Dreamsnake as a "Mary Sue" Novel
Lawrenc...@gmail.com
pegged Ursula K. Le Guin's The Left hand of Darkness as a "Mary Sue"
novel, I happened to read Vonda McIntyre's Dreamsnake, and it struck me
as an even more obvious example. Snake, the titular protagonist, is not
only a paragon of virtue, but has handsome men fall at her feet and
knows exactly what needs to be done at each and every community she
visits, all of whom are grateful for her advice. And her only "flaw" is
being too trusting and compassionate. All classic "Mary Sue" behavior.
Thoughts?
(If you're confused, see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue_%28popular_culture%29)
(FWIW, I didn't think it was a bad novel, just a rather slight one,
especially for something that won both the Hugo and the Nebula.)
Lawrence Person
lper...@austin.rr.com
http://home.austin.rr.com/lperson
Peter D. Tillman
Lawrenc...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it's been a number of years since I read DREAMSNAKE, the novel,
but I did reread the original novella [1] not too long ago. So I gave it
the "Mary Sue Litmus Test" (which is designed to be taken by the author,
so I made reasonable responses or (mostly) left these questions blank.)
And of course I may have misremembered parts of it. So take the score
with a teaspoon of salt <g>.
Result? A Mary-Sue score of 97(!), which is "71 points or more:
Irredeemable-Sue. You're going to have to start over, my friend. I know
you want to keep writing, but no. Just no."
Here's the test: http://www.ponylandpress.com/ms-test.html
[1] I liked it (again), though I'd agree it's on the slight side. But a
memorable story.
Happy reading--
Pete Tillman
prestorjon
htn963
> Shortly after reading that Teresa Nielsen Hayden and Joanna Russ had
> pegged Ursula K. Le Guin's The Left hand of Darkness as a "Mary Sue"
> novel,
In Russ's case, it was probably jealousy, since you'd have to
really stretch to interpret it as a Mary Sue. Unlike most, I didn't
think it was that great, but the characters didn't blare out as
wish-fulfillment embodiments.
> I happened to read Vonda McIntyre's Dreamsnake, and it struck me
> as an even more obvious example. Snake, the titular protagonist, is not
> only a paragon of virtue, but has handsome men fall at her feet and
> knows exactly what needs to be done at each and every community she
> visits, all of whom are grateful for her advice. And her only "flaw" is
> being too trusting and compassionate. All classic "Mary Sue" behavior.
>
> Thoughts?
Again, I didn't see that, though it's been awhile since I've read
it. The protagonist is a shaman and healer, so it's not too
inconceivable that most of those characteristics are prerequisites for
the job.
> (If you're confused, see this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue_%28popular_culture%29)
>
> (FWIW, I didn't think it was a bad novel, just a rather slight one,
> especially for something that won both the Hugo and the Nebula.)
Compare to most of the crap that have won those awards in recent
years, it is a giant. It is by no means one of my all-time favorites,
but is still worth reading and not a bad award winner at all.
--
Ht
Ethan Merritt
> In article <1142156956.5...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> Lawrenc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I happened to read Vonda McIntyre's Dreamsnake, and it struck
>> me as an even more obvious example. Snake, the titular protagonist,
>> is not only a paragon of virtue, but has handsome men fall at her
>> feet and knows exactly what needs to be done at each and every
>> community she visits, all of whom are grateful for her advice.
You obviously do not remember the story as well as you think.
It would be more correct to say "very few of whom appreciated
her help, and she was lucky not to be run out of town on a rail.".
>> her only "flaw" is being too trusting and compassionate. All classic
>> "Mary Sue" behavior.
>>
>> Thoughts?
I think you're way off base.
>> (FWIW, I didn't think it was a bad novel, just a rather slight one,
>> especially for something that won both the Hugo and the Nebula.)
> So I gave it the "Mary Sue Litmus Test" (designed to be taken by
> the author, so I made reasonable responses or (mostly) left these
> questions blank.) And of course I may have misremembered parts of it.
Hmm. I tried the same thing, based on what I know of the author,
and came up with a score of 28. And that's only because I ticked
off answers on the assumption that "the character epitomizes my
dream job".
htn963 added >>
>> The protagonist is a shaman and healer, so it's not too
>> inconceivable that most of those characteristics are prerequisites
>> for the job.
Actually, the protagonist trained as a geneticist, as was the author.
That is the only point I can see for calling it a Mary Sue-ism.
But if you want to write hard SF, it helps to know the science
involved. Do you think that makes hard SF inevitably rife with
Mary Sues?
> [1] I liked it (again), though I'd agree it's on the slight side. But
> [a memorable story.
I'm on record as considering it one of the best works of
Biological SF ever written.
--
None so blind as those who will not see
Paul Andinach
news:1142209998....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> I thought that Mary Sue's had to be versions of the author.
It's a risk factor, but not a prerequisite. That is, many author-
insertion characters come out as Mary Sues, but it is also possible to
get Mary Sues that are not versions of the author.
(Not to mention that, in my experience, by the time an inexperienced
author has finished giving her fictional self lovable foibles, unique
abilities, and a memorable name, it's often a moot point who the
character was originally based on anyway.)
Paul
--
The Pink Pedanther
"I'm talking with my mouth."
Sea Wasp
> On 13 Mar 2006, "prestorjon" <prest...@aol.com> wrote in
> news:1142209998....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>I thought that Mary Sue's had to be versions of the author.
>
>
> It's a risk factor, but not a prerequisite. That is, many author-
> insertion characters come out as Mary Sues, but it is also possible to
> get Mary Sues that are not versions of the author.
The other sort of Mary Sue is the one that is serving as the author's
"vehicle". That is, the author for one reason or another CAN'T use
themselves -- too old, too young, or somehow just unsuited to the
story the author is telling -- so they invent a character to do
whatever it is that they would like to do in the story.
It is more standard Mary Sue, though, to have it be the author
him/herself or a very thinly disguised version.
>
> (Not to mention that, in my experience, by the time an inexperienced
> author has finished giving her fictional self lovable foibles, unique
> abilities, and a memorable name, it's often a moot point who the
> character was originally based on anyway.)
In *my* case, I have to give him a LESS memorable name.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
darth_b...@yahoo.com
Lawrenc...@gmail.com wrote:
> (If you're confused, see this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue_%28popular_culture%29)
Gotta say this left me *more* confused.
" Mary Sue (or just Sue) is a fictional character, the term originating
from fan fiction, who is an idealised stand-in for the author. It also
sometimes used to describe any stand-in for the author (whether
idealized or not), any idealized character (whether a stand-in for the
author or not)...."
So: An idealized stand-in for the author; or an non-idealized stand-in
for the author; or an idealized character.
So the only non-Mary-Sue character would be one that isn't idealized
and isn't a stand-in for the author. And, presumably, if the book got
published, unique enough (though not idealized) that you would want to
read about her/ him/ it.
DB
Carl Henderson
@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
> So the only non-Mary-Sue character would be one that isn't idealized
> and isn't a stand-in for the author. And, presumably, if the book got
> published, unique enough (though not idealized) that you would want to
> read about her/him/it.
The term "mary sue" has been devalued through overuse to the point where it
is nearly meaningless. What's important isn't whether a character is an
authorial self-insertion, or whether she has "striking purple eyes", or even
rides a devoted invisible pink unicorn. What's important is whether the
reader cares about the character. Get that right and it doesn't matter how
many tick boxes on a Mary Sue test you check off.
--
Carl Henderson © 2006 by Carl Henderson
j...@carlhenderson.net
William George Ferguson
For validation of the test, we should look at how different characters
score. I ran several characters through, trying to answer from teh
viewpoint of the author, or leaving blank where I wasn't reasonably sure
how the author would answer:
Clark Savage Jr. 87 (I don't think he's a Mary Sue)
Lew Alton 53 (MZB stated that he is her author insertion)
Harry Potter 80 (I don't think Potter is Rowling's Mary Sue)
Harriet D. Vane 40 (For all practical purposes, HDV was DLS, physical
description, personality, education, profession,
not an idealized version but one with all warts in
place. Her nailing Lord Peter almost qualifies
her as a Mary Sue by itself)
One thing I've come to believe after going through this test a few times,
it's going to be hard for any number 1, 2, or 3 character to score less
than 35.
--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
(Bene Gesserit)
htn963
Ethan Merritt wrote:
> htn963 added >>
> >> The protagonist is a shaman and healer, so it's not too
> >> inconceivable that most of those characteristics are prerequisites
> >> for the job.
>
> Actually, the protagonist trained as a geneticist,
Same difference in this context. Instead of lab equipments, she
uses three snakes named Mist, Sand, and Grass. Don't tell me that
psychology and mysticism aren't involved here.
> as was the author.
> That is the only point I can see for calling it a Mary Sue-ism.
> But if you want to write hard SF, it helps to know the science
> involved. Do you think that makes hard SF inevitably rife with
> Mary Sues?
Of course not. Mary Sueism is a too easily abused lit-crit
concept to attack works or authors one already dislikes, since authors
inevitably puts something of themselves in their work.
--
Ht
Charlie Stross
as <Til...@toast.net_DIESPAMMERSDIE> declared:
> Well, it's been a number of years since I read DREAMSNAKE, the novel,
> but I did reread the original novella [1] not too long ago. So I gave it
> the "Mary Sue Litmus Test" (which is designed to be taken by the author,
> so I made reasonable responses or (mostly) left these questions blank.)
> And of course I may have misremembered parts of it. So take the score
> with a teaspoon of salt <g>.
>
> Result? A Mary-Sue score of 97(!), which is "71 points or more:
> Irredeemable-Sue. You're going to have to start over, my friend. I know
> you want to keep writing, but no. Just no."
>
> Here's the test: http://www.ponylandpress.com/ms-test.html
There is a fundamental weighting problem with the Mary-Sue test: it's
almost impossible to apply it to a novel with a strong central character
who triumphs over adversity in the end and get a score less than 30. And
"strong central character who triumphs over adversity in the end" is the
backbone of, oh, about 50% of all adventure plots, isn't it?
This doesn't invalidate the value of the test as a yardstick, but
suggests a bit of careful weighting (and some more negative scoring
attributes) are needed.
-- Charlie
Nicholas Waller
I haven't written any novels but I tried it out on a 13K word story I
had in Interzone, Enta Geweorc. In it the hero, being self-obsessed
with past errors, fails to triumph over adversity, and, as per Nick
Gever's Locus review, "makes already terminal matters worse, and stands
as of one of recent SF's more memorable portraits of an utter dolt",
yet even he manages to score 22, which makes him "borderline" Mary Sue
(and perhaps says more about me than I'd like... hmmm.)
--
Nick
(story at nawaller [dot] com/site/enta.html if you want to read it)
pma...@hotmail.com
Lawrenc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Shortly after reading that Teresa Nielsen Hayden and Joanna Russ had
> pegged Ursula K. Le Guin's The Left hand of Darkness as a "Mary Sue"
> novel, I happened to read Vonda McIntyre's Dreamsnake, and it struck me
> as an even more obvious example.
Yup. It's the first and last McIntyre I ever read. Of course, she
hardly compares to Mary-Sue Harrington, but that doesn't keep me away
from the guilty pleasure of David Weber.
Gene Ward Smith
Carl Henderson wrote:
>
> The term "mary sue" has been devalued through overuse to the point where it
> is nearly meaningless.
It's simply a term with which dersion can be substituted for thought,
like extruded fantasy product. The idiocy of the Mary Sue test shows
the absurdity of it all.
Kat Richardson
Ok, I ran my series character through this and ...
~whew~ 17 points. Not a Mary Sue. That's a relief.
Although I'd think it's harder for a series character to pass, since
continuing problems are often part and parcel of a series as are certain
types of love-interest complications that seem very Mary Sue-ish.
--
Kat Richardson
Greywalker--coming from Roc in October, 2006
http://www.katrichardson.com/
Sea Wasp
> Yup. It's the first and last McIntyre I ever read. Of course, she
> hardly compares to Mary-Sue Harrington, but that doesn't keep me away
> from the guilty pleasure of David Weber.
>
Honor isn't a Mary-Sue.
Mike Schilling
"Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote in message
news:44175800...@obvioussgeinc.com...
> pma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Yup. It's the first and last McIntyre I ever read. Of course, she
>> hardly compares to Mary-Sue Harrington, but that doesn't keep me away
>> from the guilty pleasure of David Weber.
>>
>
> Honor isn't a Mary-Sue.
Probably not (nless Mr. Weber is an odd man indeed)but she's still a
complete wish-fulfillment character:
So heroic that her second-in-command's chief anguish is that he's not loyal
enough to her.
An incredible babe who doesn't even realize she's attractive until the right
man comes along.
Her chief enemy is a weakling, a snivelling coward, *and* a would-be rapist.
No need to be ambivalent about giving him one in the balls.
Sea Wasp
> "Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote in message
> news:44175800...@obvioussgeinc.com...
>
>>pma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yup. It's the first and last McIntyre I ever read. Of course, she
>>>hardly compares to Mary-Sue Harrington, but that doesn't keep me away
>>>from the guilty pleasure of David Weber.
>>>
>>
>>Honor isn't a Mary-Sue.
>
>
> Probably not (nless Mr. Weber is an odd man indeed)but she's still a
> complete wish-fulfillment character:
>
Not entirely...
> So heroic that her second-in-command's chief anguish is that he's not loyal
> enough to her.
And he wasn't. And it was a damn important point, since that was his
main purpose on board.
> An incredible babe who doesn't even realize she's attractive until the right
> man comes along.
> Her chief enemy is a weakling, a snivelling coward, *and* a would-be rapist.
> No need to be ambivalent about giving him one in the balls.
That's ONE enemy out of a large number.
Wish-fulfillment characters, like Munchkins, don't SUFFER. They have
"minor obstacles", but not major ones. They certainly don't lose body
parts and spend long periods agonizing over bad decisions or
recovering from batterings.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Well, to be fair, all that was some time ago, at least for 2 & 3, I forget
her current XO status..
Right now her chief enemies are either a) people she believes to be
honorable and caught in onrushing events b) people she doesn't know
about. Also, her face reconstruct is supposed to be at least slightly
off-putting at the edge of perception..
Ted
Robert Sneddon
<seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> writes
> Wish-fulfillment characters, like Munchkins, don't SUFFER. They
>have "minor obstacles", but not major ones. They certainly don't lose
>body parts and spend long periods agonizing over bad decisions or
>recovering from batterings.
The classic Mary-Sue dies nobly in the arms of one of her many devoted
followers and surrounded ten deep by the others she saved by her
selfless act. The last half (in the worst cases, the last three
quarters) of the story is dedicated to her memory as the survivors spend
endless pages telling each other how much they loved her and how they
can only go on by swearing undying fealty to her memory.
Didn't HH get a lovely funeral in absentia after she was reported to be
dead? I seem to recall a statue. There was definitely page after page of
elegaic memories of her by her devoted followers, especially those she
had saved by her selfless acts in previous books. MMMMmmm, smells
like... Mary-Sue!
More than Mary-Sueism though, she's now suffering from Jack Ryan
disease. All that's left for her now is elevation to the Papacy.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
Craig Richardson
<tednolan>) wrote:
>In article <vRIRf.47407$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
>Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>"Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote in message
>>news:44175800...@obvioussgeinc.com...
>>> pma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yup. It's the first and last McIntyre I ever read. Of course, she
>>>> hardly compares to Mary-Sue Harrington, but that doesn't keep me away
>>>> from the guilty pleasure of David Weber.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Honor isn't a Mary-Sue.
>>
>>Probably not (nless Mr. Weber is an odd man indeed)but she's still a
>>complete wish-fulfillment character:
>>
>>So heroic that her second-in-command's chief anguish is that he's not loyal
>>enough to her.
>>An incredible babe who doesn't even realize she's attractive until the right
>>man comes along.
>>Her chief enemy is a weakling, a snivelling coward, *and* a would-be rapist.
>>No need to be ambivalent about giving him one in the balls.
She's secretly enhanced to well above human norms (and that was
/before/ the sniper scope^W^Wcybernetic eye, although she didn't know
about it yet).
Her faithful pet-for-life is not only telepathic but (at least
borderline) sapient.
--Craig
--
Craig Richardson (crichar...@worldnet.att.net)
"Then I heard the whirring of the motorized snowmen, sound[ing] like the
death rattle of very small robot lizards, and I left the seasonal aisle"
-- James Lileks, "The Bleat", 2005/10/10
Sea Wasp
> Didn't HH get a lovely funeral in absentia after she was reported to be
> dead? I seem to recall a statue. There was definitely page after page of
> elegaic memories of her by her devoted followers, especially those she
> had saved by her selfless acts in previous books. MMMMmmm, smells
> like... Mary-Sue!
Nope. DEFINITELY not Mary-Sue. Idealized hero, possibly, but Mary-Sue
is the author, or personal author avatar. You can change the sex, but
not the essence. Not all heroes are Mary-Sues. Not even all heroes
that you find Overly Much.
F'rinstance, Hannibal Bellerophon Gunn, if I ever get the stories
with him published, will undoubtedly be looked upon in a similar
fashion to Honor Harrington. But he is NOT a Mary-Sue for me. THAT
would be Erik Arisia, the Wanderer, who probably will never cross
paths with Gunn (and may or may not get his own book). I know
perfectly well who my Mary-Sues are, and which are just wish
fulfillment or preferred hero types.
Paul Andinach
news:44177DC...@obvioussgeinc.com:
> Nope. DEFINITELY not Mary-Sue. Idealized hero, possibly, but Mary-Sue
> is the author, or personal author avatar. You can change the sex, but
> not the essence.
What do you call a character who has every attribute of Mary-Sue-ness
except being an avatar of the author, then?
David Johnston
<pand...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>On 15 Mar 2006, Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote in
>news:44177DC...@obvioussgeinc.com:
>
>> Nope. DEFINITELY not Mary-Sue. Idealized hero, possibly, but Mary-Sue
>> is the author, or personal author avatar. You can change the sex, but
>> not the essence.
>
>What do you call a character who has every attribute of Mary-Sue-ness
>except being an avatar of the author, then?
>
>
An author's pet? On the whole I prefer to leave Mary Sue with her
original meaning, the original character added to a derivative work to
serve the author's fantasy of being loved or at least admired by the
characters from the source material.
Sea Wasp
> On 15 Mar 2006, Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote in
> news:44177DC...@obvioussgeinc.com:
>
>
>>Nope. DEFINITELY not Mary-Sue. Idealized hero, possibly, but Mary-Sue
>>is the author, or personal author avatar. You can change the sex, but
>>not the essence.
>
>
> What do you call a character who has every attribute of Mary-Sue-ness
> except being an avatar of the author, then?
Wish-fulfillment, probably. I've heard some people call it "Author's
Pet", too. But Mary-Sue (or, for males, Marty Sue or Marty Stu) is
very specifically The Author or His/Her obvious stand-in.
Honor Harrington may be Weber's "author's pet" -- although ALL space
opera characters seem to follow the same general pattern to me -- but
she's clearly not him, or even a feminized version of him. Jason Wood
isn't my Mary Sue, nor is A.J. Baker (Boundary) or Clint Slade
(Diamonds Are Forever), even though each of them certainly partakes of
something of my own background, and in Clint's case even gains Kewl
Powerz.
pma...@hotmail.com
Robert Sneddon wrote:
> The classic Mary-Sue dies nobly in the arms of one of her many devoted
> followers and surrounded ten deep by the others she saved by her
> selfless act. The last half (in the worst cases, the last three
> quarters) of the story is dedicated to her memory as the survivors spend
> endless pages telling each other how much they loved her and how they
> can only go on by swearing undying fealty to her memory.
>
> Didn't HH get a lovely funeral in absentia after she was reported to be
> dead? I seem to recall a statue. There was definitely page after page of
> elegaic memories of her by her devoted followers, especially those she
> had saved by her selfless acts in previous books. MMMMmmm, smells
> like... Mary-Sue!
>
> More than Mary-Sueism though, she's now suffering from Jack Ryan
> disease. All that's left for her now is elevation to the Papacy.
[rant]
Now that's more like it. Harrington's way-over-the-top wish
fulfillment is my biggest complaint about the series. The next is the
1-dimensionality of her opponents, both personal and political,
although that improved in later stories. And the last is all the
random historical discontinuities. Like: why weren't there multi-stage
missiles right from the start? Hellooo planetary physics 101! Like:
why weren't there carriers and missile-boats right from the start?
Hellooo military science 101! Like: why didn't treecats learn Sign
Language within a few years of the first real contact? Helloooo basic
history 101! No, somehow Honor has to be in on the rediscovery of the
basic facts of 20th century history. And if you really want to do a
take on O'Brien & Forrester, keep the space-battles non-technical.
Projection of tactics from sailing ships to starcraft requires a bit of
discretion to maintain suspension of disbelief. Drake does a better
job of it; he's had a lot of practice, and it shows.
Harrington still makes a good yarn, but it's not GRRM, much less Guy G
Kay. Now that's some real political SF/F.
[/rant]
Joe Bernstein
Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> news:44175800...@obvioussgeinc.com...
> > Honor [Harrington] isn't a Mary-Sue.
> Probably not (unless Mr. Weber is an odd man indeed) but she's still a
> complete wish-fulfillment character:
> An incredible babe who doesn't even realize she's attractive until the
> right man comes along.
Huh? I see *lots* of women in sf who fit that pattern. In fact, I'm
pretty sure it's in the rule book. Yeah, right here on p. 8:
"If you have a female character, she must not realise the power
of her looks (and she must *have* power from her looks).
"If you have multiple female characters, bad ones may realise the
power of their looks, and secondary ones may lack power from their
looks."
See, toldja so.
Joe Bernstein,
not entirely joking. There's a mercifully brief but otherwise
appalling example of Dorothy Heydt's statements about glasses
and looks circa 1950s in James Blish's <They Shall Have Stars>
which I lately read; I recently *re*-read much of Jacqueline
Carey's Kushiel trilogy, which doesn't fit but is close; and I'm
pretty sure I'm forgetting a few even just from the last weeks.
Oh, B. J. Vaughan in Nick O'Donohoe's Crossroads books, and, ahem,
meseems there's enough bits of this to go around in Charles Stross's
<The Family Trade>...
Is the particular pattern Mike Schilling noted - the unaware
babe gets the right guy - predominantly a male-author pattern?
Expressing some combination of "Women who don't know they're hot
are *so* great" and "I want and deserve a naive babe" ? I should
think women would prefer a more aware wish fulfiller, hence Phedre
no Delaunay knows she's hot, just not that she's actually so much so
as to tempt a monk.
OTOH Cordelia Naismith in <Shards of Honor> fits, doesn't she?
And my personal least favourite Mary Sue, the lead character in
S. L. Viehl's <Stardoc>, is close - she's not quite unaware, but
is *seriously* shocked to find herself first choice of The Right
Man. So maybe it's not predominantly a male-author pattern
after all.
Dickson's <The Dragon and the George> has a secondary character
who's an interesting variation: she's much more of a babe than
the (mostly offstage) leading lady, and she's bossy and manipulative,
but not on the basis of her looks per se, about which she may be
naive and innocent, who knows. This tempts me to guess that
Dickson might've had a happy marriage...
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://www.panix.com/~josephb/> "She suited my mood, Sarah Mondleigh
did - it was like having a kitten in the room, like a vote for unreason."
<Glass Mountain>, Cynthia Voigt
Michael S. Schiffer
news:dvafkh$oss$1...@reader2.panix.com:
> Is the particular pattern Mike Schilling noted - the unaware
> babe gets the right guy - predominantly a male-author pattern?
> Expressing some combination of "Women who don't know they're hot
> are *so* great" and "I want and deserve a naive babe" ? I
> should think women would prefer a more aware wish fulfiller,
> hence Phedre no Delaunay knows she's hot, just not that she's
> actually so much so as to tempt a monk.
> OTOH Cordelia Naismith in <Shards of Honor> fits, doesn't
> she?
I don't get the impression that Cordelia is supposed to be
particularly hot. Forceful personality, yes, and she doesn't
completely recognize how forceful during her POV novels, which may
be a similar phenomenon. (Though it's arguable that she didn't
really *have* that much personal force till she was forced into
developing it in the course of keeping Miles alive. She certainly
wasn't able to dominate her Betan crew, or even reliably get them
to follow orders.)
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Mike Schilling
"Michael S. Schiffer" <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9787DDD53634...@130.133.1.4...
Yes. The wish-fulfillment character in SoH is Aral; he falls in love at
first sight with a woman who's kind of a mess, and is so devoted and
supportive that she blossoms into near-omnipotence (and even
nearer-omniscience).
It's interesting to note that Bujold's ex-husband apparently did nothing to
encourage her writing, considering it a frivolous waste of time.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>In article <vRIRf.47407$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
>Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote in message
>> news:44175800...@obvioussgeinc.com...
>
>> > Honor [Harrington] isn't a Mary-Sue.
>
>> Probably not (unless Mr. Weber is an odd man indeed) but she's still a
>> complete wish-fulfillment character:
>
>> An incredible babe who doesn't even realize she's attractive until the
>> right man comes along.
>
>Huh? I see *lots* of women in sf who fit that pattern. In fact, I'm
>pretty sure it's in the rule book. Yeah, right here on p. 8:
>
>"If you have a female character, she must not realise the power
>of her looks (and she must *have* power from her looks).
>
>See, toldja so.
Did Asimov get a waiver for Susan Calvin, then?
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
Mike Schilling
"Lawrence Watt-Evans" <l...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:tosh12h30mq3frjva...@news.rcn.com...
She definitely has power from her looks; just ask the trail of men she's
turned to stone. (Don't expect any answers, of course...)
Michael Alan Chary
Yeah, until Bridget Moynahan was cast...
--
The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons
Mike Schilling
"Michael Alan Chary" <mch...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dvf0dn$idp$1...@reader2.panix.com...
That's not how you pictured Susan Calvin?
Peter Huebner
@hotmail.com says...
A case for ymmv, obviously. I've read 2 Harrington books and several by
McIntyre and I'd rather read another 25 stories/books/novellas by McIntyre than
a single other Harrington [emetic].
-P.
--
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
Peter Huebner
says...
> Harriet D. Vane 40 (For all practical purposes, HDV was DLS, physical
> description, personality, education, profession,
> not an idealized version but one with all warts in
> place. Her nailing Lord Peter almost qualifies
> her as a Mary Sue by itself)
Seriously doubt it. There's little congruency between Vane and Sayers. Nor, I
presume, would Sayers have wished for a fate like Vane's for herself. For all
practical purposes Sayers had the aspirations of a scolarly nun inasmuch as I
can make out.
I think Vane is simply the character she wrote as a female that would be able
to interest and hold Peter.
Dorothy J Heydt
Peter Huebner <no....@this.address> wrote:
>In article <1142361979.5...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, pmac360
>@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> Lawrenc...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Shortly after reading that Teresa Nielsen Hayden and Joanna Russ had
>> > pegged Ursula K. Le Guin's The Left hand of Darkness as a "Mary Sue"
>> > novel, I happened to read Vonda McIntyre's Dreamsnake, and it struck me
>> > as an even more obvious example.
>>
>> Yup. It's the first and last McIntyre I ever read. Of course, she
>> hardly compares to Mary-Sue Harrington, but that doesn't keep me away
>> from the guilty pleasure of David Weber.
>
>A case for ymmv, obviously. I've read 2 Harrington books and several by
>McIntyre and I'd rather read another 25 stories/books/novellas by McIntyre
>than a single other Harrington [emetic].
My son describes the Harrington stories as "spaceship porn."
He also says that he'd like to read some good military SF, but
nobody seems to be writing any, certainly not Weber.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Dorothy J Heydt
Peter Huebner <no....@this.address> wrote:
>In article <b6tb1251vv52vsu4m...@4ax.com>, wmgf...@newsguy.com
>says...
>> Harriet D. Vane 40 (For all practical purposes, HDV was DLS, physical
>> description, personality, education, profession,
>> not an idealized version but one with all warts in
>> place. Her nailing Lord Peter almost qualifies
>> her as a Mary Sue by itself)
>
>Seriously doubt it. There's little congruency between Vane and Sayers. Nor, I
>presume, would Sayers have wished for a fate like Vane's for herself. For all
>practical purposes Sayers had the aspirations of a scolarly nun inasmuch as I
>can make out.
You don't know much about her, do you.
She fell seriously in love several times, never got the man she
wanted for assorted reasons; finally took up with someone
definitely not at her own intellectual level; got pregnant by
him, had the baby and farmed it out to a baby-tending friend;
later married a former war correspondent with pretentions of
intelligence and they adopted her kid (don't know if he ever knew
the kid's true parentage). She soon discovered her husband's
limitations and wrote one of her less-successful mysteries in
which a woman (whom we may call a Mary Sue if we wish, since she
was certainly fulfilling the author's wishes) poisons her husband
and he dies in agony.
Taken all in all, she might have been happier as a scholarly nun,
or at least as a scholarly old maid, but that isn't the course
she pursued while she had the chance.
And Vane does resemble Sayers as a young woman, pre-baby; check
out what Peter says about her skin and her throat.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
>
Craig Richardson
Heydt) wrote:
>My son describes the Harrington stories as "spaceship porn."
I saw a very interesting article a couple weeks ago about how Food
Network productions really /are/ porn - their lighting, camera angles,
shot selection, sound work and such all use techniques stolen^Wderived
from those used in porn production. Not to mention positioning Giada
di Laurentiis to take over from Emeril as the face of the network (not
so much a non sequitur - the article touched on it, too). I'm kind of
peeved that Alton Brown didn't even rate a mention, but his show is
kind of out of the mainstream, and isn't very good support for the
article's thesis.
>He also says that he'd like to read some good military SF, but
>nobody seems to be writing any, certainly not Weber.
YMMV, but I think that Walter Jon Williams is ("The Praxis"). And you
can probably stretch the definition to fit James Alan Gardner's
"League of Peoples" without breaking it.
Peter Huebner
>
> You don't know much about her, do you.
>
> She fell seriously in love several times, never got the man she
> wanted for assorted reasons; finally took up with someone
> definitely not at her own intellectual level; got pregnant by
> him, had the baby and farmed it out to a baby-tending friend;
> later married a former war correspondent with pretentions of
> intelligence and they adopted her kid (don't know if he ever knew
> the kid's true parentage). She soon discovered her husband's
> limitations and wrote one of her less-successful mysteries in
> which a woman (whom we may call a Mary Sue if we wish, since she
> was certainly fulfilling the author's wishes) poisons her husband
> and he dies in agony.
>
> Taken all in all, she might have been happier as a scholarly nun,
> or at least as a scholarly old maid, but that isn't the course
> she pursued while she had the chance.
>
> And Vane does resemble Sayers as a young woman, pre-baby; check
> out what Peter says about her skin and her throat.
>
> Dorothy J. Heydt
Now you really have me scratching my head. The biography I read must've been
about a different Dorothy L Sayers entirely. This bears looking into - I accept
gigo as a fact of life but I still hate it when I have fallen victim to it.
thanks, -P.
Matthias Warkus
> He also says that he'd like to read some good military SF, but
> nobody seems to be writing any, certainly not Weber.
I presume he already read Haldeman's "Forever War"?
He might also like the technical side of Lem, like "Invincible" and the
Pirx series. OK, they're not really all that military, but they've got
everything military SF should have minus the gore.
For the current stuff, I can't really give a recommendation. I like some
Feintuch from time to time, but not too much. Weber is pleasure, but
guilty pleasure as has been noted. As for others? I'm on the verge
of giving up on Baen authors completely, that much is sure.
mawa
(P.S. I'm back. Last posting was in April 2004, if anyone cares to look it
up.)
Peter D. Tillman
Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >He also says that he'd like to read some good military SF, but
> >nobody seems to be writing any, certainly not Weber.
>
> YMMV, but I think that Walter Jon Williams is ("The Praxis"). And you
> can probably stretch the definition to fit James Alan Gardner's
> "League of Peoples" without breaking it.
You might also point him towards John Hemry's _A Just Determination_, an
unusual, and very good, SF naval legal procedural:
<http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/justdetermination.htm>
Happy reading--
Pete Tillman
James Nicoll
snip
> I'm kind of
>peeved that Alton Brown didn't even rate a mention, but his show is
>kind of out of the mainstream, and isn't very good support for the
>article's thesis.
>
Alton Brown is very clearly One of Us.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
Christopher J. Henrich
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
Spoilers....
(Did that ^-L work?...)
If you are referring to _The Documents in the Case_, I do not see the
murderess as a Mary Sue, for two reasons.
(A) The murderess is a horribly silly women, who commits adultery
because she looks forward to all the emotional scenes that can be
expected to ensue: the fights with her husband, the tearful
reconciliations... She wants to star in her own soap opera. DLS wasn't
like that.
(B) DLS's marriage was not a very good one, but I do not think it was
so bad as to tempt her to murder her husband. Her published letters do
not reveal that much anger and frustration.
--
Chris Henrich
http://www.mathinteract.com
God just doesn't fit inside a single religion.
Dorothy J Heydt
Christopher J. Henrich <chen...@monmouth.com> wrote:
[Spoiler space deleted, beware who will]
>
>
>If you are referring to _The Documents in the Case_, I do not see the
>murderess as a Mary Sue, for two reasons.
You'll note I didn't go quite that far, but only pointed out that
the character was fulfilling some of the author's wishes.
>(A) The murderess is a horribly silly women,
Yes, she's supposed to be. But read her letters. She writes
like an educated woman who's good at turning phrases. She writes
like Sayers, in fact, not like a horribly silly woman. This is a
failure of characterization on Sayers's part.
>(B) DLS's marriage was not a very good one, but I do not think it was
>so bad as to tempt her to murder her husband. Her published letters do
>not reveal that much anger and frustration.
Oh, I don't think she seriously contemplated murdering him. But
there were moments when she must've wanted to. The way I had
moments of wanting to murder my mother-in-law; but I never
seriously contemplated it. Again, I had an extremely obnoxious
boss once; I never murdered him; I never even contemplated
murdering him; but I wrote a passage in which a character based
on him got beaten to a bloody pulp. I felt much better.
pma...@hotmail.com
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> For current [military SF], I can't really give a recommendation. I like some
> Feintuch from time to time, but not too much. Weber is pleasure, but
> guilty pleasure as has been noted. As for others? I'm on the verge
> of giving up on Baen authors completely, that much is sure.
Ha! I agree Weber is a regular Shakespeare compared to Ringo or some of
the other more recent additions. There's also William Dietz and David
Drake, though Drake's military stuff isn't as good as his clever
rewrites of old sagas. I'm not sure about the genre of "military SF."
I always thought it is basically another name for space opera. :)
Stewart Robert Hinsley
pma...@hotmail.com writes
I would have thought that "Gunpowder God" counted as military SF, and it
isn't space opera. Plus all the rest of the military themed. I wouldn't
be confident about putting the early Falkenberg, or even the Spartan
book, in space opera.
On the other hand space opera includes van Rijn, Flandry and Vorkosigan.
It would be a stretch to include even parts of those series as milSF.
(Or is one to add "Foundation and Empire" as well.) BTW, I believe that
the original conception of space opera was "horse opera with blasters".
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Sea Wasp
> For the current stuff, I can't really give a recommendation. I like some
> Feintuch from time to time, but not too much. Weber is pleasure, but
> guilty pleasure as has been noted. As for others? I'm on the verge
> of giving up on Baen authors completely, that much is sure.
*big sad eyes*
Hmmm... the Cute Attack seems to fail. Oh, that's right... you have
to BE cute for it to work. Drat.
Sea Wasp
> For the current stuff, I can't really give a recommendation. I like some
> Feintuch from time to time, but not too much. Weber is pleasure, but
> guilty pleasure as has been noted. As for others? I'm on the verge
> of giving up on Baen authors completely, that much is sure.
*big sad eyes*
Hmm... the Cute Attack doesn't seem to be working. Oh, that's
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
>> For the current stuff, I can't really give a recommendation. I like some
>> Feintuch from time to time, but not too much. Weber is pleasure, but
>> guilty pleasure as has been noted. As for others? I'm on the verge
>> of giving up on Baen authors completely, that much is sure.
>
> *big sad eyes*
>
> Hmmm... the Cute Attack seems to fail. Oh, that's right... you have
>to BE cute for it to work. Drat.
Awww, you're cute, Waspy!
John F. Eldredge
<seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
>> For the current stuff, I can't really give a recommendation. I like some
>> Feintuch from time to time, but not too much. Weber is pleasure, but
>> guilty pleasure as has been noted. As for others? I'm on the verge
>> of giving up on Baen authors completely, that much is sure.
>
> *big sad eyes*
>
> Hmm... the Cute Attack doesn't seem to be working. Oh, that's
>right... you have to BE cute for it to work. Drat.
Besides, sea wasps (box jellyfish) don't _have_ eyes, which makes the
Cute Attack particularly difficult. <grin>
Just wondering, how did you decide upon the world's most venomous
marine animal as your namesake?
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Sea Wasp
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:43:38 GMT, Sea Wasp
> <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Matthias Warkus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For the current stuff, I can't really give a recommendation. I like some
>>>Feintuch from time to time, but not too much. Weber is pleasure, but
>>>guilty pleasure as has been noted. As for others? I'm on the verge
>>>of giving up on Baen authors completely, that much is sure.
>>
>> *big sad eyes*
>>
>> Hmm... the Cute Attack doesn't seem to be working. Oh, that's
>>right... you have to BE cute for it to work. Drat.
>
>
> Besides, sea wasps (box jellyfish) don't _have_ eyes, which makes the
> Cute Attack particularly difficult. <grin>
They have light-sensing organs, dammit!
>
> Just wondering, how did you decide upon the world's most venomous
> marine animal as your namesake?
>
Weeeeellll, way back in 1976, I first got online. Like many of us, I
took a handle from a book I liked -- the Lensman series -- and was
"Kimball Kinnison". By the next year, I had gotten to be one of the
constant online geeks and hacker/cracker types (and bulled my way into
the computer course which was normally reserved only for seniors), and
decided I needed a name that was original, and that symbolized my
online attitude: that I didn't go out of my way to attack people, but
that attacking me would be a Bad Idea. As one of my favorite pieces of
reading material back then was "Poisonous and Venomous Marine Animals"
by Halstead (the original 3-volume version), I selected the Sea Wasp
as a good symbol. It also made for a cool ascii-art signature symbol
(much better in the old days with paper terminals than CRTs, since I
could do overstriking).
I went through a LOT of online aliases in the next several years, but
"Sea Wasp" was the one that remained a constant. Next year he
celebrates his 30th birthday.
Marilee J. Layman
<no....@this.address> wrote:
>In article <1142361979.5...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, pmac360
>@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> Lawrenc...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Shortly after reading that Teresa Nielsen Hayden and Joanna Russ had
>> > pegged Ursula K. Le Guin's The Left hand of Darkness as a "Mary Sue"
>> > novel, I happened to read Vonda McIntyre's Dreamsnake, and it struck me
>> > as an even more obvious example.
>>
>> Yup. It's the first and last McIntyre I ever read. Of course, she
>> hardly compares to Mary-Sue Harrington, but that doesn't keep me away
>> from the guilty pleasure of David Weber.
>>
>>
>
>A case for ymmv, obviously. I've read 2 Harrington books and several by
>McIntyre and I'd rather read another 25 stories/books/novellas by McIntyre than
>a single other Harrington [emetic].
I haven't read any Harrington, but I've read two of McIntyre's. I
really like Dreamsnake but thought The Moon and the Sun was boring
(I'm not fond of althist).
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/
Marilee J. Layman
Heydt) wrote:
Elizabeth Moon:
* The Familias Regnant
o Heris Serrano
+ 1 Hunting Party (1993)
+ 2 Sporting Chance (1994)
+ 3 Winning Colors (1995)
o Esme Suisa
+ 4 Once a Hero (1997)
+ 5 Rules of Engagement (1998)
+ 6 Change of Command (1999)
+ 7 Against the Odds (2000)
There's some romance and societal ills, too, but the space battles are
fabulous.
(I reconstructed that from the ISFDB, they don't have them right.)
John F. Eldredge
<seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>John F. Eldredge wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:43:38 GMT, Sea Wasp
>> <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matthias Warkus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>For the current stuff, I can't really give a recommendation. I like some
>>>>Feintuch from time to time, but not too much. Weber is pleasure, but
>>>>guilty pleasure as has been noted. As for others? I'm on the verge
>>>>of giving up on Baen authors completely, that much is sure.
>>>
>>> *big sad eyes*
>>>
>>> Hmm... the Cute Attack doesn't seem to be working. Oh, that's
>>>right... you have to BE cute for it to work. Drat.
>>
>>
>> Besides, sea wasps (box jellyfish) don't _have_ eyes, which makes the
>> Cute Attack particularly difficult. <grin>
>
> They have light-sensing organs, dammit!
>
Perhaps it is just as well that the eyes are inconspicuous, and that
USENET is a text, rather than graphical, medium. I am now visualizing
a blog-style cartoon jellyfish icon with Betty Boop eyes, very
"kawaii", and shuddering at the thought. Sugar overload!
Sea Wasp
>
> Perhaps it is just as well that the eyes are inconspicuous, and that
> USENET is a text, rather than graphical, medium. I am now visualizing
> a blog-style cartoon jellyfish icon with Betty Boop eyes, very
> "kawaii", and shuddering at the thought. Sugar overload!
>
Hey, that's EXACTLY what I was thinking of!
Teal
> Wish-fulfillment characters, like Munchkins, don't SUFFER. They have
> "minor obstacles", but not major ones. They certainly don't lose body
> parts and spend long periods agonizing over bad decisions or
> recovering from batterings.
Sure they do. It depends on what kinds of wishes they are fulfilling.
I read one story on a badfic site (no, I don't recall where but I could
go digging for it if anyone *really* wanted to know) which starred a
MarySue so MarySueish that she had the same name as the author, along
with all the usual MS attributes (charming, beautiful, brilliant, etc
etc etc). The story was set in the ST:TNG universe, on the Enterprise
(natch); Our Heroine winds up committing suicide using a nail paring and
an eyelash (I shit you not) - a secret technique she learned from IIRC
Vulcans - in order to prevent Picard falling in love with her and thus
buggering up his One True Lurv with Dr Crusher.
Sumfink like that, anyway. It was quite possibly the most ludicrous
thing I've ever read, probably including the Eye of Argon.
Sometimes the wishes that MarySues are meant to fulfil are those of
Dramatic Self-Sacrifice and Angst.
Teal
--
"Who could have predicted a harmless gasoline fight
could end in tragedy?" --- J. Nicoll
David Cowie
> Teal
> --
> "Who could have predicted a harmless gasoline fight
> could end in tragedy?" --- J. Nicoll
This is actually from the film _Zoolander_. James may have quoted it, but
he didn't say it first.
--
David Cowie
Containment Failure + 20542:54
James Nicoll
David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:38:39 +1030, Teal wrote:
>
>> Teal
>> --
>> "Who could have predicted a harmless gasoline fight
>> could end in tragedy?" --- J. Nicoll
>
>This is actually from the film _Zoolander_. James may have quoted it, but
>he didn't say it first.
>
Peter D. Tillman
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> In article <pan.2006.03.19....@privacy.net>,
> David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:38:39 +1030, Teal wrote:
> >
> >> Teal
> >> --
> >> "Who could have predicted a harmless gasoline fight
> >> could end in tragedy?" --- J. Nicoll
> >
> >This is actually from the film _Zoolander_. James may have quoted it, but
> >he didn't say it first.
> >
> And I believe the record will show me pointing that out.
And I may have been the first to make this misattribution...
Does anyone recall the context, in Zoolander, for this line?
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
Juho Julkunen
sjc.supernews.net>, Til...@toast.net_DIESPAMMERSDIE says...
D. Zoolander giving speech at the funeral service for his fellow
models. The ones who had engaged in a bit of fun and games at petrol
station.
JTJ
Mike Schilling
"Peter D. Tillman" <Til...@toast.net_DIESPAMMERSDIE> wrote in message
news:Tillman-59271D...@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <dvjvcv$b29$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2006.03.19....@privacy.net>,
>> David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> >On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:38:39 +1030, Teal wrote:
>> >
>> >> Teal
>> >> --
>> >> "Who could have predicted a harmless gasoline fight
>> >> could end in tragedy?" --- J. Nicoll
>> >
>> >This is actually from the film _Zoolander_. James may have quoted it,
>> >but
>> >he didn't say it first.
>> >
>> And I believe the record will show me pointing that out.
>
> And I may have been the first to make this misattribution...
Geez, Pete, watch that stuff. Kids read this newsgroup. What you do in
private is your own business, but...
Oh, *misattribution". Never mind.
Bill Snyder
But I'd just like to suggest that "Miss Attribution" would make a fine
name for a rock band.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Teal
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:38:39 +1030, Teal wrote:
>
> > Teal
> > --
> > "Who could have predicted a harmless gasoline fight
> > could end in tragedy?" --- J. Nicoll
>
> This is actually from the film _Zoolander_. James may have quoted it, but
> he didn't say it first.
Okay, I'll swap it out for a new sig. How's this one? I challenge you to
tell me that *this* is a misquote... ;-)
Teal
--
Mock him not for a heap of eels; speculate never on the unfortunate
experiences with smurf puppets, boiled Listerine, squeaky toys,
badly attached electrodes, and anchovy marmalade that have made him
his present self... - Graydon Saunders
Michael Alan Chary
Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Michael Alan Chary" <mch...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:dvf0dn$idp$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>> In article <tosh12h30mq3frjva...@news.rcn.com>,
>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 01:39:29 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
>>><j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>"If you have a female character, she must not realise the power
>>>>of her looks (and she must *have* power from her looks).
>>>>
>>>>See, toldja so.
>>>
>>>Did Asimov get a waiver for Susan Calvin, then?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, until Bridget Moynahan was cast...
>
>That's not how you pictured Susan Calvin?
A 26-year-old Hollywood starlet with bedroom eyes and a killer body? No,
that's not how I pictured her.
--
The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons
Mike Schilling
> In article <csESf.48071$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Michael Alan Chary" <mch...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:dvf0dn$idp$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>>> In article <tosh12h30mq3frjva...@news.rcn.com>,
>>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 01:39:29 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
>>>><j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"If you have a female character, she must not realise the power
>>>>>of her looks (and she must *have* power from her looks).
>>>>>
>>>>>See, toldja so.
>>>>
>>>>Did Asimov get a waiver for Susan Calvin, then?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, until Bridget Moynahan was cast...
>>
>>That's not how you pictured Susan Calvin?
>
> A 26-year-old Hollywood starlet with bedroom eyes and a killer body? No,
> that's not how I pictured her.
You should have. Asimov wrote once that "I invented Susan Calvin and
promptly fell in love with her." and you know what a dirty old man he was.
Dorothy J Heydt
Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A 26-year-old Hollywood starlet with bedroom eyes and a killer body? No,
>> that's not how I pictured her.
>
>You should have. Asimov wrote once that "I invented Susan Calvin and
>promptly fell in love with her." and you know what a dirty old man he was.
But, don't forget, he modeled her one one of his chemistry
professors at Columbia. I think he loved her for her character,
not her physical envelope.
Mike Schilling
"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:IwL8D...@kithrup.com...
Well, yeah, I was joking. Also, he invented her at about age 20, so he
hadn't become a dirty old man yet. (Though if anyone could be a DOM at
20...)
Dorothy J Heydt
Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
>news:IwL8D...@kithrup.com...
>> In article <nwzUf.46672$2O6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
>> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A 26-year-old Hollywood starlet with bedroom eyes and a killer body? No,
>>>> that's not how I pictured her.
>>>
>>>You should have. Asimov wrote once that "I invented Susan Calvin and
>>>promptly fell in love with her." and you know what a dirty old man he was.
>>
>> But, don't forget, he modeled her one one of his chemistry
>> professors at Columbia. I think he loved her for her character,
>> not her physical envelope.
>
>Well, yeah, I was joking. Also, he invented her at about age 20, so he
>hadn't become a dirty old man yet. (Though if anyone could be a DOM at
>20...)
geek.
John Schilling
You say that like there's some sort of incompatibility between the two.
--
*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 *
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Dorothy J Heydt
John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>In article <IwL9K...@kithrup.com>, Dorothy J Heydt says...
>>
>>In article <PVzUf.46682$2O6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
>>Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>You should have. Asimov wrote once that "I invented Susan Calvin and
>>>>>promptly fell in love with her." and you know what a dirty old man he was.
>
>>>> But, don't forget, he modeled her one one of his chemistry
>>>> professors at Columbia. I think he loved her for her character,
>>>> not her physical envelope.
>
>>>Well, yeah, I was joking. Also, he invented her at about age 20, so he
>>>hadn't become a dirty old man yet. (Though if anyone could be a DOM at
>>>20...)
>
>>... it wouldn't have been Asimov. He was a shy, introverted
>>geek.
>
>
>You say that like there's some sort of incompatibility between the two.
Depends on how you define "dirty old man." If you simply said
"one who thinks about sex a lot", that would describe so many
people that it would be like defining water in the middle of the
Pacific Ocean.
I'd define "dirty old man" as one who
(a) not only thinks but also talks about sex nonstop, and makes
various degrees of passes (serious attempts and nonserious
flurries that he considers "funny") at any and all women, and
(b) is himself of such nature, by reason of age and other
characteristics, that his female targets do not find him
attractive.
Corollary: Age in and of itself is not enough to make him a DOM
because it is not enough to make him _ipso facto_ unattractive.
Similarly, some possessed of great degrees of tolerance and
understanding can put up with behavior (a) in a young adult,
realizing the hormonal hell he is in and his limited training in
coping with same; but they still wish he'd be a shy geek.
Mark Atwood
>
> I'd define "dirty old man" as one who
>
> (a) not only thinks but also talks about sex nonstop, and makes
> various degrees of passes (serious attempts and nonserious
> flurries that he considers "funny") at any and all women, and
>
> (b) is himself of such nature, by reason of age and other
> characteristics, that his female targets do not find him
> attractive.
So Hugh Hefner and Ben Franklin are/were not "dirty old men"?
Because apparently, a significant plurality of their "female targets"
consider / considered them attractive.
--
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://fallenpegasus.livejournal.com/
Mike Schilling
"Mark Atwood" <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote in message
news:m2wtekz...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com...
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>
>> I'd define "dirty old man" as one who
>>
>> (a) not only thinks but also talks about sex nonstop, and makes
>> various degrees of passes (serious attempts and nonserious
>> flurries that he considers "funny") at any and all women, and
>>
>> (b) is himself of such nature, by reason of age and other
>> characteristics, that his female targets do not find him
>> attractive.
>
> So Hugh Hefner and Ben Franklin are/were not "dirty old men"?
Dunno about Hefner, but Dr. "A" (the author of The Sensuous Dirty Old Man)
considered Franklin a prize specimen.
Dorothy J Heydt
Mark Atwood <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>
>> I'd define "dirty old man" as one who
>>
>> (a) not only thinks but also talks about sex nonstop, and makes
>> various degrees of passes (serious attempts and nonserious
>> flurries that he considers "funny") at any and all women, and
>>
>> (b) is himself of such nature, by reason of age and other
>> characteristics, that his female targets do not find him
>> attractive.
>
>So Hugh Hefner and Ben Franklin are/were not "dirty old men"?
>
>Because apparently, a significant plurality of their "female targets"
>consider / considered them attractive.
Hefner had money. That would make many people consider Mad-Eye
Moody attractive.
Franklin had brains. That will similarly appeal to a different
set.
Imagine Hefner without money or Franklin without brains. Likely
neither of them would've gotten very far.
Dorothy J Heydt
"Dr. A" was a fictional persona, and it is not safe to attribute any
of "his" opinions either to Isaac Asimov nor to anyone else.
William December Starr
Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> said:
> F'rinstance, Hannibal Bellerophon Gunn, if I ever get the stories
> with him published, will undoubtedly be looked upon in a similar
> fashion to Honor Harrington. But he is NOT a Mary-Sue for me.
I just want to say how glad I am that you didn't name him "Handley"
or give him a middle name that starts with a D.
> THAT would be Erik Arisia, the Wanderer, who probably will never
> cross paths with Gunn (and may or may not get his own book).
<voice-emily_litella>
"What's all this I hear about 'Erik Estrada'?"
</voice>
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Sea Wasp
> In article <44177DC...@obvioussgeinc.com>,
> Sea Wasp <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> said:
>
>
>>F'rinstance, Hannibal Bellerophon Gunn, if I ever get the stories
>>with him published, will undoubtedly be looked upon in a similar
>>fashion to Honor Harrington. But he is NOT a Mary-Sue for me.
>
>
> I just want to say how glad I am that you didn't name him "Handley"
> or give him a middle name that starts with a D.
For what, Hand Gunn? His nickname was Nova, actually.
>
>
>>THAT would be Erik Arisia, the Wanderer, who probably will never
>>cross paths with Gunn (and may or may not get his own book).
>
>
> <voice-emily_litella>
> "What's all this I hear about 'Erik Estrada'?"
> </voice>
I knew we could count on you when the CHiPs were down.