Time Magazine: 100 best novels
MJ Stoddard
100 best novels
http://www.time.com/time/2005/100books/the_complete_list.html
This list provides strong evidence that SF is now a mainstream
literary form. 10% of the list is arguably SF (and maybe more - these
are the ones I recognized.)
SF picks:
The Blind Assassin - Margaret Atwood
A Clockwork Orange - Anthony Burgess
The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe - C.S. Lewis
The Lord of the Rings - J.R.R. Tolkien
Neuromancer - William Gibson
1984 - George Orwell
Slaughterhouse-Five - Kurt Vonnegut
Snow Crash - Neal Stephenson
Ubik - Philip K. Dick
Watchmen - Alan Moore & Dave Gibbons
Also on Graphic novel list
David Cowie
>
> This list provides strong evidence that SF is now a mainstream
> literary form. 10% of the list is arguably SF (and maybe more - these
> are the ones I recognized.)
Also:
The Golden Notebook - Doris Lessing (not SF, but Lessing has written some)
Never Let Me Go - Kazuo Ishiguro
Is _Animal Farm_ by Orwell SF/F?
--
David Cowie
Containment Failure + 16969:44
Mike Schilling
"David Cowie" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.21....@privacy.net...
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:01:52 -0700, MJ Stoddard wrote:
>
>>
>> This list provides strong evidence that SF is now a mainstream
>> literary form. 10% of the list is arguably SF (and maybe more - these
>> are the ones I recognized.)
>
> Also:
>
> The Golden Notebook - Doris Lessing (not SF, but Lessing has written some)
> Never Let Me Go - Kazuo Ishiguro
> Is _Animal Farm_ by Orwell SF/F?
Hmm. Clearly not SF. Tolkien would say that it's not fantasy either, it's
a beast-fable, which I think is right, since it isn't "really" about animals
in the way that _Watership Down_ is really about rabbits.
Sean O'Hara
> Time Magazine, Oct 24, 2005
> 100 best novels
> http://www.time.com/time/2005/100books/the_complete_list.html
>
> This list provides strong evidence that SF is now a mainstream
> literary form. 10% of the list is arguably SF (and maybe more - these
> are the ones I recognized.)
>
>
When they're claiming a comic book is a novel, it kinda undermines
their credibility. Might as well include Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern are Dead.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Captain Murphy: Pudding can't fill the emptiness inside me! But
it'll help.
-Sealab 2021
Elf M. Sternberg
> SF picks:
> The Blind Assassin - Margaret Atwood
Remember, Ms. Atwood most emphatically does not write SF.
Elf
Gary Thompson
David Cowie wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:01:52 -0700, MJ Stoddard wrote:
>
> >
> > This list provides strong evidence that SF is now a mainstream
> > literary form. 10% of the list is arguably SF (and maybe more - these
> > are the ones I recognized.)
>
> Also:
>
> The Golden Notebook - Doris Lessing (not SF, but Lessing has written some)
> Never Let Me Go - Kazuo Ishiguro
Gravity's Rainbow, Crying of Lot 49, Infinite Jest, and Naked Lunch
have often been lumped together with Vonnegut as borderline
postmodern-SF.
That brings us up to, what? 16%?
Bateau
>Time Magazine, Oct 24, 2005
>100 best novels
>http://www.time.com/time/2005/100books/the_complete_list.html
>
>This list provides strong evidence that SF is now a mainstream
>literary form. 10% of the list is arguably SF (and maybe more - these
>are the ones I recognized.)
>
>SF picks:
>The Blind Assassin - Margaret Atwood
>A Clockwork Orange - Anthony Burgess
>The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe - C.S. Lewis
Eh?
>The Lord of the Rings - J.R.R. Tolkien
WTF?
>Neuromancer - William Gibson
>1984 - George Orwell
>Slaughterhouse-Five - Kurt Vonnegut
>Snow Crash - Neal Stephenson
>Ubik - Philip K. Dick
>Watchmen - Alan Moore & Dave Gibbons
Isn't that like a super hero thing? FFS.
> Also on Graphic novel list
You suck.
Justin Alexander
... in exactly the same way that Bill Clinton most emphatically did not
have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
--
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net
Bill Patterson
Mike Schilling
"Bill Patterson" <WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130047491.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hmmm. The list is ridiculously idiosyncratic.
Is it possible to create a list that isn't? Sure, you could poll lots of
"experts" and aggregate the results, but you'd still have a list that omits
lots of good books while including questionable ones.
scott...@yahoo.com
Don't knock it unless you've read it. That sort of dismissal is the
same as people who say SF is a trash genre.
Watchmen is one of the most structurally complex, genre defying,
philsophical graphic novels you will ever read. It's pretty much
impossible to pick everything up in one reading, Watchmen has layers
upon layers. Sexuality, politics, free will, the nature of good and
evil, are just some of the topics grappled with in this incredible
book.
Now why Watchmen instead of any number of other worthy graphic novels,
I don't know, anymore than I know why Ubik instead of, say, The Man in
the High Castle.
Bateau
No. THAT sort of dismissal is the same as people who say SF is
historical romance. MJ referred to those books as SF when they are not.
>Watchmen is one of the most structurally complex, genre defying,
>philsophical graphic novels you will ever read. It's pretty much
>impossible to pick everything up in one reading, Watchmen has layers
>upon layers. Sexuality, politics, free will, the nature of good and
>evil, are just some of the topics grappled with in this incredible
>book.
If a book about sexuality is boring and a book about politics is boring
and a book about free will is boring why would a book about all 3 be
interesting?
Sea Wasp
This is Bateau. While he occasionally actually contributes to a
discussion, most of his time is taken up igniting flames. I mean, if
you look above, he's also taken aback that LotR makes the list, when
LotR has been consistently making the lists of even literary groups.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> Bateau wrote:
>
>>MJ Stoddard <stod...@u.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>Watchmen - Alan Moore & Dave Gibbons
>>
>>Isn't that like a super hero thing? FFS.
>
> Don't knock it unless you've read it. That sort of dismissal is the
> same as people who say SF is a trash genre.
>
> Watchmen is one of the most structurally complex, genre defying,
> philsophical graphic novels you will ever read.
It still ain't a novel.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
The calender of the Theocracy of Muntab counts down, not up. No-one
knows why, but it might not be a good idea to hang around and find out.
-Terry Pratchett, /Wyrd Sisters/
scott...@yahoo.com
Sean O'Hara wrote:
> In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful scott...@yahoo.com
> declared:
> > Bateau wrote:
> >
> >>MJ Stoddard <stod...@u.arizona.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Watchmen - Alan Moore & Dave Gibbons
> >>
> >>Isn't that like a super hero thing? FFS.
> >
> > Don't knock it unless you've read it. That sort of dismissal is the
> > same as people who say SF is a trash genre.
> >
> > Watchmen is one of the most structurally complex, genre defying,
> > philsophical graphic novels you will ever read.
>
> It still ain't a novel.
Maybe not, but I was responding to the comment that it was a superhero
book.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful scott...@yahoo.com
>declared:
>> Bateau wrote:
>>
>>>MJ Stoddard <stod...@u.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Watchmen - Alan Moore & Dave Gibbons
>>>
>>>Isn't that like a super hero thing? FFS.
>>
>> Don't knock it unless you've read it. That sort of dismissal is the
>> same as people who say SF is a trash genre.
>>
>> Watchmen is one of the most structurally complex, genre defying,
>> philsophical graphic novels you will ever read.
>
>It still ain't a novel.
Under what definition? It contains well over 60,000 words of prose.
--
Read the new Ethshar novel online! http://www.ethshar.com/thesprigganexperiment0.html
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:26:26 -0400, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful scott...@yahoo.com
>>declared:
>>
>>>philsophical graphic novels you will ever read.
>>
>>It still ain't a novel.
>
> Under what definition? It contains well over 60,000 words of prose.
>
I'm sure the closed captioning for the complete run of Buffy the
Vampire Slayer does as well, but that's not a novel either.
A novel is a work of prose, period. It might be supplemented on
occasion by illustrations, but the prose does all the work of
telling the story. The Watchmen is a work where the illustrations
and prose are equally integral to the narrative -- it's a comic
book, or, if you prefer, a "graphic novel". It doesn't belong on the
list of great novels anymore than Star Wars belongs on a list of
great plays -- they're two different genres.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Life is tacky
-Bret Easton Ellis, /Glamorama/
Michael Alan Chary
Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful Lawrence Watt-Evans
>declared:
>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:26:26 -0400, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful scott...@yahoo.com
>>>declared:
>>>
>>>>Watchmen is one of the most structurally complex, genre defying,
>>>>philsophical graphic novels you will ever read.
>>>
>>>It still ain't a novel.
>>
>> Under what definition? It contains well over 60,000 words of prose.
>>
>
>I'm sure the closed captioning for the complete run of Buffy the
>Vampire Slayer does as well, but that's not a novel either.
>
>A novel is a work of prose, period. It might be supplemented on
>occasion by illustrations, but the prose does all the work of
>telling the story. The Watchmen is a work where the illustrations
>and prose are equally integral to the narrative -- it's a comic
>book, or, if you prefer, a "graphic novel". It doesn't belong on the
>list of great novels anymore than Star Wars belongs on a list of
>great plays -- they're two different genres.
Hey, the real problem isn't _Watchmen_. It's _Are You There God, It's Me
Margaret._
--
An experiment in publishing:
http://www.ethshar.com/thesprigganexperiment0.html
The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful Lawrence Watt-Evans
>declared:
>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:26:26 -0400, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful scott...@yahoo.com
>>>declared:
>>>
>>>>Watchmen is one of the most structurally complex, genre defying,
>>>>philsophical graphic novels you will ever read.
>>>
>>>It still ain't a novel.
>>
>> Under what definition? It contains well over 60,000 words of prose.
>
>A novel is a work of prose, period. It might be supplemented on
>occasion by illustrations, but the prose does all the work of
>telling the story. The Watchmen is a work where the illustrations
>and prose are equally integral to the narrative -- it's a comic
>book, or, if you prefer, a "graphic novel". It doesn't belong on the
>list of great novels anymore than Star Wars belongs on a list of
>great plays -- they're two different genres.
Okay; fair enough. I've encountered people claiming it didn't meet
word-count requirements or have a novel structure, and those are both
incorrect.
Incidentally, the title is simply WATCHMEN, no "The."
And you may have ruled that THE STARS MY DESTINATION isn't a novel, as
it uses typographical trickery...
Justin Alexander
> And you may have ruled that THE STARS MY DESTINATION isn't a novel, as
> it uses typographical trickery...
I'm assuming you mean THE DEMOLISHED MAN?
Quibbles over definition aside, I object to WATCHMEN being on that
list, too. Comic books are their own medium, and they deserve respect
and adolation for their own accomplishments. Co-opting any comic books
which meet some sort of mainstream "approval" for being so gosh-darn
good and claiming they're not comic books isn't doing the medium any
favors.
Aaron Denney
> Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> And you may have ruled that THE STARS MY DESTINATION isn't a novel, as
>> it uses typographical trickery...
>
> I'm assuming you mean THE DEMOLISHED MAN?
Nah, _The Stars my Destination_ had some, though not all that much, as
I recall.
> Quibbles over definition aside, I object to WATCHMEN being on that
> list, too. Comic books are their own medium, and they deserve respect
> and adolation for their own accomplishments. Co-opting any comic books
> which meet some sort of mainstream "approval" for being so gosh-darn
> good and claiming they're not comic books isn't doing the medium any
> favors.
Truth.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<wno...@ofb.net> wrote:
>On 2005-10-23, Justin Alexander <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
>> Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>>> And you may have ruled that THE STARS MY DESTINATION isn't a novel, as
>>> it uses typographical trickery...
>>
>> I'm assuming you mean THE DEMOLISHED MAN?
>
>Nah, _The Stars my Destination_ had some, though not all that much, as
>I recall.
Yeah, I don't even remember any in _The Demolished Man_ while the
stuff in _Stars_ when Foyle's jumping wildly through time and space
stuck with me.
>> Quibbles over definition aside, I object to WATCHMEN being on that
>> list, too. Comic books are their own medium, and they deserve respect
>> and adolation for their own accomplishments. Co-opting any comic books
>> which meet some sort of mainstream "approval" for being so gosh-darn
>> good and claiming they're not comic books isn't doing the medium any
>> favors.
>
>Truth.
It is truth.
Alas, there are many people who simply won't acknowledge the
possibility of good serious work in comics form -- especially not if
it uses superhero tropes.
Mike Schilling
"Lawrence Watt-Evans" <l...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:9g7ol1t8cdcsftld9...@news.rcn.com...
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:53:08 +0000 (UTC), Aaron Denney
> <wno...@ofb.net> wrote:
>
>>On 2005-10-23, Justin Alexander <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
>>> Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>>>> And you may have ruled that THE STARS MY DESTINATION isn't a novel, as
>>>> it uses typographical trickery...
>>>
>>> I'm assuming you mean THE DEMOLISHED MAN?
>>
>>Nah, _The Stars my Destination_ had some, though not all that much, as
>>I recall.
>
> Yeah, I don't even remember any in _The Demolished Man_
The peepers made 2-D patterns with their speech; there was even a
charades-like party game using them.
G Bell
>MJ Stoddard <stod...@u.arizona.edu> writes:
Not if it doesn't include "Talking squids in outer space"!
Graham
G Bell
>Isn't that like a super hero thing? FFS.
And we complain when ignorant mainstremers complain and cast aspersions
on written science fiction?
Moore and his artistic collaborators have taken a few steps up the
ladder. V for Vendetta is another classy and thoughtful piece.
Graham
Bateau
I'm taken aback that LOTR has made MJ's list of books that are SCI FI.
Bateau
Sin City: Hell and Back is crap compared to the rest.
Bateau
I LIKE sci fi comics ok? I like Transmetropolitan and all the sci fi
mangas.
Ray Cunningham
How many self-described SF readers read Margaret Atwood?
Everyone seems to criticise her for saying she doesn't write SF, but
everyone also seems to agree with her...
Ray
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>> This is Bateau. While he occasionally actually contributes to a
>>discussion, most of his time is taken up igniting flames. I mean, if
>>you look above, he's also taken aback that LotR makes the list, when
>>LotR has been consistently making the lists of even literary groups.
>
>
> I'm taken aback that LOTR has made MJ's list of books that are SCI FI.
No, that are SF. Which is what he said at the beginning. YOU saw "SF"
and interpreted it as "Science Fiction".
And in this newsgroup, as you've been repeatedly told, SF means
"Speculative Fiction", which includes Fantasy and Science Fiction (and
some Horror, Comic Books, etc).
Bateau
What the fuck is "speculative" about Lord of the Rings?
"Sci fi isn't short for science fiction" and "fantasy is speculative!"
The arguments you fantasy faggots come up with to justify your
unpleasant presence in science fiction groups and bookshelves get more
ridiculous every day.
Dr. Dave
> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
> >
> > And in this newsgroup, as you've been repeatedly told, SF means
> >"Speculative Fiction", which includes Fantasy and Science Fiction (and
> >some Horror, Comic Books, etc).
>
> What the fuck is "speculative" about Lord of the Rings?
The whole thing is explicitly speculative -- moreso than just about any
other work of fiction I can think of -- but the mechanism of that
speculation is probably too complicated for you to understand. Someday
when you're all grown up, you could read _The Road to Middle-Earth_ for
a complete explanation.
> "Sci fi isn't short for science fiction" and "fantasy is speculative!"
> The arguments you fantasy faggots come up with to justify your
> unpleasant presence in science fiction groups and bookshelves get more
> ridiculous every day.
If you want to start an explicitly science-fiction group (no fantasy
faggots, no horror, and no gurlz 'cause they have cooties), feel free.
This group never was any such thing:
>From the original announcement (if you can count at least to 1):
1. What does the 'sf' in 'rec.arts.sf.*' mean?
The 'sf' means 'Speculative Fiction'. According to the call for
votes
that created the original hierarchy, this was defined as: Both science
fiction and fantasy, as well as that vast blurred mass of material in
between.
>From the FAQ:
0. Introduction
rec.arts.sf.written is a newsgroup devoted to discussions of written
SF. It is a high-volume newsgroup and this article is intended to help
reduce the number of unnecessary postings, thereby making it more
useful and enjoyable to everyone.
"SF" as used here means "speculative fiction" and includes science
fiction, fantasy, horror (a.k.a. dark fantasy), etc.
(Not that the troll cares, but it's worth repeating these things for
the actual humans every now and then...)
David Tate
John Schilling
Cunningham says...
No; (almost) everyone here believes she *does* write SF, and that she
does it badly.
Some but not all of us believe this without having actually read any
of her works, presumably on the basis of the overall track record of
authors who write what is patently SF and loudly proclaim, "Not SF!"
And there are presumably a fair number who have seen the movie version
of _Handmaid's Tale_ but never read that or any other of Atwood's books;
not sure how to categorize them.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
John Schilling
Cunningham says...
>Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
>> MJ Stoddard <stod...@u.arizona.edu> writes:
No; (almost) everyone here believes she *does* write SF, and that she
Sean O'Hara
> Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
>
>>MJ Stoddard <stod...@u.arizona.edu> writes:
>>
>>
>>>SF picks:
>>>The Blind Assassin - Margaret Atwood
>>
>> Remember, Ms. Atwood most emphatically does not write SF.
>>
> How many self-described SF readers read Margaret Atwood?
Yo. Her short stories are quite good, her novels, whether mainstream
or SFnal, not so much.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Zapp Brannigan: In the game of chess, you can never let your
adversary see your pieces.
-Futurama
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>
>>Bateau wrote:
>>
>>>Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> This is Bateau. While he occasionally actually contributes to a
>>>>discussion, most of his time is taken up igniting flames. I mean, if
>>>>you look above, he's also taken aback that LotR makes the list, when
>>>>LotR has been consistently making the lists of even literary groups.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm taken aback that LOTR has made MJ's list of books that are SCI FI.
>>
>> No, that are SF. Which is what he said at the beginning. YOU saw "SF"
>>and interpreted it as "Science Fiction".
>>
>> And in this newsgroup, as you've been repeatedly told, SF means
>>"Speculative Fiction", which includes Fantasy and Science Fiction (and
>>some Horror, Comic Books, etc).
>
>
> What the fuck is "speculative" about Lord of the Rings?
"What if the world designed by this scholar of literature existed?"
would be one way to phrase it.
> "Sci fi isn't short for science fiction" and "fantasy is speculative!"
> The arguments you fantasy faggots come up with
Actually, it's "SF isn't short for Science Fiction." Learn to read.
And the newsgroup charter makes it very clear. You don't like it,
start your own group, but you just make yourself look more like an
idiot every time you argue about this.
Ilya the Recusant
Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Bill Patterson" <WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1130047491.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Hmmm. The list is ridiculously idiosyncratic.
>
>Is it possible to create a list that isn't? Sure, you could poll lots of
>"experts" and aggregate the results, but you'd still have a list that omits
>lots of good books while including questionable ones.
Quite.
Certainly, I'm a little miffed that certain works I enjoy didn't make
the list (Snow Crash but not Sandman? Gravity's Rainbow but not The
Loved One? Where's Dune? Or The Stars My Destination? Where's
Ulysses?), but yes - any list of Top 100 is prone to being
idiosynchratic.
That's just the nature of the beast.
Anyway - they're good fun to bicker about, if at the very least so we
can be reminded of other great works of the 20th century.
Ilya the Recusant
-----------------
"Asshole" has a special place in my childhood, the point at which I
first learned that typical Americans were assholes.
- C&J
----
www.livejournal.com/users/ohilya
Peter D. Tillman
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> Aaron Denney <wno...@ofb.net> wrote:
> >On 2005-10-23, Justin Alexander <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
> >> Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> >>> And you may have ruled that THE STARS MY DESTINATION isn't a novel, as
> >>> it uses typographical trickery...
> >>
> >> I'm assuming you mean THE DEMOLISHED MAN?
> >
> >Nah, _The Stars my Destination_ had some, though not all that much, as
> >I recall.
>
> Yeah, I don't even remember any in _The Demolished Man_ while the
> stuff in _Stars_ when Foyle's jumping wildly through time and space
> stuck with me.
>
I remember my ancient mmpb copy was printed with worn plates, and the
typography-tricks were pretty blurry (but still cool). Much crisper &
nicer in the recent trade-pb reprint. Can't think of any other examples
of such in Bester's work, offhand....
I liked the stutter/stuck-loop bit too:
He was on the brawling Spanish Steps. He was on the brawling Spanish
Steps. He was on the brawling Spanish Steps. He was on the brawling
Spanish Steps. He was on the brawling Spanish Steps...
Really, a lot to like in that old book. And in Bester's work in general.
Happy reading--
Pete "Vorga, I kill you, filthy" Tillman
Michael
No; (almost) everyone here believes she *does* write SF, and that she
does it badly.
******************
I've read Handmaid's Tale. Whatever it was, sci-fi or not, it wasn't
very good. For sure it's poorly conceived feminist propaganda.
Usually I read stuff that's been out for a while, and I've never been
one
to be excited and anxious about a new novel coming out, but I am
truly looking forward to George R.R. Martin's new one. Here in San
Diego at the local Barnes and Noble, they're taking orders that are
supposed to deliver on Nov. 8 which, I assume, is about the same
delivery date for the rest of the world.
Michael
Gene Ward Smith
Ilya the Recusant wrote:
> Certainly, I'm a little miffed that certain works I enjoy didn't make
> the list (Snow Crash but not Sandman? Gravity's Rainbow but not The
> Loved One? Where's Dune? Or The Stars My Destination? Where's
> Ulysses?), but yes - any list of Top 100 is prone to being
> idiosynchratic.
Ulysses isn't on the list because it's a list of the best 100 novels in
English since Ulysses. The Loved One isn't on the list because for a
lot of authors they decided to pick one representative novel, and for
Waugh they picked A Handful of Dust. As for what sf is and isn't on the
list, be happy they included any.
JavaJosh
> John Schilling wrote:
>
> No; (almost) everyone here believes she *does* write SF, and that she
> does it badly.
>
> ******************
> I've read Handmaid's Tale. Whatever it was, sci-fi or not, it wasn't
> very good. For sure it's poorly conceived feminist propaganda.
I thought it was good. Some nice tension, and I like post apocolyptic
settings...but I can't remember all of it.
> Usually I read stuff that's been out for a while, and I've never been
> one
> to be excited and anxious about a new novel coming out, but I am
> truly looking forward to George R.R. Martin's new one. Here in San
> Diego at the local Barnes and Noble, they're taking orders that are
> supposed to deliver on Nov. 8 which, I assume, is about the same
> delivery date for the rest of the world.
It was released in the UK 10.18.05. I had it airshipped here and
already read it. I'm sorry to report that it's not good at all. In
fact, you might even call it bad. See my full review and follow-up
discussion (with Elio who thinks it's just as good as the other books
of "Song") in a thread called "_Feast for Crows_ - a review".
JavaJosh
Sean O'Hara wrote:
> In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful Lawrence Watt-Evans
> declared:
> > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:26:26 -0400, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful scott...@yahoo.com
> >>declared:
> >>
> >>>Watchmen is one of the most structurally complex, genre defying,
> >>>philsophical graphic novels you will ever read.
> >>
> >>It still ain't a novel.
> >
> > Under what definition? It contains well over 60,000 words of prose.
> >
>
> I'm sure the closed captioning for the complete run of Buffy the
> Vampire Slayer does as well, but that's not a novel either.
Heh.
>
> A novel is a work of prose, period. It might be supplemented on
> occasion by illustrations, but the prose does all the work of
> telling the story. The Watchmen is a work where the illustrations
> and prose are equally integral to the narrative -- it's a comic
> book, or, if you prefer, a "graphic novel". It doesn't belong on the
> list of great novels anymore than Star Wars belongs on a list of
> great plays -- they're two different genres.
I tend to agree, but the younger generation might not. My local Barnes
and Noble has recently redone the SF section. It now includes an entire
*isle* of graphic novels. And now, guess what? I see a *ton* of young
teenagers (13-17) hanging out in that section, reading things that I've
never even heard of.
It is a little discomfiting to see a teenager reading "graphic novels"
(it reminds me strongly of the _Diamond Age_ illiterates having to use
a iconographic psuedo language to operate machinery) but it appears
that the genre has really taken off.
Other interesting trend, if B&N is any sign: more RPGs, especially D&D
(3rd ed). This is suprising to me.
So anyway, Watchman was surely put on the list to make it more "hip"
and applicable to the younger set.
Ray Cunningham
John Schilling wrote:
> In article <1130148297.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Cunningham says...
>
> >Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
> >> MJ Stoddard <stod...@u.arizona.edu> writes:
>
> >> > SF picks:
> >> > The Blind Assassin - Margaret Atwood
>
> >> Remember, Ms. Atwood most emphatically does not write SF.
>
> >How many self-described SF readers read Margaret Atwood?
> >Everyone seems to criticise her for saying she doesn't write SF, but
> >everyone also seems to agree with her...
>
> No; (almost) everyone here believes she *does* write SF, and that she
> does it badly.
>
> Some but not all of us believe this without having actually read any
> of her works, presumably on the basis of the overall track record of
> authors who write what is patently SF and loudly proclaim, "Not SF!"
Some? ITYM 'most'. How many here have read Oryx and Crake, do you
think? How many of the Hugo voters have?
Atwood gets shelved in Literature/General Fiction for a reason - the
lit readers will read her, and the SF readers won't. If by 'not SF' she
means 'not what most people, including SF readers, understand by SF',
would that be controversial?
Ray
Clintok
>> The arguments you fantasy <snip>
What a douche.
Justin Alexander
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:53:08 +0000 (UTC), Aaron Denney
> <wno...@ofb.net> wrote:
>
> >On 2005-10-23, Justin Alexander <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
> >> Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> >>> And you may have ruled that THE STARS MY DESTINATION isn't a novel, as
> >>> it uses typographical trickery...
> >>
> >> I'm assuming you mean THE DEMOLISHED MAN?
> >
> >Nah, _The Stars my Destination_ had some, though not all that much, as
> >I recall.
>
> Yeah, I don't even remember any in _The Demolished Man_ while the
> stuff in _Stars_ when Foyle's jumping wildly through time and space
> stuck with me.
Interesting, because exactly the opposite was true for me. I had
completely forgotten the typographical sense inversion in THE STARS MY
DESTINATION, but thought-poems of THE DEMOLISHED MAN struck me as
definitive.
This may have something to do with the fact that I read the Babylon 5
PSI CORPS Trilogy shortly after reading th DEMOLISHED MAN, and Keyes
lifts Bester's thought-poem trope for the B5 telepaths.
Bateau
>Bateau wrote:
>> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > And in this newsgroup, as you've been repeatedly told, SF means
>> >"Speculative Fiction", which includes Fantasy and Science Fiction (and
>> >some Horror, Comic Books, etc).
>>
>> What the fuck is "speculative" about Lord of the Rings?
>
>The whole thing is explicitly speculative -- moreso than just about any
>other work of fiction I can think of -- but the mechanism of that
>speculation is probably too complicated for you to understand. Someday
Is that why you're not going to explain it? It's not because you don't
know and you're talking shit?
All that means SHIT. A newsgroup is defined by NOTHING but its name.
That's all anyone sees when they subscribe to it.
Bateau
>Bateau wrote:
>> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Bateau wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> This is Bateau. While he occasionally actually contributes to a
>>>>>discussion, most of his time is taken up igniting flames. I mean, if
>>>>>you look above, he's also taken aback that LotR makes the list, when
>>>>>LotR has been consistently making the lists of even literary groups.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm taken aback that LOTR has made MJ's list of books that are SCI FI.
>>>
>>> No, that are SF. Which is what he said at the beginning. YOU saw "SF"
>>>and interpreted it as "Science Fiction".
>>>
>>> And in this newsgroup, as you've been repeatedly told, SF means
>>>"Speculative Fiction", which includes Fantasy and Science Fiction (and
>>>some Horror, Comic Books, etc).
>>
>>
>> What the fuck is "speculative" about Lord of the Rings?
>
> "What if the world designed by this scholar of literature existed?"
>would be one way to phrase it.
So all fiction is speculative. "What if these characters existed."
Noob.
>> "Sci fi isn't short for science fiction" and "fantasy is speculative!"
>> The arguments you fantasy faggots come up with
>
> Actually, it's "SF isn't short for Science Fiction." Learn to read.
WRONG. Some dillholes were seriously arguing that "sci fi" is not a
shortened way of saying "science fiction."
Michael Stemper
>Time Magazine, Oct 24, 2005
>100 best novels
>SF picks:
>The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe - C.S. Lewis
I dearly love the Narnia books, but I wouldn't place them in the top
one hundred of SF, much less the top one hundred overall.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
"Writing about jazz is like dancing about architecture" - Thelonious Monk
Elf M. Sternberg
> Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
> > Remember, Ms. Atwood most emphatically does not write SF.
>
> How many self-described SF readers read Margaret Atwood?
> Everyone seems to criticise her for saying she doesn't write SF, but
> everyone also seems to agree with her...
Well, I've read _The Handmaid's Tale_. And I read _Oryx and
Crake_ until the Eight Deadly Words hit. I think people don't read her
because she's not worth reading. I *like* thoughtful literature: I read
people like Mark Helprin, Don Dulillo, and John Banville for fun.
Ms. Atwood is not in that category. Her prose is dull and her
imagination weak. She's just barely good enough to be published
alongside other b-list "violin moment" writers, and critics applaud her
for flirting with that cheesy, pimply-faced sfnal genre crowd and doing
something "daring" with its favorite toy, The Future.
Elf
Mike Schilling
"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130221279....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
.
>
> Ulysses isn't on the list because it's a list of the best 100 novels in
> English since Ulysses. The Loved One isn't on the list because for a
> lot of authors they decided to pick one representative novel, and for
> Waugh they picked A Handful of Dust.
Which will reamain the right choice at least until The Loved One is remade
starring Kristin Scott Thomas.
Mark Atwood
>
> Ms. Atwood is not in that category. Her prose is dull and her
> imagination weak. She's just barely good enough to be published
> alongside other b-list "violin moment" writers,
Being a Canuck doesn't hurt her either, being able to use various
"National Heritage" handouts and advantages.
--
Mark Atwood When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@mark.atwood.name you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
Mike Schilling
"Mark Atwood" <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote in message
news:m21x29z...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com...
> "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> writes:
>>
>> Ms. Atwood is not in that category. Her prose is dull and her
>> imagination weak. She's just barely good enough to be published
>> alongside other b-list "violin moment" writers,
>
> Being a Canuck doesn't hurt her either, being able to use various
> "National Heritage" handouts and advantages.
Having written two best-sellers doesn't hurt either.
Justin Alexander
Bateau wrote:
> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
> >Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> >> And you may have ruled that THE STARS MY DESTINATION isn't a novel, as
> >> it uses typographical trickery...
> >
> >I'm assuming you mean THE DEMOLISHED MAN?
> >
> >list, too. Comic books are their own medium, and they deserve respect
> >and adolation for their own accomplishments. Co-opting any comic books
> >which meet some sort of mainstream "approval" for being so gosh-darn
> >good and claiming they're not comic books isn't doing the medium any
> >favors.
>
> Sin City: Hell and Back is crap compared to the rest.
Ummm... okay?
--
Justn Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net
Justin Alexander
JavaJosh wrote:
> Sean O'Hara wrote:
> > A novel is a work of prose, period. It might be supplemented on
> > occasion by illustrations, but the prose does all the work of
> > telling the story. The Watchmen is a work where the illustrations
> > and prose are equally integral to the narrative -- it's a comic
> > book, or, if you prefer, a "graphic novel". It doesn't belong on the
> > list of great novels anymore than Star Wars belongs on a list of
> > great plays -- they're two different genres.
>
> I tend to agree, but the younger generation might not. My local Barnes
> and Noble has recently redone the SF section. It now includes an entire
> *isle* of graphic novels. And now, guess what? I see a *ton* of young
> teenagers (13-17) hanging out in that section, reading things that I've
> never even heard of.
That's like arguing that the younger generation might think that Avril
Lavigne's latest single is a novel because the local Barnes & Noble
recently added a music section and, guess what, there are a *ton* of
young teenagers hanging out in that section.
> It is a little discomfiting to see a teenager reading "graphic novels"
> (it reminds me strongly of the _Diamond Age_ illiterates having to use
> a iconographic psuedo language to operate machinery) but it appears
> that the genre has really taken off.
Ah, I see the problem. You're painfully, painfully ignorant and/or
stupid. I don't mean offense here, but you really, really, really need
to educate yourself. There's nothing "illiterate" about reading comics.
It's a complex storytelling medium.
willre...@yahoo.com
Ray Cunningham wrote:
> Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
> > MJ Stoddard <stod...@u.arizona.edu> writes:
> >
> > > SF picks:
> > > The Blind Assassin - Margaret Atwood
> >
> >
>
> How many self-described SF readers read Margaret Atwood?
> Everyone seems to criticise her for saying she doesn't write SF, but
> everyone also seems to agree with her...
>
Is there some oath we take to read ALL available SF. When I don't read
any more Margaret Atwood it is because I find her writing excerable,
not because she doesn't scratch some sort of SF "itch."
Of course, I don't criticize her for saying that she doesn't write SF.
What do I care what she says. Several of her books are, according to
the plot summaries I read, SF. The one that I did read was SF. Bad SF
or maybe mediocre SF but SF. It was future socialogical speculation,
extrapolated from imagined current trends. That is SF.
Will in New Haven
--
After a lifelong study of the Buddha's words, I have to regretfully
admit that the Four Noble Truths are probably not
Faster Horses,
Older Whiskey,
Younger Women,
More Money
willre...@yahoo.com
The unpleasant presence himself comes up with a good phrase. I will
have to remember it long after I have forgotten you.
Steve Coltrin
"willre...@yahoo.com" <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Bateau wrote:
>> [anything at all]
> [anything at all]
A month in the killfile.
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Fox can't take the sky from me
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> said
>begin fnord
>"willre...@yahoo.com" <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bateau wrote:
>>> [anything at all]
>> [anything at all]
>
>A month in the killfile.
Save your fingers/time, make it permanent.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
> The arguments you fantasy faggots come up with to justify your
> unpleasant presence in science fiction groups and bookshelves get more
> ridiculous every day.
It may be a surprise to you but you are in a very small minority,
perhaps as small as one. You have no support in your stance that
fantasy is not allowable here. "You fantasy faggots" is odd coming
from somebody who is much more of an outsider to this newsgroup than
the people you are disparaging.
In fact, it is another unfortunate example of how a loud, noisy,
self-righteous minority can seek to gain control by intimitating the
majority into remaining silent and ineffective. Fortunately for this
newsgroup, but not Christianity or the U.S. citizenry, there is no
central control in this unmoderated newsgroup that Bateau can seize to
enforce his views.
Unless one counts the FAQ. How is that written up? Is this question
answered in the FAQ and should I have read it before asking?<g>
Steve Coltrin
GSV Three Minds in a Can <G...@quik.clara.co.uk> writes:
> Bitstring <874q75g...@hrothgar.omcl.org>, from the wonderful
> person Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> said
>>begin fnord
>>"willre...@yahoo.com" <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Bateau wrote:
>>>> [anything at all]
>>> [anything at all]
>>
>>A month in the killfile.
>
> Save your fingers/time, make it permanent.
WHOOSH
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> "Elf M. Sternberg" <e...@drizzle.com> writes:
> >
> > Ms. Atwood is not in that category. Her prose is dull and her
> > imagination weak. She's just barely good enough to be published
> > alongside other b-list "violin moment" writers,
>
> Being a Canuck doesn't hurt her either, being able to use various
> "National Heritage" handouts and advantages.
>
If her career was helped along by a government grant
in its early stage, then it was a pretty good investment
given the amount of income tax she now pays as compared
to the tax that would be paid by her as, say, a high
school teacher.
She was a commercially and critically successful writer for
years before "The Handmaid's Tale", just not the huge
success she is now.
--
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Bill Snyder
<G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>Bitstring <874q75g...@hrothgar.omcl.org>, from the wonderful person
>Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> said
>>begin fnord
>>"willre...@yahoo.com" <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Bateau wrote:
>>>> [anything at all]
>>> [anything at all]
>>
>>A month in the killfile.
>
>Save your fingers/time, make it permanent.
He's killfiling everybody who *replies* to Bateau. Plonked me a few
weeks back.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Clintok
news:ti70m15nlesveukn4...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:30:04 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can
> <G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Bitstring <874q75g...@hrothgar.omcl.org>, from the wonderful person
>>Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> said
>>>begin fnord
>>>"willre...@yahoo.com" <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bateau wrote:
>>>>> [anything at all]
>>>> [anything at all]
>>>
>>>A month in the killfile.
>>
>>Save your fingers/time, make it permanent.
>
> He's killfiling everybody who *replies* to Bateau. Plonked me a few
> weeks back.
But...but then the terrorists will have won!
@hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
>I tend to agree, but the younger generation might not. My local Barnes
>and Noble has recently redone the SF section. It now includes an entire
>*isle* of graphic novels.
Do you have to pay for the ferry to get there, or has Barnes & Noble
provided a foot-bridge for customers to access the Graphic Novel
section?
Mark Atwood
> Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name> writes:
>>
>> Being a Canuck doesn't hurt her either, being able to use various
>> "National Heritage" handouts and advantages.
>>
>
> If her career was helped along by a government grant
> in its early stage, then it was a pretty good investment
> given the amount of income tax she now pays as compared
> to the tax that would be paid by her as, say, a high
> school teacher.
If you want to make statements about it being a good investment by the
state, the correct numerator is not the size of HER grant, but the
size of all the grants given to everyone.
Anyone can demonstrate "pretty good investment", so long as they are
allowed to brush under the run all the stocks they picked that
flopped...
She writes litcrit dreck. It *is* SF, despite her claims, but the
SFnal themes of it are so old they are stooped over and have hair
growing out of their ears. Her themes have been done. Better.
Decades ago.
The self-rightious smugness wrapped around her little dystopia has the
same stink that rised from Robert Sawyer's text.
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> said
>On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:30:04 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can
><G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Bitstring <874q75g...@hrothgar.omcl.org>, from the wonderful person
>>Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> said
>>>begin fnord
>>>"willre...@yahoo.com" <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bateau wrote:
>>>>> [anything at all]
>>>> [anything at all]
>>>
>>>A month in the killfile.
>>
>>Save your fingers/time, make it permanent.
>
>He's killfiling everybody who *replies* to Bateau. Plonked me a few
>weeks back.
Ah, that makes sense .. in which case maybe a month is a bit long.
Replying to B. is a curable disease (given a modicum of intelligence).
=Being= B. is clearly terminal.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Paul Harman
news:1130227785....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Atwood gets shelved in Literature/General Fiction for a reason - the
> lit readers will read her, and the SF readers won't. If by 'not SF' she
> means 'not what most people, including SF readers, understand by SF',
> would that be controversial?
};*)
I'm reading "The Time-Traveller's Wife" at the moment. It's so obviously
science fiction, even from the title, that I can't imagine how anyone could
think it's anything else.
Paul
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu writes:
> > Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name> writes:
> >>
> >> Being a Canuck doesn't hurt her either, being able to use various
> >> "National Heritage" handouts and advantages.
So she picked the right country, Larry Niven picked the
right parents.
> > If her career was helped along by a government grant
> > in its early stage, then it was a pretty good investment
> > given the amount of income tax she now pays as compared
> > to the tax that would be paid by her as, say, a high
> > school teacher.
>
> If you want to make statements about it being a good investment by the
> state, the correct numerator is not the size of HER grant, but the
> size of all the grants given to everyone.
>
On the other hand the less it worked for others, the more
credit to her - if she got anything of the kind, that is.
> Anyone can demonstrate "pretty good investment", so long as they are
> allowed to brush under the run all the stocks they picked that
> flopped...
>
If it's good for Wall Street, it's good for whatever
Canadian government department handles this.
>
> She writes litcrit dreck.
Well, I've read more Mark Atwood than Margaret Atwood, by
word count, but I disagree with this. She writes novels
that evidently you do not like, but which sell well around
the world and also get critical respect.
It *is* SF, despite her claims,
I've never read any of her SF. I have the impression that when
non-SF writers get into SF they are not at their best. As you
say, they are generally unfamiliar with what has been written.
So I avoid such unless someone whose judgment I respect
strongly recommends it.
Ray Cunningham
willre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ray Cunningham wrote:
> > How many self-described SF readers read Margaret Atwood?
> > Everyone seems to criticise her for saying she doesn't write SF, but
> > everyone also seems to agree with her...
> >
> > Ray
>
> Is there some oath we take to read ALL available SF.
Not at all. What I find amusing is that many SF readers appear to have
a chip on their shoulders about lack of mainstream recognition, in
particular the ways books that are obviously SF aren't described as
such. But at the same time, most of them don't read the books that are
published as Literature instead of SF, or read them and don't like
them. So they're annoyed because things that they don't like aren't
being classed with the things that they do like.
Ray
Randy Money
> Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name> writes:
>
>
>>wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu writes:
>>
>>>Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name> writes:
>>>
>>>>Being a Canuck doesn't hurt her either, being able to use various
>>>>"National Heritage" handouts and advantages.
>>>
>
> So she picked the right country, Larry Niven picked the
> right parents.
:)
[...]
>>She writes litcrit dreck.
>
>
> Well, I've read more Mark Atwood than Margaret Atwood, by
> word count, but I disagree with this. She writes novels
> that evidently you do not like, but which sell well around
> the world and also get critical respect.
>
> It *is* SF, despite her claims,
>
> I've never read any of her SF. I have the impression that when
> non-SF writers get into SF they are not at their best. As you
> say, they are generally unfamiliar with what has been written.
> So I avoid such unless someone whose judgment I respect
> strongly recommends it.
I read _A Handmaid's Tale_ quite a long time ago, and recall it as a
cautionary tale. If the reader gets past the plausibility of the premise
and actually pays attention to how Atwood carries off the story based on
such a controversial premise, she does just fine, the consequences of
the world she posits is fairly well developed in her depiction of time
and place and social structure. It's not one of my favorite novels, it
didn't inspire me to read more by her, but I thought it a reasonable and
intriguing book. It also didn't put me off her work, and one of these
days I hope to read _Blind Assassin_. [I think, if you squint and turn
your head a bit to the side, it describes something like a Gor-ian world
as seen by someone not likely to prosper in Gor.]
Oh, and a correction to what someone else mentioned: In the U.S. at
least, Atwood has had many bestsellers, at least 4 (_Handmaid..._;
_Blind Assassin_; _Oryx & Crake_; _The Robber Bridegroom_, and I'm
pretty sure there's another and maybe more) I can think of. Further, in
the '70s and '80s her early novel _Surfacing_ was taught (and probably
still is taught) in colleges and had a cult following of young women
whose views of life were roughly equivalent to those young women
listening religiously to Janis Ian.
Randy M.
Randy Money
You've described much of SF fandom in a nutshell, Ray. (Of course, you
could just tweak a word here and there and you'd be describing some of
mystery fandom, as well. Probably romance and westerns fandom, too.)
Randy M.
MJ Stoddard
wrote:>>http://www.time.com/time/2005/100books/the_complete_list.html
>
>You suck.
Thank you, Bateau.
It is a great honor to be added to the stellar list of person you have
placed on the you-suck list. I'm sure I don't deserved it.
Your on-going rec.arts.sf.written postings offer a splendid tool for
educating beings who are new to this list, as do your determined
attempts to keep us all aware of what SF really means.
Again - thanks!
MJ Stoddard
Steve Coltrin
MJ Stoddard <stod...@u.arizona.edu> writes:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:59:00 +0800, Bateau <Batea...@MAN.invalid>
> wrote:
>> [anything at all]
>
> [anything at all]
A month in the killfile.
--
Craig Richardson
wrote:
>She writes litcrit dreck. It *is* SF, despite her claims, but the
>SFnal themes of it are so old they are stooped over and have hair
>growing out of their ears. Her themes have been done. Better.
>Decades ago.
This is the main point, to me - people who don't think they are
writing SF don't do their basic research, in a way that they never
would for, say, historical fiction. Her readers would be scandalized
if she wrote a serious book set in Rome based on the DVD of "Life of
Brian" and her recollections of having seen "I, Claudius" some years
back. But, when it's SF, they aren't familiar with the genre, either,
so they give her a pass she doesn't deserve.
--Craig
--
"Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory lasts forever." - The Replacements
Craig Richardson (crichar...@worldnet.att.net)
Mike Schilling
"Craig Richardson" <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:jfc2m158tv7q1jh2b...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:24:22 GMT, Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name>
> wrote:
>
>>She writes litcrit dreck. It *is* SF, despite her claims, but the
>>SFnal themes of it are so old they are stooped over and have hair
>>growing out of their ears. Her themes have been done. Better.
>>Decades ago.
>
> This is the main point, to me - people who don't think they are
> writing SF don't do their basic research, in a way that they never
> would for, say, historical fiction. Her readers would be scandalized
> if she wrote a serious book set in Rome based on the DVD of "Life of
> Brian" and her recollections of having seen "I, Claudius" some years
> back. But, when it's SF, they aren't familiar with the genre, either,
> so they give her a pass she doesn't deserve.
Mark isn't saying that her science is wrong [1]. So the analogy isn't that
she wrote a historical novel based on nonsensical history. He's saying
that being unfamiliar with the genre, she's rehashing existing books and not
bettering them. That's as if I wrote a book about a crazed hunter who was
trampled almost to death by a giant elephant, and has been searching for it
maniacally ever since, and was unaware it's been done with whales.
In a sense, what she's doing is disrespectful to our genre, but I'm not sure
a mainstream reader would or should care about that.
1. Though, since I haven't read her stuff, for all I know, that's a problem
too.
David Johnston
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Craig Richardson" <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:jfc2m158tv7q1jh2b...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:24:22 GMT, Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>She writes litcrit dreck. It *is* SF, despite her claims, but the
>>>SFnal themes of it are so old they are stooped over and have hair
>>>growing out of their ears. Her themes have been done. Better.
>>>Decades ago.
>>
>> This is the main point, to me - people who don't think they are
>> writing SF don't do their basic research, in a way that they never
>> would for, say, historical fiction. Her readers would be scandalized
>> if she wrote a serious book set in Rome based on the DVD of "Life of
>> Brian" and her recollections of having seen "I, Claudius" some years
>> back. But, when it's SF, they aren't familiar with the genre, either,
>> so they give her a pass she doesn't deserve.
>
>
>Mark isn't saying that her science is wrong [1]. So the analogy isn't that
>she wrote a historical novel based on nonsensical history. He's saying
>that being unfamiliar with the genre, she's rehashing existing books and not
>bettering them. That's as if I wrote a book about a crazed hunter who was
>trampled almost to death by a giant elephant, and has been searching for it
>maniacally ever since, and was unaware it's been done with whales.
>
This reminds me of Orson Scott Card's "Ignorance is bliss" stories.
Mike Schilling
"David Johnston" <rgo...@block.net> wrote in message
news:43612967...@news.telusplanet.net...
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:17:07 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
>>
>>Mark isn't saying that her science is wrong [1]. So the analogy isn't
>>that
>>she wrote a historical novel based on nonsensical history. He's saying
>>that being unfamiliar with the genre, she's rehashing existing books and
>>not
>>bettering them. That's as if I wrote a book about a crazed hunter who was
>>trampled almost to death by a giant elephant, and has been searching for
>>it
>>maniacally ever since, and was unaware it's been done with whales.
>>
>
> This reminds me of Orson Scott Card's "Ignorance is bliss" stories.
I've never read them, and that's fine with me.
r.r...@thevine.net
>
>"Craig Richardson" <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:jfc2m158tv7q1jh2b...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:24:22 GMT, Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>She writes litcrit dreck. It *is* SF, despite her claims, but the
>>>SFnal themes of it are so old they are stooped over and have hair
>>>growing out of their ears. Her themes have been done. Better.
>>>Decades ago.
>>
>> This is the main point, to me - people who don't think they are
>> writing SF don't do their basic research, in a way that they never
>> would for, say, historical fiction. Her readers would be scandalized
>> if she wrote a serious book set in Rome based on the DVD of "Life of
>> Brian" and her recollections of having seen "I, Claudius" some years
>> back. But, when it's SF, they aren't familiar with the genre, either,
>> so they give her a pass she doesn't deserve.
>
>
>Mark isn't saying that her science is wrong [1]. So the analogy isn't that
>she wrote a historical novel based on nonsensical history. He's saying
>that being unfamiliar with the genre, she's rehashing existing books and not
>bettering them. That's as if I wrote a book about a crazed hunter who was
>trampled almost to death by a giant elephant, and has been searching for it
>maniacally ever since, and was unaware it's been done with whales.
>
But, if your book is a good one, and people like it, and (perhaps) you
work in some symbolism and all, does it really matter that it's been
done with whales? This assumes, of course, that you really _are_
unaware of the book, so your story isn't just Moby Dick with the
species changed.
I mean, there are a lot of stories out there where boy meets girl, boy
loses girl, boy gets girl back, and several of them are good, despite
having the same theme. So it's not clear to me that simply writing
the same kind of story that other people have written is some sort of
sin. It may result in the book not selling well, but isn't it a
publisher's job to read the proposed idea and point out if they think
it's trite or stale?
Rebecca
Mike Schilling
<r.r...@thevine.net> wrote in message
news:ho63m1lc07ku20t57...@4ax.com...
>>Mark isn't saying that her science is wrong [1]. So the analogy isn't
>>that
>>she wrote a historical novel based on nonsensical history. He's saying
>>that being unfamiliar with the genre, she's rehashing existing books and
>>not
>>bettering them. That's as if I wrote a book about a crazed hunter who was
>>trampled almost to death by a giant elephant, and has been searching for
>>it
>>maniacally ever since, and was unaware it's been done with whales.
>>
> But, if your book is a good one, and people like it, and (perhaps) you
> work in some symbolism and all, does it really matter that it's been
> done with whales? This assumes, of course, that you really _are_
> unaware of the book, so your story isn't just Moby Dick with the
> species changed.
But if it's similar enough, you'll get split reactions: some will enjoy it,
while better-read people will say "As a story of obsession, it's a pale
imitation of Melville."
>
> I mean, there are a lot of stories out there where boy meets girl, boy
> loses girl, boy gets girl back, and several of them are good, despite
> having the same theme. So it's not clear to me that simply writing
> the same kind of story that other people have written is some sort of
> sin. It may result in the book not selling well, but isn't it a
> publisher's job to read the proposed idea and point out if they think
> it's trite or stale?
I think we're mostly in agreement. If Atwood wantd to write what we would
consider science-fictional books for a non-SF audience, she's free to do so,
and if she's genuinely re-inventing the wheel rather than copying patented
designs, no blame attaches.
Bateau
>Bitstring <874q75g...@hrothgar.omcl.org>, from the wonderful person
>Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> said
>>begin fnord
>>"willre...@yahoo.com" <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Bateau wrote:
>>>> [anything at all]
>>> [anything at all]
>>
>>A month in the killfile.
>
>Save your fingers/time, make it permanent.
He's not killfiling me he's killfiling Will. He killfiles anyone who
replies to me. He makes about 6 of those posts in various newsgroups
each day. Crazy.
Bateau
>
>Bateau wrote:
>> "Justin Alexander" <jus...@thealexandrian.net> wrote:
>> >Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> >> And you may have ruled that THE STARS MY DESTINATION isn't a novel, as
>> >> it uses typographical trickery...
>> >
>> >I'm assuming you mean THE DEMOLISHED MAN?
>> >
>> >Quibbles over definition aside, I object to WATCHMEN being on that
>> >list, too. Comic books are their own medium, and they deserve respect
>> >and adolation for their own accomplishments. Co-opting any comic books
>> >which meet some sort of mainstream "approval" for being so gosh-darn
>> >good and claiming they're not comic books isn't doing the medium any
>> >favors.
>>
>> Sin City: Hell and Back is crap compared to the rest.
>
>Ummm... okay?
It's a comic!
Bateau
>Bitstring <ti70m15nlesveukn4...@4ax.com>, from the
>wonderful person Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> said
>>On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:30:04 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can
>><G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Bitstring <874q75g...@hrothgar.omcl.org>, from the wonderful person
>>>Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> said
>>>>begin fnord
>>>>"willre...@yahoo.com" <willre...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Bateau wrote:
>>>>>> [anything at all]
>>>>> [anything at all]
>>>>
>>>>A month in the killfile.
>>>
>>>Save your fingers/time, make it permanent.
>>
>>He's killfiling everybody who *replies* to Bateau. Plonked me a few
>>weeks back.
>
>Ah, that makes sense .. in which case maybe a month is a bit long.
>Replying to B. is a curable disease (given a modicum of intelligence).
>=Being= B. is clearly terminal.
I'm not dead yet!
Bateau
Sweet that's the second thread all about me today!
The fact is, you fantasy faggots do not belong. Many people agree with
me but they have been shouted down by you pointy eared horse riding
queers. Noisey self righteous fantasy fags took over this group and I
will take it back.
Anyone can write a FAQ dipshit.
Sea Wasp
> I'm not dead yet!
You're just pining for the fnords?
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
willre...@yahoo.com
However, there is a logical flaw there. Your amusement really depends
on SF readers liking all of SF. On the other hand, the chip on the
shoulder is foolish. Marketing categories have nothing to do with
excellence or lack of it. The publisher just puts "fiction" on the
cover because the editors think that is the way to maximize sales.
Sometimes they are probably correct, Atwood being an example. Other
times, they are making a mistake, M.D. Russel would seem to fit. At
least novels don't count on radio airplay, so we don't see the problem
borderline or edge artists in music have, having nowhere to be played.
Will in New Haven
--
"Oh you're in my blood like holy wine
You taste so bitter and so sweet
Oh I could drink a case of you darling
And I would still be on my feet
Oh I would still be on my feet" Joni Mitchell- "A Case of You"
Christopher J. Henrich
<Batea...@MAN.invalid> wrote:
You might want to look at the archives of sci.math. One James Steve
Harris made a stab at taking control of that group. Look for "JSH" in
Subject lines.
--
Chris Henrich
http://www.mathinteract.com
The wonderful thing about not planning, is that failure comes as a complete
surprise, and is not preceded by a period of worry or depression.
-- "Kiltannen"
Steve Coltrin
"Christopher J. Henrich" <chen...@monmouth.com> writes:
> In article <eoq3m1dlkp157q7fc...@4ax.com>, Bateau
> <Batea...@MAN.invalid> wrote:
>
>> [anything at all]
>
> [anything at all]
>> >> unpleasant presence in science fiction groups and bookshelves get more
A month in the killfile.
--
Bill Snyder
<seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>Bateau wrote:
>
>> I'm not dead yet!
>
> You're just pining for the fnords?
I say we nail him to the perch. Can I have a show of hands?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Bateau
What happened? Did you beat him to death with your set squares? LOOK OUT
THE NERD LYNCH MOB IS COMING!
Bateau
>begin fnord
>"Christopher J. Henrich" <chen...@monmouth.com> writes:
>
>> In article <eoq3m1dlkp157q7fc...@4ax.com>, Bateau
>> <Batea...@MAN.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> [anything at all]
>>
>> [anything at all]
>>> >> unpleasant presence in science fiction groups and bookshelves get more
>
>A month in the killfile.
See I've got my own personal enforcer!
Steve Coltrin
Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> writes:
> Bateau wrote:
>
>> [anything at all]
>
> [anything at all]
A month in the killfile.
--
Sea Wasp
> begin fnord
> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> writes:
>
>
>>Bateau wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[anything at all]
>>
>>[anything at all]
>
>
> A month in the killfile.
>
Too bad you won't see my recommendation to make it permanent. I'll
reply to anyone I happen to feel like replying to. The probability
I'll reply to one or two messages by Bateau during a month is pretty high.
Mike Schilling
"Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote in message
news:436328F...@obvioussgeinc.com...
> Steve Coltrin wrote:
>> begin fnord
>> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Bateau wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>[anything at all]
>>>
>>>[anything at all]
>>
>>
>> A month in the killfile.
>>
>
> Too bad you won't see my recommendation to make it permanent. I'll reply
> to anyone I happen to feel like replying to. The probability I'll reply to
> one or two messages by Bateau during a month is pretty high.
(Making this visible.)
Andrew Wheeler
>
> begin fnord
> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> writes:
>
> > Bateau wrote:
> >
> >> [anything at all]
> >
> > [anything at all]
>
> A month in the killfile.
If your only contribution to RASFW is going to be notifications of how
you're killfilling people, I'd like to kindly ask you to go bother some
other group.
You're more annoying than Bateau, who is at least intermittently amusing.
--
Andrew Wheeler
--
I have fallen to the dark side:
antickmusings.blogspot.com
Wayne Throop
: Steve Coltrin wrote:
: >Sea Wasp wrote:
: >> Bateau wrote:
: >>> [anything at all]
: >> [anything at all]
: >A month in the killfile.
Really? Well, OK, there's only one cure for that:
Andrew Wheeler wrote:
> Steve Coltrin wrote:
>> [anything at all]
> [anything at all]
A month in the killfile.
No, wait... I don't use killfiles.
Oh, foo, hoising, petards, all that.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Robert Ho
Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><r.r...@thevine.net> wrote in message
>news:ho63m1lc07ku20t57...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:17:07 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
>> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Mark isn't saying that her science is wrong [1]. So the analogy isn't
>>>that
>>>she wrote a historical novel based on nonsensical history. He's saying
>>>that being unfamiliar with the genre, she's rehashing existing books and
>>>not
>>>bettering them. That's as if I wrote a book about a crazed hunter who was
>>>trampled almost to death by a giant elephant, and has been searching for
>>>it
>>>maniacally ever since, and was unaware it's been done with whales.
>>>
>> But, if your book is a good one, and people like it, and (perhaps) you
>> work in some symbolism and all, does it really matter that it's been
>> done with whales? This assumes, of course, that you really _are_
>> unaware of the book, so your story isn't just Moby Dick with the
>> species changed.
>
>But if it's similar enough, you'll get split reactions: some will enjoy it,
>while better-read people will say "As a story of obsession, it's a pale
>imitation of Melville."
Perhaps she is aware of Melville, but is ultimately concerned with completely
different themes than Melville was, and is trying to avoid readers who will
automatically assume it is about obsession (and miss what she is actually
talking about) simply because there is a crazed hunter in it.
rob
Bateau
>Steve Coltrin wrote:
>> begin fnord
>> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Bateau wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>[anything at all]
>>>
>>>[anything at all]
>>
>>
>> A month in the killfile.
>>
>
> Too bad you won't see my recommendation to make it permanent. I'll
>reply to anyone I happen to feel like replying to. The probability
>I'll reply to one or two messages by Bateau during a month is pretty high.
Hey you're a chick right?
Bateau
>Steve Coltrin wrote:
>>
>> begin fnord
>> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> writes:
>>
>> > Bateau wrote:
>> >
>> >> [anything at all]
>> >
>> > [anything at all]
>>
>> A month in the killfile.
>
>If your only contribution to RASFW is going to be notifications of how
>you're killfilling people, I'd like to kindly ask you to go bother some
>other group.
>
>You're more annoying than Bateau, who is at least intermittently amusing.
\o/