"He's not just a Galaxy Ranger... he's a Super-Trooper!"
Captain Button
> gra...@dsl.ca (Graydon Saunders) writes:
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:32:36 -0500,
>> Mark Reichert <ma...@messagelink.com> scripsit:
> [snip]
>> >
>> >In what way does Miles act out of character? His actions at the beginning
>> >of ACC are completely consistent with his tendency to try to control things
>> >on one hand and to let something snowball out of control on the other.
>>
>> They are not, however, consistent with his respect for giving one's
>> word [...]
> Hmm. I seem to remember someone once using radioactive land to
> secure a loan.
And relying on the Barrayaran Embassy to tie the creditor up with
paperwork, something that they do regularly it seems.
--
"You may have trouble getting permission to aero or lithobrake
asteroids on Earth." - James Nicoll
Captain Button - [ but...@io.com ]
Lucy Kemnitzer
wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:32:36 -0500,
>Mark Reichert <ma...@messagelink.com> scripsit:
>>LHeilb8013 <lheil...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:20001017182421...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
>>> Touche. I think its just me. Probably a personality defect relating to my
>>> disliking change in my life!!:) But in general one of the reason I like
>>series
>>> authors is probably the familiarity.......... I do prefer experiments in
>>> style to be at least based on new characters or surroundings rather than
>>to
>>> have old characters act out of character, as Miles does here, IMO, to
>>prove a
>>> creative point!!
>>
>>In what way does Miles act out of character? His actions at the beginning
>>of ACC are completely consistent with his tendency to try to control things
>>on one hand and to let something snowball out of control on the other.
>
>They are not, however, consistent with his respect for giving one's
>word, nor with his -- seldom but powerfully evidenced when present --
>will to be honest with the people who actually matter to him as human
>beings.
spoilers? Hell if I know.
He's _trying_ to be honest: he's trying to make his desire to
court Ekaterin and his desire to respect her wish not to be
courted match up, and he fails. He's not trying to sneak around
and court her on the sly: he keeps reminding himself of that: he
just is sneaking around and courting her on the sly anyway,
because he can't reconcile his desires.
It's not surprising that a person who tries to simultaneously do
something and not do something fails at the effort.
This is hardly the worst thing Miles has ever done: and it could
have been all better if he had done one of two things -- explained
his dilemma in the first place, or shut up about what he was doing
in the second place.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Lucy Kemnitzer
<sk...@dreamcafe.com> wrote:
>
>
>Sean Eric Fagan wrote:
>
>> In article <39EC9C42...@dreamcafe.com>,
>> Steven Brust <sk...@dreamcafe.com> wrote:
>> [reformated. _Please_ only use 80 column lines.]
>
>I'd love to. Does anyone know how to convince Netscape 4.75 to do that?
>
>>
>> Obviously, you're being sarcastic. But perhaps you shouldn't be...
>>
>> At what point does the "experiment" get in the way of just telling the story?
>
>Generally, you write the book you wish someone else had written, because you want
>to read it. You hope there are others out there who want to read the same thing
>you want to read. You cannot outguess a market. I don't know of anyone who does
>"experiments" that results in stories he wouldn't care to read.
Fortunately, this sort of thinking -- writing the book that
somebody ought to have read, because you want to read it -- ends
up with _Freedom and Necessity_.
I would imagine some of your Vlad Taltos fans were pretty puzzled
to come across Friedrich Engels as the good guy's mentor.
My father says you must have been reading Dorothy Thompson's _The
Chartists_ and I have been plowing my way through it, glacially,
for months. It's hard for me to think that anything that dry and
hard to follow would have informed _Freedom and Necessity_ which
is delightful and lucid.
Lucy Kemnitzer
shameless: but I've burbled about this book in almost every other
context, why not here where the author can see?
Lisa A Leutheuser
Lucy Kemnitzer <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>spoilers? Hell if I know.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>He's _trying_ to be honest: he's trying to make his desire to
>court Ekaterin and his desire to respect her wish not to be
>courted match up, and he fails. He's not trying to sneak around
>and court her on the sly: he keeps reminding himself of that: he
>just is sneaking around and courting her on the sly anyway,
>because he can't reconcile his desires.
I think he (subconsciously?) sped up his own timeline when he
saw the other Vor lords trying to court her. I can believe
Miles being torn between wanting to give her space and the fear
that if he didn't act quickly he might lose her.
--
Lisa Leutheuser - eal (at) umich.edu - http://www.umich.edu/~eal
Any advertising or other links in this post were not inserted by
the poster.