Portability of concepts
James Nicoll
out to contain elves. This is not esp surprising.
Take any two SF novels. Say they both turn out to have
the exact same nonhuman race in them, despite being from different
authors and set in different mileaus. This would be rather surprising.
This came up in a discussion about why TSR's Alternity failed.
Part of the problem seemed to be that certain elements of fantasy are
portable from mileaus to mileau while the same is not true of SF, so
while elves [for example] can be used in many fantasy settings, if
a Klingon turns up on Barryar, eyebrows will be raised.
What tends to be portable in SF is gadgets and sometimes
politics and political set ups. Hmmm. Also points of history: the
STL Age followed by the FTL age is not uncommon, for example.
There's a point I am fumbling towards but I am not quite sure
what it is. It's funny that the portable conventions differ in the two
related [imo] parts of Spec Fic...
--
"Somehow I managed to get a job as an apprentice structural engineering
draughtsman, where I was supposed to design buildings which people would
sit in and the roof would not fall down and kill them. A big responsibility
for someone whose total education had come from PLANET STORIES." Bob Shaw
Konrad Gaertner
>
> Take any two random fantasy novels. Say they both turn
> out to contain elves. This is not esp surprising.
>
> Take any two SF novels. Say they both turn out to have
> the exact same nonhuman race in them, despite being from different
> authors and set in different mileaus. This would be rather surprising.
>
fantasy genre. Also, not all elves are equal; compare Tolkien's with
Pratchett's (in _Lords and Ladies_) with Brust's 'elfs' in his Dragaera
books.
2. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out 'Klingon' is a
tradmark (which SEVERLY limits portability). Better to say 'big,
strong, male-dominated alien race ruled by a warrior code'. That
should cover Klingons, Narn, Kzin and probably many others (I don't
read much science fiction).
--KG
Dan Goodman
wrote:
> Take any two random fantasy novels. Say they both turn
>out to contain elves. This is not esp surprising.
>
> Take any two SF novels. Say they both turn out to have
>the exact same nonhuman race in them, despite being from different
>authors and set in different mileaus. This would be rather surprising.
>
> This came up in a discussion about why TSR's Alternity failed.
>Part of the problem seemed to be that certain elements of fantasy are
>portable from mileaus to mileau while the same is not true of SF, so
>while elves [for example] can be used in many fantasy settings, if
>a Klingon turns up on Barryar, eyebrows will be raised.
The reason is very, very, simple: elves are taken from a mishmash of
European folk traditions, as processed by 19th-century writers and to
some extent by Tolkien.
> What tends to be portable in SF is gadgets and sometimes
>politics and political set ups. Hmmm. Also points of history: the
>STL Age followed by the FTL age is not uncommon, for example.
There was more of a concensus in the 1940's-1950's than now.
> There's a point I am fumbling towards but I am not quite sure
>what it is. It's funny that the portable conventions differ in the two
>related [imo] parts of Spec Fic...
They differ because fantasy is part of a tradition at least as old as
recorded history; and science fiction goes back no farther than the
summer of 1816 -- though some of its elements, such as space travel,
go back farther.
----------
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Ross TenEyck
> Take any two random fantasy novels. Say they both turn
>out to contain elves. This is not esp surprising.
> Take any two SF novels. Say they both turn out to have
>the exact same nonhuman race in them, despite being from different
>authors and set in different mileaus. This would be rather surprising.
> This came up in a discussion about why TSR's Alternity failed.
>Part of the problem seemed to be that certain elements of fantasy are
>portable from mileaus to mileau while the same is not true of SF, so
>while elves [for example] can be used in many fantasy settings, if
>a Klingon turns up on Barryar, eyebrows will be raised.
> What tends to be portable in SF is gadgets and sometimes
>politics and political set ups. Hmmm. Also points of history: the
>STL Age followed by the FTL age is not uncommon, for example.
Well... I dunno. A Klingon showing up in a different universe
might be odd, but I can't count how many "warrior races vaguely
based on Japanese Tokugawa-era samurai" I've seen in science
fiction. Many of them are essentially indistinguishable, except
for whatever trivial physical features make them different from
humanity (forehead bumps, cat ears, whatever.)
For that matter, the "mystically wise, peculiarly attractive alien
race" is also a pretty common trope, and you could argue that
they're basically elves slumming under a different name.
> There's a point I am fumbling towards but I am not quite sure
>what it is. It's funny that the portable conventions differ in the two
>related [imo] parts of Spec Fic...
I don't think they do, so much; it's just that the name "elves"
is in the public domain, but "Klingon" isn't :)
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
Andrew Plotkin
>> Take any two random fantasy novels. Say they both turn
>>out to contain elves. This is not esp surprising.
>> Take any two SF novels. Say they both turn out to have
>>the exact same nonhuman race in them, despite being from different
>>authors and set in different mileaus. This would be rather surprising.
>> This came up in a discussion about why TSR's Alternity failed.
>>Part of the problem seemed to be that certain elements of fantasy are
>>portable from mileaus to mileau while the same is not true of SF, so
>>while elves [for example] can be used in many fantasy settings, if
>>a Klingon turns up on Barryar, eyebrows will be raised.
>> What tends to be portable in SF is gadgets and sometimes
>>politics and political set ups. Hmmm. Also points of history: the
>>STL Age followed by the FTL age is not uncommon, for example.
> Well... I dunno. A Klingon showing up in a different universe
> might be odd, but I can't count how many "warrior races vaguely
> based on Japanese Tokugawa-era samurai" I've seen in science
> fiction. Many of them are essentially indistinguishable, except
> for whatever trivial physical features make them different from
> humanity (forehead bumps, cat ears, whatever.)
To pull an example I just saw three hours ago -- Dargo, on _Farscape_,
is more or less a Klingon. I don't mean he *is* a Klingon, or that the
producers of _Farscape_ plagiarized Trek mythos; but he's related
to Lt. Worf as Bordertown elves are to Judith Tarr elves.
> For that matter, the "mystically wise, peculiarly attractive alien
> race" is also a pretty common trope, and you could argue that
> they're basically elves slumming under a different name.
Or a lot of blue makeup and a bald cap. :)
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* It's not a vote until it's counted.
Charlie Stross
as <jdni...@panix.com> declared:
> Take any two random fantasy novels. Say they both turn
>out to contain elves. This is not esp surprising.
>
> Take any two SF novels. Say they both turn out to have
>the exact same nonhuman race in them, despite being from different
>authors and set in different mileaus. This would be rather surprising.
:
> There's a point I am fumbling towards but I am not quite sure
>what it is. It's funny that the portable conventions differ in the two
>related [imo] parts of Spec Fic...
There's a term in the Turkey City Lexicon: "Central Casting". Central
Casting is an agency that is extremely useful to thoughtless writers;
it's where you go to borrow your hyperdrive, blasters, and Galactic
Overlord. More recently, CC's acquisition department has added
mirrorshades, zaibatsus, ninjas, and laptop computers.
Central Casting also issues planets (with only one type of weather
and one continent), aliens (in a variety of flavours -- inscrutable,
pointy-eared, malevolent, and just-like-us-except-somehow-different),
hazardous beasties (small, venomous, winged, tentacle-enhanced), social
conventions (duelling with swords in a galactic federation with star-going
battleships that mount lasers and nuclear missiles), and so on.
The skillful writer avoids Central Casting like the plague, unless
there's a specific reason why they need a cliche, and need it *now*.
Fantasy as a genre is usually[1] convergent -- it reinforces social
conventions and contrives situations where the protagonist's main goal
is to bring a disrupted system back into equillibrium. Stereotyped plot
example #1: Young protagonist is given hideous secret/artefact -- world
is disrupted until he can get rid of it/use it to achieve his destiny.
Stereotyped plot #2: The young hero fresh off the farm discovers he's
actually the king's illegitimate and only surviving son, rescues the
princess, saves the kingdom, becomes king, and lives happily ever after.
(The point of these plotlets is the return to equillibrium -- the world
returns to a default state where every peasant knows his place, the king
is safe in his castle, and all's well with the world.)
In contrast, science fiction as a genre is divergent -- it tries to
explore situations, people, cultures, technologies, and philosophies that
are not part of our everyday experience or consensus reality. At least,
good SF is divergent. Bad SF often follows the convergent structure of
bad fantasy. (You want a stereotyped SF plot? I can't give you one for
a good SF plot, because there's no such thing, by definition.)
I hypothesize that people read fantasy (of the stereotyped brain-candy
variety) and SF to fill different psychological needs: fantasy is
reassuring insofar as it asserts implicitly that social equillibrium
will be restored, whereas SF is disruptive, exposing us to whacky stuff
that induces a sense of wonder and makes the universe look fundamentally
different to our eyes.
Anyway: back to James' fumbling, with a metaphor that I hope will prove
enlightening. Imagine two pick-up trucks hurtling across a dusty flat
plain. (Each truck is a novel, and the plain is the phase space of all
possible novels in the genre they share.) Each truck has a driver, and
the load bed is full of furniture. One of them wants to borrow a piece of
furniture, but they can't stop, so he has to engage the cruise control,
climb in the back, and throw the piece over to the other guy. Question:
is it easier to do this when the pick-ups are driving in different
directions, or running parallel?
The answer should (I hope) be intuitively obvious ...
-- Charlie
[1] Exceptions: it is possible to write fantasy that uses every trope
in the Central Casting repertoire -- and to do so with stunning
originality to unsettling effect. (Existence proof: P. C. Hodgell.)
It's also possible to write SF that looks superficially like fantasy --
or maybe what you could call "divergent fantasy" (example: "Rats
and Gargoyles" by Mary Gentle, and maybe "Ash", although that may
be more distinctively SF).
trike
Ross TenEyck <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:9bqhlb$q...@gap.cco.caltech.edu...
> jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>
> > Take any two random fantasy novels. Say they both turn
> >out to contain elves. This is not esp surprising.
>
> > Take any two SF novels. Say they both turn out to have
> >the exact same nonhuman race in them, despite being from different
> >authors and set in different mileaus. This would be rather surprising.
>
> >a Klingon turns up on Barryar, eyebrows will be raised.
>
> might be odd, but I can't count how many "warrior races vaguely
> based on Japanese Tokugawa-era samurai" I've seen in science
> fiction. Many of them are essentially indistinguishable, except
> for whatever trivial physical features make them different from
> humanity (forehead bumps, cat ears, whatever.)
>
> For that matter, the "mystically wise, peculiarly attractive alien
> race" is also a pretty common trope, and you could argue that
> they're basically elves slumming under a different name.
>
> > There's a point I am fumbling towards but I am not quite sure
> >what it is. It's funny that the portable conventions differ in the two
> >related [imo] parts of Spec Fic...
>
> I don't think they do, so much; it's just that the name "elves"
> is in the public domain, but "Klingon" isn't :)
Maybe not by name, but how about by concept? Felinoid or insect-like
aliens, for instance, share mostly the same attributes across authors.
Doug
--
Moviedogs v3.0: your favorite dogs in your favorite films:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1910
Spike, Tiggy & Panda's Pug-A-Rama:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1910
Del Cotter
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> said:
> Take any two random fantasy novels. Say they both turn
>out to contain elves. This is not esp surprising.
>
> Take any two SF novels. Say they both turn out to have
>the exact same nonhuman race in them, despite being from different
>authors and set in different mileaus. This would be rather surprising.
Science fiction is fantasy. It's fantasy of a kind which became possible
with the Industrial Revolution (and the Enlightenment) and uses the
furniture of the new social structure to create new myths. The fantasy
that uses the old traditions, we call "fantasy". No wonder, then, that
the old traditions crop up again and again in fantasy: that's
practically the way we defined it.
The coolness factor of new SF often depends on it featuring places and
people nobody ever imagined before, whereas the coolness of new fantasy
often depends on it featuring the places and people our ancestors
imagined existed, albeit perhaps showing a new facet of those places and
people.
SF is old enough now to have traditions of its own, of course, so we
have cat-like aliens, lizard-like aliens, warlike aliens, logical
aliens, desert planets, jungle planets, and so on. The only reason they
don't have the same names as each other is that there is no plausible
reason within the frame of the novel why they should. We know why elves
are called elves in two novels, it's because if elves existed, they
existed and were known to humanity *before the novels were written*.
Hmm. There's a thought. "Hyperspace" and "blaster" are such known
features of the modern tradition that nobody is surprised to see them
turn up in two separate novels. But "Klingons" and "Dune" are *also*
now part of the modern tradition; I wonder if someone could write a
story in which the warlike aliens are called "Klingons" because that's
what humans called them at first contact, and the desert planet was
called "Dune" by its discoverer because he had read Frank Herbert?
Probably there are copyright and trademark complications with that,
because the majority of seminal science fiction was written in the 20th
century. Which is yet another difference between SF and fantasy:
nobody's going to sue you for use of "elves" and "dwarves".
--
Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk
Matt Ruff
>
> Fantasy as a genre is usually[1] convergent -- it reinforces
> social conventions and contrives situations where the
> protagonist's main goal is to bring a disrupted system back
> into equillibrium. Stereotyped plot example #1: Young
> protagonist is given hideous secret/artefact -- world
> is disrupted until he can get rid of it/use it to achieve
> his destiny.
Although the archtypal example of this plot -- Tolkien's "Lord of the
Rings" -- doesn't feature a return to equilibrium. Sauron is defeated
but much of the old world passes away anyhow; it's just that it gives
way to an age of men rather than an age of darkness.
> Stereotyped plot #2: The young hero fresh off the farm
> discovers he's actually the king's illegitimate and only
> surviving son, rescues the princess, saves the kingdom,
> becomes king, and lives happily ever after.
I dunno -- throw in an incest subplot and a few speeches about free love
and the importance of packing extra socks and it sounds like you've got
the makings of a Heinlein novel with this one.
> (The point of these plotlets is the return to equillibrium
> -- the world returns to a default state where every peasant
> knows his place, the king is safe in his castle, and all's
> well with the world.)
"And they lived happily ever after" is a pretty common ending in SF
novels, too, though rather than go home to the castle Our Heroes are
more likely to be seen heading out to the stars.
> In contrast, science fiction as a genre is divergent -- it
> tries to explore situations, people, cultures, technologies,
> and philosophies that are not part of our everyday experience
> or consensus reality.
The same is true of most fantasy, at least on the surface -- elves,
wizards, and dragons do not form of a part of my everyday experience,
though YMMV. As far as relying on comfortable old plots and stereotypes,
I'd say SF is guilty of this as often as fantasy is.
> At least, good SF is divergent.
Good SF, like good fantasy, is fresh and creative. Any genre with
recyclable traditions -- which SF certainly has -- is going to generate
a lot of uninspired, derivative stuff.
> Bad SF often follows the convergent structure of bad fantasy.
> (You want a stereotyped SF plot? I can't give you one for
> a good SF plot, because there's no such thing, by definition.)
No such thing as a good SF plot, or no such thing as a good stereotyped
plot? If the latter, why wouldn't the same observation apply to fantasy?
> I hypothesize that people read fantasy (of the stereotyped
> brain-candy variety) and SF to fill different psychological
> needs: fantasy is reassuring insofar as it asserts implicitly
> that social equillibrium will be restored,
I think a lot of SF offers similar comforts -- though the goal may be a
resumption of Progress rather than a return to happy stasis.
> whereas SF is disruptive, exposing us to whacky stuff that
> induces a sense of wonder and makes the universe look
> fundamentally different to our eyes.
"Sense of wonder" isn't necessarily disruptive. If you get a new Sharper
Image catalog every Christmas, you can be awed and comforted at the same
time -- yeah, there's wacky new stuff, but it's presented in a
feel-good, non-threatening manner. A lot of SF is like this too.
-- M. Ruff
Mark Atwood
> century. Which is yet another difference between SF and fantasy:
> nobody's going to sue you for use of "elves" and "dwarves".
*cough* TSR *cough* Tolkien estate *cough*
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Matt Ruff
>
> Take any two random fantasy novels. Say they both turn
> out to contain elves. This is not esp surprising.
Well, it depends on how broadly you're defining fantasy. I haven't
encountered any elves in Sean Stewart's or James Morrow's work yet, or
in Borges, or in Helprin's "Winters Tale," or in Lovecraft or
Lovecraft's imitators.
> Take any two SF novels. Say they both turn out to have
> the exact same nonhuman race in them, despite being from
> different authors and set in different mileaus. This would
> be rather surprising.
I'd quibble about "exact same"; not all elves are the same race.
Contrast Tolkien's elves with Crowley's fairies in "Little, Big."
Totally different species.
And, conversely, while they may be called different things, many SF
alien races are basically manifestations of the same
stereotype/archetype, e.g., "the warlike race," which would include both
Klingons and Burroughs' green martians.
> This came up in a discussion about why TSR's Alternity failed.
> Part of the problem seemed to be that certain elements of
> fantasy are portable from mileaus to mileau while the same
> is not true of SF, so while elves [for example] can be used
> in many fantasy settings, if a Klingon turns up on Barryar,
> eyebrows will be raised.
What if you ditched the trademark name and just used a generic alien
species that was predisposed to be violent?
-- M. Ruff
Captain Button
[ snip ]
> Hmm. There's a thought. "Hyperspace" and "blaster" are such known
> features of the modern tradition that nobody is surprised to see them
> turn up in two separate novels. But "Klingons" and "Dune" are *also*
> now part of the modern tradition; I wonder if someone could write a
> story in which the warlike aliens are called "Klingons" because that's
> what humans called them at first contact, and the desert planet was
> called "Dune" by its discoverer because he had read Frank Herbert?
ObSF: The Puppeteers in Niven's known space, named after a
cartoon character.
--
"You may have trouble getting permission to aero or lithobrake
asteroids on Earth." - James Nicoll
Captain Button - [ but...@io.com ]
Jordan S. Bassior
>Science fiction is fantasy. It's fantasy of a kind which became possible
>with the Industrial Revolution (and the Enlightenment) and uses the
>furniture of the new social structure to create new myths. The fantasy
>that uses the old traditions, we call "fantasy". No wonder, then, that
>the old traditions crop up again and again in fantasy: that's
>practically the way we defined it.
An interesting example of a story which is technically "fantasy" in terms of
its scientific assumptions, but is most definitely science fiction in its
assumption of progress and change, is Turtledove's _Into the Darkness_, which
postulates a fantasy version of World War II in the context of a magically
progressive civilization.
>Hmm. There's a thought. "Hyperspace" and "blaster" are such known
>features of the modern tradition that nobody is surprised to see them
>turn up in two separate novels. But "Klingons" and "Dune" are *also*
>now part of the modern tradition; I wonder if someone could write a
>story in which the warlike aliens are called "Klingons" because that's
>what humans called them at first contact, and the desert planet was
>called "Dune" by its discoverer because he had read Frank Herbert?
The obstacles would be legal -- but in terms of rationale, it makes perfect
sense. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if someone didn't name a desert planet
"Dune" someday IRL ...
>Probably there are copyright and trademark complications with that,
>because the majority of seminal science fiction was written in the 20th
>century. Which is yet another difference between SF and fantasy:
>nobody's going to sue you for use of "elves" and "dwarves".
Though, interestingly, the Tolkien estate now will over "hobbit" -- thank you,
TSR, for forcing them to prevent that term from becoming public domain. And as
a result, you have the "kenders" of the Dragonlance universe ...
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
"To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On
the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too
late." (Churchill, 1934)
--
Jordan S. Bassior
>*cough* TSR *cough* Tolkien estate *cough*
They couldn't mount a successful suit on the use of either "elves" or "dwarves"
-- TSR would have _liked_ to, but even those lawyers probably knew that they
would have been laughed out of court.
Jordan S. Bassior
>And, conversely, while they may be called different things, many SF
>alien races are basically manifestations of the same
>stereotype/archetype, e.g., "the warlike race," which would include both
>Klingons and Burroughs' green martians.
In that case, note that they come in two varieties: sympathetic-honorable and
despicable-evil.
Steinn Sigurdsson
> Take any two random fantasy novels. Say they both turn
> out to contain elves. This is not esp surprising.
> Take any two SF novels. Say they both turn out to have
> the exact same nonhuman race in them, despite being from different
> authors and set in different mileaus. This would be rather surprising.
> This came up in a discussion about why TSR's Alternity failed.
> Part of the problem seemed to be that certain elements of fantasy are
> portable from mileaus to mileau while the same is not true of SF, so
> while elves [for example] can be used in many fantasy settings, if
> a Klingon turns up on Barryar, eyebrows will be raised.
> What tends to be portable in SF is gadgets and sometimes
> politics and political set ups. Hmmm. Also points of history: the
> STL Age followed by the FTL age is not uncommon, for example.
> There's a point I am fumbling towards but I am not quite sure
> what it is. It's funny that the portable conventions differ in the two
> related [imo] parts of Spec Fic...
If you broaded the concept somewhat (and you should,
and elf is not an elve is not sidhe is not a ljosalfur),
then there are analogous conventions if SF...
for example, there is the alien intelligent dinosaur,
'cause we all know dinosaurs would have evolved to intelligence
if not for that darned rock, and us mammals were just lucky.
the alien "category" species are also common - ie there are
intelligent felines, spiders, lizards, whale/Jovian blobs
- this made for some fun shorts where the smart monkeys
outwitted them all, Uplift takes this to the extreme
the berserker concept has somewhat been played with,
not as far as it could be taken though
the other major trope in SF is the "history in space",
where Rome conquers the galaxy, Belisarius kicks alien butt
and square jawed lone frontiersmen face down wild and noble
aliens while herding six legged cats...
but that is something different again.
trike
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:m34rvix...@flash.localdomain...
> Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > century. Which is yet another difference between SF and fantasy:
> > nobody's going to sue you for use of "elves" and "dwarves".
>
> *cough* TSR *cough* Tolkien estate *cough*
Stop chewing on the game pieces, Mark.
--
Keith Morrison
> > Well... I dunno. A Klingon showing up in a different universe
> > might be odd, but I can't count how many "warrior races vaguely
> > based on Japanese Tokugawa-era samurai" I've seen in science
> > fiction. Many of them are essentially indistinguishable, except
> > for whatever trivial physical features make them different from
> > humanity (forehead bumps, cat ears, whatever.)
>
> To pull an example I just saw three hours ago -- Dargo, on _Farscape_,
> is more or less a Klingon. I don't mean he *is* a Klingon, or that the
> producers of _Farscape_ plagiarized Trek mythos; but he's related
> to Lt. Worf as Bordertown elves are to Judith Tarr elves.
>
> > For that matter, the "mystically wise, peculiarly attractive alien
> > race" is also a pretty common trope, and you could argue that
> > they're basically elves slumming under a different name.
>
> Or a lot of blue makeup and a bald cap. :)
That's the example that sprung to mind for me. Zhaan is a Minbari.
Minbari are elves.
--
Keith
Keith Morrison
> Take any two random fantasy novels. Say they both turn
> out to contain elves. This is not esp surprising.
>
> Take any two SF novels. Say they both turn out to have
> the exact same nonhuman race in them, despite being from different
> authors and set in different mileaus. This would be rather surprising.
Not really. I see Klingons all the time outside "Star Trek". Only
they are called Narns or Luxans or assorted other species that are
considered aggressive warrior-types who have some kind of honour
system they consider important.
--
Keith
Mark Atwood
>
> In that case, note that they come in two varieties: sympathetic-honorable and
> despicable-evil.
_In Conquest Born_, where they are sympathetic-despicable-honorable-evil
Jordan S. Bassior
>That's the example that sprung to mind for me. Zhaan is a Minbari.
>Minbari are elves.
Very humanoid, weird psychic abilities, history of hostility due to
misunderstanding with men -- yep.
Benjamin Acosta
: This came up in a discussion about why TSR's Alternity failed.
: Part of the problem seemed to be that certain elements of fantasy are
: portable from mileaus to mileau while the same is not true of SF, so
: while elves [for example] can be used in many fantasy settings, if
: a Klingon turns up on Barryar, eyebrows will be raised.
Well, it would certainly be a novel case for Miles to deal with. :-)
Personally, I'd pity the poor Klingon. He won't know what hit him.
Kyle Haight
Benjamin Acosta <b...@HiWAAY.net> wrote:
>
>Well, it would certainly be a novel case for Miles to deal with. :-)
>
>Personally, I'd pity the poor Klingon. He won't know what hit him.
ISTR that _Shards of Honor_ started life as a piece of Star Trek
fanfic, with Cordelia as the representative of the Federation and Aral
as a Klingon. If true, perhaps a Klingon appearing on Barrayar might
not be so unexpected after all...
--
Kyle Haight
kha...@alumni.ucsd.edu
Avram Grumer
jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
> Matt Ruff said:
>
> >And, conversely, while they may be called different things,
> >many SF alien races are basically manifestations of the same
> >stereotype/archetype, e.g., "the warlike race," which would
> >include both Klingons and Burroughs' green martians.
>
> In that case, note that they come in two varieties: sympathetic-honorable
> and despicable-evil.
RIght. In classic 'Trek the Klingons were despicable and untrustworthy;
in current 'Trek they've become honorable. (Clearly all Federation
propaganda driven by political realities as the Klingons have moved from
enemies to allies.)
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
"You know, I could run for governor but I'm basically a media creation.
I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oil
business. But that's not the kind of profile you have to have to get
elected to public office." -- George W. Bush, 1989
Mark Jones
<but...@eris.io.com> spake thusly:
>Wild-eyed conspiracy theorists insist that on Sat, 21 Apr 2001 12:24:29 +0100, Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[ snip ]
>
>> Hmm. There's a thought. "Hyperspace" and "blaster" are such known
>> features of the modern tradition that nobody is surprised to see them
>> turn up in two separate novels. But "Klingons" and "Dune" are *also*
>> now part of the modern tradition; I wonder if someone could write a
>> story in which the warlike aliens are called "Klingons" because that's
>> what humans called them at first contact, and the desert planet was
>> called "Dune" by its discoverer because he had read Frank Herbert?
>
>ObSF: The Puppeteers in Niven's known space, named after a
>cartoon character.
Yeah, but he didn't call them "Beanies" or "Cecils", which might
have been troublesome. He called them puppeteers, and nobody could
sue over _that_.
Matthias Warkus
...and Matt Ruff <Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> And, conversely, while they may be called different things, many SF
> alien races are basically manifestations of the same
> stereotype/archetype, e.g., "the warlike race," which would include both
> Klingons and Burroughs' green martians.
This is what makes me furious about much, if not most, of SF and
fantasy alike: Stereotyping races/species/bioforms.
In Tolkien, in lots of other fantasy and certainly in lots of SF, the
biological descent is what decides about many facets of people's
characters. If that's not racism, what is?
mawa
--
Blümchenpflücker!
Bonsaigärtner!
Beinrasierer!
Beischlafbettler!
Matthias Warkus
> novels, too, though rather than go home to the castle Our Heroes are
> more likely to be seen heading out to the stars.
Science fiction seems to prefer a dynamic equilibrium. Fantasy is
inherently more static, considering that it's usually set in a
timeless, neverending past.
mawa
--
Develop an understanding of our problems, it all helps.
-- Mike Lawrie, Director, Computing Services, Rhodes University, South
Africa <cc...@hippo.ru.ac.za>
Riboflavin
> Take any two random fantasy novels. Say they both turn
>out to contain elves. This is not esp surprising.
> Take any two SF novels. Say they both turn out to have
>the exact same nonhuman race in them, despite being from different
>authors and set in different mileaus. This would be rather surprising.
2 different kinds of elves are not "the exact same nonhuman race", though.
Various fantasy worlds have creatures called 'elves' which range from 'thin
humans with pointy ears and a slightly longer lifespan, who are generally
pretty nice' to 'immortal creatures with a vaguely humanlike form,
incredible mastery of magic, and either near-indifference or outright
hostility towards humans'. In fact, I find the 'generic warrior race's that
pop-up in various SF works to be a lot more alike than elves. I mean, they
ALWAYS have basic HtH abilities better than a human's (but not so tough
humans can't take them out with luck, lots of training, etc), a rigid honor
code of some sort, and slower technological development than humans (though
they can start off with more tech).
> This came up in a discussion about why TSR's Alternity failed.
I'm not familiar with Alternity at all, BTW.
>Part of the problem seemed to be that certain elements of fantasy are
>portable from mileaus to mileau while the same is not true of SF, so
>while elves [for example] can be used in many fantasy settings, if
>a Klingon turns up on Barryar, eyebrows will be raised.
Scary Elves turning up in a world with Cute Elves would, I think, raise more
eyebrows than Klingons with the serial numbers filed off turning up in a
host of SF settings.
> What tends to be portable in SF is gadgets and sometimes
>politics and political set ups. Hmmm. Also points of history: the
>STL Age followed by the FTL age is not uncommon, for example.
And lots of alien races. The warrior race, the wise and mystical 'teacher'
race, the insect race, the emotionless robots, the 'beserkers' (something
evil that tries to kill everything else), and a number of others turn up
quite a bit. Also, I think monarchy is only slightly less common in SF than
in Fantasy.
> There's a point I am fumbling towards but I am not quite sure
>what it is. It's funny that the portable conventions differ in the two
>related [imo] parts of Spec Fic...
>
They don't really seem all that different to me, the main one is that SF
doesn't tend to recycle names as much, but there are a number of similar
archetypal bits in both SF and fantasy.
--
Kevin Allegood ribotr...@mindspring.pants.com
Remove the pants from my email address to reply
"Life may have no meaning. Or even worse, it may
have a meaning of which I disapprove." -- Ashleigh Brilliant
Andrew Wheeler
> Hmm. There's a thought. "Hyperspace" and "blaster" are such known
> features of the modern tradition that nobody is surprised to see them
> turn up in two separate novels. But "Klingons" and "Dune" are *also* now
> part of the modern tradition; I wonder if someone could write a story in
> which the warlike aliens are called "Klingons" because that's what humans
> called them at first contact, and the desert planet was called "Dune" by
> its discoverer because he had read Frank Herbert?
There is a similar thought in comics circles -- that if a guy who
can fly, is nigh-invulnerable, etc. (or just comes close to the
original idea) suddenly turns up, he's going to be called
"Superman" right off the bat, and that name will stick.
However, if someone were to try to write a story that
way, trademark infringement attornrneys would descend as
a horde of locusts...
--
Andrew Wheeler
Editor, SF Book Club (USA)
"Success taps softly on the back door in the middle of the night..._never_
rings the bell...disaster comes through the living room picture window
with headlights on and SIRENS blaring!" -- The Flaming Carrot
Michael S. Schiffer
<3AE240D4...@earthlink.com>:
>Del Cotter wrote:
>> Hmm. There's a thought. "Hyperspace" and "blaster" are such
>> known features of the modern tradition that nobody is surprised to
>> see them turn up in two separate novels. But "Klingons" and
>> "Dune" are *also* now part of the modern tradition; I wonder if
>> someone could write a story in which the warlike aliens are called
>> "Klingons" because that's what humans called them at first
>> contact, and the desert planet was called "Dune" by its discoverer
>> because he had read Frank Herbert?
>There is a similar thought in comics circles -- that if a guy who
>can fly, is nigh-invulnerable, etc. (or just comes close to the
>original idea) suddenly turns up, he's going to be called
>"Superman" right off the bat, and that name will stick.
>However, if someone were to try to write a story that
>way, trademark infringement attornrneys would descend as
>a horde of locusts...
Actually, news sources would probably be strongly pressured to call him
"John Smith, popularly called 'Superman'" or some such, since just
calling him "Superman" would get *them* called by AOL/Time-Warner's
trademark protection squad. (Just as the Xerox Corporation sends those
mildly threatening notes reminding everyone that it's "photocopying"
unless it's done with a Xerox(tm) brand copier.) In normal
conversation, he might be called "Superman", but not officially if DC
and it's parent company could possibly prevent it. (Similarly, I
suspect that Paramount would spend a lot of resources discouraging
people from calling real aliens "Klingons" in the media, whatever
happened with popular use.)
Of course, you probably couldn't publish a novel with _that_ premise,
either. Rather than antagonize A/T-W, most publishers would encourage
the author to use "Hyperman" and SC Comics (from their first published
book, Sleuth Comics, natch) or some such, rather than deal with the
headaches stemming from a negative portrayal of an existing company.
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
ms...@mediaone.net
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Dan Goodman
>Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> century. Which is yet another difference between SF and fantasy:
>> nobody's going to sue you for use of "elves" and "dwarves".
>
>*cough* TSR *cough* Tolkien estate *cough*
If I recall anywhere near correctly, they were sued (or threatened
with suit) for using _hobbits_ -- which were original with Tolkien.
----------
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Del Cotter
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> said:
>Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> century. Which is yet another difference between SF and fantasy:
>> nobody's going to sue you for use of "elves" and "dwarves".
>
>*cough* TSR *cough* Tolkien estate *cough*
They wouldn't stand a chance, surely? That would be as absurd as the
legendary alleged "Nazi Stormtrooper (tm)".
If I were the Tolkien estate, I'd be worrying about the heirs and
assigns, if any, of Snorri Sturlusson.
--
Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk
Nancy Lebovitz
Ross TenEyck <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>
>For that matter, the "mystically wise, peculiarly attractive alien
>race" is also a pretty common trope, and you could argue that
>they're basically elves slumming under a different name.
>
isn't one of the stronger ones, imho. I vote for chaotic, and
semi-hostile to humans.
Bujold's Cetagandans are definitely elves, and so are the Lunarians
from some of Anderson's later novels.
Stephen King's Tommyknockers are the best example I can think of
for utterly chaotic unattractive folkloric elves.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Doug Palmer
<jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> There's a point I am fumbling towards but I am not quite sure
> what it is. It's funny that the portable conventions differ in the two
> related [imo] parts of Spec Fic...
And an equally cackhanded reply...
I should probably mention up-front that I'm not a great fantasy reader, so
my exposure is limited to the standard classics. I should also probably
mention that the elves and faries that I'm going to talk about are the
old-style scary elves, before their spin-doctors, the pre-Raphealites and
Art Nouveau types, got to work.
Many (most?) aliens in SF represent aspects of humanness. So you have the
warrior race, the trader race, the race that is obsessed by air-freshener,
etc. I'd like to say that the aliens symbolise some part of the human
spectrum, but it's usually a little too blatant for that: "Oh look, the
tree symbolises trees." I can't think of an alien species that shows
anything like the amount of variation that humans (and human cultures) do.
One of the side-effects of this use of aliens as a sort of stand-in for
humanity is that they tend to reflect the opinions of the author. If the
author doesn't like the more violent aspects of being human, then the
warrior aliens will be some variety of mongol hordes (old-style Klingons).
If the author has a more positive view, then they'll be representatives of
the samuari ethic without all the distasteful torturing of prisoners
(new-style Klingons). If the author likes commerce, then they'll be
purveyours of interesting things. If the author doesn't like it, then
they'll be the alien equivalent of United Fruit.
To the extent that the aliens represent an author's obsessions, they're
probably not very portable. They also tend to be a bit thin.
Most of the stock creatures of fantasy are inherited from various folkways
and represent the unreliable and dangerous aspects of the world outside.
One effect that this has is that they are truely unknowable, since that's
part of what they represent. (As an example, all the wierd rules about how
to entice Brownies with bowls of milk.) The other thing about them is that
they're the product of a lot of people barricading their doors at night
and letting their imaginations run wild, so they're much more complex and
textured than something made up by one person to present a particular
point.
Since there's a lot of depth there and they're not really something an
author can use as a mouthpiece they're a lot more reusable.
As a side note, which SF aliens are truely alien, in the sense of not
being a subset of the human experience? The Phung, from the Tschai books,
perhaps, and Joe Haldeman's Zen spiders from "There is no Darkness". These
examples are basically fairies, though.
--
Doug Palmer do...@charvolant.org http://www.charvolant.org/~doug
David Johnston
>
> It was the Sat, 21 Apr 2001 16:56:47 GMT...
> ...and Matt Ruff <Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > And, conversely, while they may be called different things, many SF
> > alien races are basically manifestations of the same
> > stereotype/archetype, e.g., "the warlike race," which would include both
> > Klingons and Burroughs' green martians.
>
> This is what makes me furious about much, if not most, of SF and
> fantasy alike: Stereotyping races/species/bioforms.
>
> In Tolkien, in lots of other fantasy and certainly in lots of SF, the
> biological descent is what decides about many facets of people's
> characters. If that's not racism, what is?
I am inclined to think that qualities such as physical immortality would
tend to have an effect on people's characters.
David Johnston
>
> Del Cotter said:
>
> >Science fiction is fantasy. It's fantasy of a kind which became possible
> >with the Industrial Revolution (and the Enlightenment) and uses the
> >furniture of the new social structure to create new myths. The fantasy
> >that uses the old traditions, we call "fantasy". No wonder, then, that
> >the old traditions crop up again and again in fantasy: that's
> >practically the way we defined it.
>
> An interesting example of a story which is technically "fantasy" in terms of
> its scientific assumptions, but is most definitely science fiction in its
> assumption of progress and change, is Turtledove's _Into the Darkness_, which
> postulates a fantasy version of World War II in the context of a magically
> progressive civilization.
But why did he have to call the guns, "sticks"? What's wrong with calling
them staves and wands? I'm not thrilled with the eggs either.
I got a kick out of his civil war version of the same concept though, where
they had to get off the one set of flying carpets and onto another because
the spell casters had made the ley lines incompatible (the railroad lines
had different gauges).
David Johnston
>
> Mark Atwood said:
>
> >*cough* TSR *cough* Tolkien estate *cough*
>
> They couldn't mount a successful suit on the use of either "elves" or "dwarves"
> -- TSR would have _liked_ to, but even those lawyers probably knew that they
> would have been laughed out of court.
>
They couldn't even copyright "orc", despite his orcs being fairly distinctive,
because he took the name from some kind of water monster.
Matthias Warkus
...and Riboflavin <ri...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In fact, I find the 'generic warrior race's that
> pop-up in various SF works to be a lot more alike than elves. I mean, they
> ALWAYS have basic HtH abilities better than a human's (but not so tough
> humans can't take them out with luck, lots of training, etc), a rigid honor
> code of some sort, and slower technological development than humans (though
> they can start off with more tech).
Which is (my pet theory) the collective subconscious at work, mixing
trauma with cliches about that Generic Warrior Race from a far-away
planet that once devastated the outpost of Pearl Harbor, orbiting
Hawaii, a small moon of the Usanian's home world.
Or something to that effect. ;)
mawa
--
Rien ne sert de courir; il faut partir à point.
-- La Fontaine
thomas jorgensen
"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:
> Del Cotter said:
>
> >Science fiction is fantasy. It's fantasy of a kind which became possible
> >with the Industrial Revolution (and the Enlightenment) and uses the
> >furniture of the new social structure to create new myths. The fantasy
> >that uses the old traditions, we call "fantasy". No wonder, then, that
> >the old traditions crop up again and again in fantasy: that's
> >practically the way we defined it.
>
> An interesting example of a story which is technically "fantasy" in terms of
> its scientific assumptions, but is most definitely science fiction in its
> assumption of progress and change, is Turtledove's _Into the Darkness_, which
> postulates a fantasy version of World War II in the context of a magically
> progressive civilization.
>
> >Hmm. There's a thought. "Hyperspace" and "blaster" are such known
> >features of the modern tradition that nobody is surprised to see them
> >turn up in two separate novels. But "Klingons" and "Dune" are *also*
> >now part of the modern tradition; I wonder if someone could write a
> >story in which the warlike aliens are called "Klingons" because that's
> >what humans called them at first contact, and the desert planet was
> >called "Dune" by its discoverer because he had read Frank Herbert?
>
> The obstacles would be legal -- but in terms of rationale, it makes perfect
> sense. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if someone didn't name a desert planet
> "Dune" someday IRL ...
>
> >Probably there are copyright and trademark complications with that,
> >because the majority of seminal science fiction was written in the 20th
> >century. Which is yet another difference between SF and fantasy:
> >nobody's going to sue you for use of "elves" and "dwarves".
>
> Though, interestingly, the Tolkien estate now will over "hobbit" -- thank you,
> TSR, for forcing them to prevent that term from becoming public domain. And as
> a result, you have the "kenders" of the Dragonlance universe ...
I must point out that the mentality of the kender makes them
the total antithesis of the hobbits... Hobbits appriciate the comforts
of home and hearth and refuse to leave them without very good
reasons while kendar are racially incapable of feeling
fear, go wandering all over the planet at the onset of puberty,
and have "curiosity" as their number one cause of death.
The similarities are literally skindeep.
Monte Davis
>As a side note, which SF aliens are truely alien, in the sense of not
>being a subset of the human experience? The Phung, from the Tschai books,
>perhaps, and Joe Haldeman's Zen spiders from "There is no Darkness".
Cherryh's knnn or Banks' Excession lean that way (although we do get a
-- mistrnslated? -- snippet from the latter's POV at the end). The
Vinge and Brin species that have Gone Beyond. Some of Lem's... uhhh...
othernesses, as well.
I like the idea that First Contact will bear out Haldane's "the
Universe in not only queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than we
*can* imagine." So much so that we'll spend a long time debating
whether it *is* a contact, and rehashing Kantian arguments over what's
a category of existence and what's a category of our experience. Maybe
they don't have bodies... don't have one consciousness per body, or do
without consciousness... aren't embedded in spacetime/mass-energy as
we are... (Please don't snipe at these suggestions -- my point is that
if you comprehend them well enough to do so, they're too tame.)
But of course SF will keep giving us first contact as re-runs of Marco
Polo, Columbus, Gulliver, and so forth. There are, after all, limited
story-telling possibilities in "I came, I saw, I had no freaking idea
what it was I'd seen."
-Monte
Edward John Schoenfeld
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 10:23:34 GMT
> Subject: Re: Portability of concepts
TSR **was** forced to cease and desist from using the term "hobbit" in any
context.
Orc, in a "fantasy" context, appears in Milton, and the term is thus in the
common domain (even though Miltons *character* bore very little resemblance
to the Tolkien/TSR race). Neither have much to do with water.
Orca is (of course) the scientific name for killer whale.
>
Carl Dershem
>
> It was the Sat, 21 Apr 2001 16:56:47 GMT...
> ...and Matt Ruff <Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > And, conversely, while they may be called different things, many SF
> > alien races are basically manifestations of the same
> > stereotype/archetype, e.g., "the warlike race," which would include both
> > Klingons and Burroughs' green martians.
>
> This is what makes me furious about much, if not most, of SF and
> fantasy alike: Stereotyping races/species/bioforms.
>
> In Tolkien, in lots of other fantasy and certainly in lots of SF, the
> biological descent is what decides about many facets of people's
> characters. If that's not racism, what is?
Well, in Tolkien (and other, earlier works), science was sufficiently
primitive that many educated people thought that it actually worked that
way. Not exactly likable, but understandable.
As for others, such as the Klingons, it's been clearly demonstrated to
be a social division, not a purely biological one, but a social
constraint with clear biological precedent. Klingons have biologically
short tempers, and it's not hard to imagine a biosphere where
combativeness had increased value for survival benefits.
Much of racism is ignorance, stupidity, and incomplete understanding
(often wilful ignorance) of genetics and sociology - but the "wilful"
part is often the deciding factor when the knowledge is openly
available. The most dangerous racists are usually those who deny or
twist knowledge of evolution and sociology (and other sciences) to suit
their means, just for an excuse to hate.
The old trope of "noble/ignoble blood" still gets a lot of play because
it's more *comfortable* to think of it that way. "It's not his fault
he's inferior" is an easy out.
cd
Charlie Stross
as <Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> declared:
>> Fantasy as a genre is usually[1] convergent -- it reinforces
>> social conventions and contrives situations where the
>> protagonist's main goal is to bring a disrupted system back
>> into equillibrium.
>
>Although the archtypal example of this plot -- Tolkien's "Lord of the
>Rings" -- doesn't feature a return to equilibrium. Sauron is defeated
>but much of the old world passes away anyhow; it's just that it gives
>way to an age of men rather than an age of darkness.
Yeah, but it represents the re-establishment of equilibrium, even
if it's a new ground state: the threat to order (Sauron) is defeated,
just like his granddaddy.
>> (The point of these plotlets is the return to equillibrium
>> -- the world returns to a default state where every peasant
>> knows his place, the king is safe in his castle, and all's
>> well with the world.)
>
>"And they lived happily ever after" is a pretty common ending in SF
>novels, too, though rather than go home to the castle Our Heroes are
>more likely to be seen heading out to the stars.
Quite right, but this isn't an intrinsic property of the genre: it tends
to be a plot-related issue. Thing is, we have multiple interacting
phenomena in any book: we have character, we have plot, we have any
sub-plots, we have background, we have the author's own conscious
(and unconscious) theories about their own universe.
(Heinlein, Rand, or L. Neil Smith all have explicit theories about how
the universe operates and will spend time lecturing the reader: other
writers, such as (pause for thought) Michael Flynn or S. M. Stirling
have not-dissimilar world views (albeit less extreme) but don't spend
time binding them explicitly into their plot and background, or lecturing
the reader about them: any effect of the author's world-view on the work
is incidental.)
Now, on the plot side, it's hard to come up with an original plot
structure -- and a chunk of plot/character interaction revolves around
fending off the reader's expectations ("boy gets girl in the end",
"little tailor learns better") until the end finally arrives. If the
readers become involved with sympathetic protagonists who appear to fit
into the "boy meets girl" plot paradigm, they're going to be a bit pissed
off if the climax defeats their expectations without warning ("boy gets
girl, then for no obvious reason girl turns out to be an alien hive-
queen and sucks boy's brains out through his ear" -- in a book with no
prior mention of alien hive-queens). So, because most SF novels set up
an internally consistent universe and use an off-the-shelf plot, they
tend to have off-the-shelf plot resolutions.
>> In contrast, science fiction as a genre is divergent -- it
>> tries to explore situations, people, cultures, technologies,
>> and philosophies that are not part of our everyday experience
>> or consensus reality.
>
>The same is true of most fantasy, at least on the surface -- elves,
>wizards, and dragons do not form of a part of my everyday experience,
>though YMMV. As far as relying on comfortable old plots and stereotypes,
>I'd say SF is guilty of this as often as fantasy is.
My posting started out as a comment on how Central Casting is used in
SF by authors who can't be arsed working through the implications of
the own universe building exercises. I'm going to (arbitrarily) declare
SF that uses stock furniture as "bad SF", and stuff that tries to be
original as "good SF". By my yardstick, SF that uses comfortable old
plots and stereotypes is "bad SF". Extending my yardstick a bit further,
you're final clause boils down to "bad SF is guilty of this as often as
fantasy is". Yes, well, if that translation is acceptable to you I think
we're in violent agreement.
>> Bad SF often follows the convergent structure of bad fantasy.
>> (You want a stereotyped SF plot? I can't give you one for
>> a good SF plot, because there's no such thing, by definition.)
>
>No such thing as a good SF plot, or no such thing as a good stereotyped
>plot? If the latter, why wouldn't the same observation apply to fantasy?
No such thing as a good stereotyped SF plot, is what I meant. Or rather,
if an SF plot becomes stereotyped, it is almost certain that a book that
uses it is bad: it might be rescued by stunningly vibrant characterisation
or a startlingly innovative use of viewpoint shifts or something, but
there's a big flaw in it from the start.
Yes, the same observation applies to fantasy, too. Writing good fantasy
is *hard*.
>> I hypothesize that people read fantasy (of the stereotyped
>> brain-candy variety) and SF to fill different psychological
>> needs: fantasy is reassuring insofar as it asserts implicitly
>> that social equillibrium will be restored,
>
>I think a lot of SF offers similar comforts -- though the goal may be a
>resumption of Progress rather than a return to happy stasis.
Yes, indeed. But this isn't an intrinsic property of the genre, whereas
I feel that it is difficult to write fantasy that *doesn't* fall into
this trap. (Not impossible, just difficult: I'm currently reading "The
Golden Compass" by Philip Pullman and it's startlingly original.)
>> whereas SF is disruptive, exposing us to whacky stuff that
>> induces a sense of wonder and makes the universe look
>> fundamentally different to our eyes.
>
>"Sense of wonder" isn't necessarily disruptive. If you get a new Sharper
>Image catalog every Christmas, you can be awed and comforted at the same
>time -- yeah, there's wacky new stuff, but it's presented in a
>feel-good, non-threatening manner. A lot of SF is like this too.
"Disruptive" isn't the opposite of "non-threatening", in my lexicon:
it just means "disturbs the status quo and causes change". A nostril
hair trimmer doesn't threaten me, but neither does it disturb the
status quo in the same way as a near future in which everyone carries
a mobile phone that works flawlessly anywhere they go. The latter is
truly revolutionary, and its social implications are still emerging,
although it relies on little electrical gadgets about the same size and
price range as the Sharper Image electric nostril hair trimmer.
Hmm. The semiotics of electric nostril hair trimmers, and the sociology
of cellphones. Are we off-topic yet?
-- Charlie
I are sigfile disease!!
All your quote are belong to us.
Copy us every "sig"!
iain.coleman
> Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
> as <Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> declared:
>
>
> >Although the archtypal example of this plot -- Tolkien's "Lord of the
> >Rings" -- doesn't feature a return to equilibrium. Sauron is defeated
> >but much of the old world passes away anyhow; it's just that it gives
> >way to an age of men rather than an age of darkness.
>
> Yeah, but it represents the re-establishment of equilibrium, even
> if it's a new ground state: the threat to order (Sauron) is defeated,
> just like his granddaddy.
Sauron is not a threat to order: indeed, Sauron threatens to bring in a whole
lot of order. Sauron is a threat to freedom.
Iain
Neil Barnes
> There's a range of elven characteristics, and "mystically wise"
> isn't one of the stronger ones, imho. I vote for chaotic, and
> semi-hostile to humans.
>
> Bujold's Cetagandans are definitely elves, and so are the Lunarians
> from some of Anderson's later novels.
>
> Stephen King's Tommyknockers are the best example I can think of
> for utterly chaotic unattractive folkloric elves.
>
Pratchett produces some rather unpleasant elves in Lords and Ladies.
--
--
I have a quantum car. Every time I look at the speedometer I get lost...
barnacle
http://www.nailed-barnacle.co.uk
Captain Button
> Would the Cetagands work as Romulans?
> Let's ask Ambassador G'Kar for his opinion...
IMHO, the Centauri could well be Barrayarans several centuries
down the timeline, when they have gone decadent after their
glory days of mass conquest. Most likely in the timeline
where the invasion of Escobar worked.
Not that you'd ever get Cordelia to shave her head, of course....
--
"You may have trouble getting permission to aero or lithobrake
asteroids on Earth." - James Nicoll
Captain Button - [ but...@io.com ]
Alan Barclay
Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> wrote:
>RIght. In classic 'Trek the Klingons were despicable and untrustworthy;
>in current 'Trek they've become honorable. (Clearly all Federation
>propaganda driven by political realities as the Klingons have moved from
>enemies to allies.)
And very similar to the US/European view of the japaneese WWII to
the present.
Dan Goodman
I would say that Michael Flynn's world-view is more extreme than Ayn
Rand's. Flynn believes in historical cycles which adhere to
time-tables.
Dan Goodman
Barnes) wrote:
>na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote in <9bu6jv$a...@netaxs.com>:
>
>> There's a range of elven characteristics, and "mystically wise"
>> isn't one of the stronger ones, imho. I vote for chaotic, and
>> semi-hostile to humans.
>>
>> Bujold's Cetagandans are definitely elves, and so are the Lunarians
>> from some of Anderson's later novels.
>>
>> Stephen King's Tommyknockers are the best example I can think of
>> for utterly chaotic unattractive folkloric elves.
They're an absolutely lousy example, because they aren't elves.
Whatever kind of fantasy creature they might be, they're no more elves
than they are "real" tommyknockers.
David Johnston
Orcas were named after the mythical water monster I have in mind.
Robert Shaw
"Charlie Stross" <cha...@nospam.antipope.org> wrote
> <Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> declared:
>
> >
> >Although the archtypal example of this plot -- Tolkien's "Lord of the
> >Rings" -- doesn't feature a return to equilibrium. Sauron is defeated
> >but much of the old world passes away anyhow; it's just that it gives
> >way to an age of men rather than an age of darkness.
>
> Yeah, but it represents the re-establishment of equilibrium, even
> if it's a new ground state: the threat to order (Sauron) is defeated,
> just like his granddaddy.
>
If Sauron had won there would have been equilibrum; Sauron
on his throne forever, with no prospect of change.
It's almost always possible to define the position at the end of
the story as an equilibrum, though it may be dynamic. The crisis
is over, or clearly soon will be. That means the re-establisment
of a equilibrum is a poor criterion for classifying stories.
Returning to the starting point is a useful criterion. It doesn't
make for good SF or fantasy. If farmboys march off to kill
the dark lord they shouldn't be able to return to the farm as
though nothing as happened. They should be changed by
their experiences, and so should the world. If nobody notices
the dark lord is dead they can't have been much of a threat.
In the best F&SF things are changed significantly by the
story.
--
'It is a wise crow that knows which way the camel points' - Pratchett
Robert Shaw
Nancy Lebovitz
Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>On 22 Apr 2001 17:22:16 GMT, nailed_...@NOSPAMhotmail.com (Neil
>Barnes) wrote:
>
>>na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote in <9bu6jv$a...@netaxs.com>:
>>
>>> There's a range of elven characteristics, and "mystically wise"
>>> isn't one of the stronger ones, imho. I vote for chaotic, and
>>> semi-hostile to humans.
>>>
>>> Bujold's Cetagandans are definitely elves, and so are the Lunarians
>>> from some of Anderson's later novels.
>>>
>>> Stephen King's Tommyknockers are the best example I can think of
>>> for utterly chaotic unattractive folkloric elves.
>
>They're an absolutely lousy example, because they aren't elves.
>Whatever kind of fantasy creature they might be, they're no more elves
>than they are "real" tommyknockers.
Afaik (and I'd be interested in details and/or correction from people
who have more detailed knowledge), beautiful aristocratic elves who
might care about whether you have a good life are a relatively recent
invention.
The earlier model is random, habitually malicious (except for a few
helpful sub-types), and, if beautiful, still no pleasure to get
anywhere near. If you're fortunate enough to know the trick, you
can force them to get out of your life. Think Rumplestiltskin
rather than Galadriel.
Jordan S. Bassior
>TSR **was** forced to cease and desist from using the term "hobbit" in any
>context.
And it was totally TSR's fault. The Tolkien estate was perfectly willing to let
them use "hobbit," _until they tried to copyright it_. This was a blatant
attempt to grab intellectual property that not only wasn't theirs, but very
famously wasn't theirs. One is astonished at the effrontery of TSR, and wonders
why they thought they could succeed in this insane action, given that _Lord of
the Rings_ is one of the most famous books in the English language, and had
been continuously in print for decades.
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
"To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On
the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too
late." (Churchill, 1934)
--
Nancy Lebovitz
Robert Shaw <Rob...@shavian.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>It's almost always possible to define the position at the end of
>the story as an equilibrum, though it may be dynamic. The crisis
>is over, or clearly soon will be. That means the re-establisment
>of a equilibrum is a poor criterion for classifying stories.
>
>Returning to the starting point is a useful criterion. It doesn't
>make for good SF or fantasy. If farmboys march off to kill
>the dark lord they shouldn't be able to return to the farm as
>though nothing as happened. They should be changed by
Indeed, though the more likely unsatisfactory outcome is that
they've become fighters who are ready for a similar fight
with the next dark lord.
>their experiences, and so should the world. If nobody notices
>the dark lord is dead they can't have been much of a threat.
>
>In the best F&SF things are changed significantly by the
>story.
>
And this is what peeved me about the sequel to Lindskold's
_Changer_. The first book set up a situation which promised
major change: fantasy creatures have been living inconspicuously
with humans, but the masquerade is getting harder and more
constraining as human society becomes more bureaucratized
and more fun./
Some fantasy creatures look human, and would be mostly risking
a substantial loss if they went public. Others can't pass for
human, and are finding their increasing isolation tiresome.
The whole group needs to decide what to do.
If they do go public (and the group that wants to do so is
getting more assertive), the world is going to be a very
different place.
Ok, matters don't get settled in the first book, though
there's some good gaudy writing and politicking. However,
the second book is a mere action-adventure story that
leaves all the issues hanging. I don't know if I'll
bother with the third unless I have some reason to
think that something major will happen in it.
Vegard Valberg
I think capricous is more describing of the elves, and they were often
described as beautiful, great lovers and so forth ... The Sidhe that is.
Note that the Norse folklore also described them in similar terms, or
rather as being somewhat more like Galadriel. Of course they might give
you a magnificent gift one day, then seduce you the next, then send you
fifty years into the future on the third (still young if you were lucky,
suddenly aged fifty years if you were not).
With Christianity the elves lost much of their powers, and like the
Norse trolls they became smaller, meaner (more petty), and less
formidable. So more purely evil, but also weaker.
So the question becomes which mythology you take the elves from, and
from what period in that mythology, as it really makes a big difference.
---
--
- Vegard Valberg
My e-mail adress is <Vval...@online.no>,
that is two v's, not one W.
Keith Morrison
>
> It was the Sat, 21 Apr 2001 16:56:47 GMT...
> ...and Matt Ruff <Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > And, conversely, while they may be called different things, many SF
> > alien races are basically manifestations of the same
> > stereotype/archetype, e.g., "the warlike race," which would include both
> > Klingons and Burroughs' green martians.
>
> This is what makes me furious about much, if not most, of SF and
> fantasy alike: Stereotyping races/species/bioforms.
>
> In Tolkien, in lots of other fantasy and certainly in lots of SF, the
> biological descent is what decides about many facets of people's
> characters. If that's not racism, what is?
Sure, *if* there isn't a presented reason why the person's species
or whatever has evolved/been created that way.
The (now discontinued, I believe) RPC called _2300_ wanted an alien
species for humans to fight against, and they wanted them to be mean
and nasty brutes who would engage in a no-holds-barred struggle with
humanity, right bastards that humans would have no compunctions
about killing.
Their solution was clever. The aliens, called the Kafer by humans,
evolved a biology that caused a chemical to be released when they
were in danger. Unlike adrenaline, which increases human physical
reactions, their analogue fired up their neural cells, literally
making them smarter. After the danger passed, their intelligence
dropped but not quite as far as it had been. Thus the smart Kafer
was one that actively sought out danger, and what's more dangerous
than trying to kill something that's actively trying to kill you?
The Kafer started a war with humans and *like* it because it allows
their people to get smarter through combat without endangering their
own species through infighting.
--
Keith
Jorj Strumolo
CD> biological precedent. Klingons have biologically short
> tempers, and it's not hard to imagine a biosphere where
> combativeness had increased value for survival benefits.
The Silver Horde stories by I-don't-remember. (And with
neither Deja nor ISFDb working, one's stuck, these days.)
Products of a Deathworld-squared ecosystem, they ended up
eliminating all multicellular life on their planet, other
than themselves, and set forth to clean the galaxy similarly.
Dan Goodman
wrote:
>In article <3ae32883...@news.visi.com>,
>Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>>On 22 Apr 2001 17:22:16 GMT, nailed_...@NOSPAMhotmail.com (Neil
>>Barnes) wrote:
>>
>>>na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote in <9bu6jv$a...@netaxs.com>:
>>>
>>>> There's a range of elven characteristics, and "mystically wise"
>>>> isn't one of the stronger ones, imho. I vote for chaotic, and
>>>> semi-hostile to humans.
>>>>
>>>> Bujold's Cetagandans are definitely elves, and so are the Lunarians
>>>> from some of Anderson's later novels.
>>>>
>>>> Stephen King's Tommyknockers are the best example I can think of
>>>> for utterly chaotic unattractive folkloric elves.
>>
>>They're an absolutely lousy example, because they aren't elves.
>>Whatever kind of fantasy creature they might be, they're no more elves
>>than they are "real" tommyknockers.
>
>Afaik (and I'd be interested in details and/or correction from people
>who have more detailed knowledge), beautiful aristocratic elves who
>might care about whether you have a good life are a relatively recent
>invention.
From what I've read on European folklore (largely British Isles):
elves (fairies, pharoahs, pharisees) included aristocrats (along with
ordinary people who farmed a bit differently than their human
neighbors did), and could be beautiful.
As for caring whether you have a good life -- they were likely to
return favors. And while their dislike of bad housekeeping didn't
mean they cared about you, it probably served to reduce certain
diseases.
>The earlier model is random, habitually malicious (except for a few
>helpful sub-types), and, if beautiful, still no pleasure to get
>anywhere near. If you're fortunate enough to know the trick, you
>can force them to get out of your life. Think Rumplestiltskin
>rather than Galadriel.
But also think the queen in Tam Lin, the queen who Thomas the Rhymer
shacked up with, Oberon, the king whose service Huon of the Horn
eventually went into, the light elves of Norse mythology....
Joel Rosenberg
"Keith Morrison" <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote in message
news:3AE33CD8...@polarnet.ca...
Sounds to me like some really smart Kafer would invent some dangerous game
hunting preserves, and sell tickets (and, of course, be one of his own best
customers), as the chances of the equivalent of, say, polar bears banding
together and wipe out their whole species would be basically nil, and the
chances of humans doing that might be somewhat larger.
Michael Ikeda
>Edward John Schoenfeld said:
>
>>TSR **was** forced to cease and desist from using the term "hobbit" in any
>>context.
>
>And it was totally TSR's fault. The Tolkien estate was perfectly willing to let
>them use "hobbit," _until they tried to copyright it_. This was a blatant
>attempt to grab intellectual property that not only wasn't theirs, but very
>famously wasn't theirs. One is astonished at the effrontery of TSR, and wonders
>why they thought they could succeed in this insane action, given that _Lord of
>the Rings_ is one of the most famous books in the English language, and had
>been continuously in print for decades.
>
>
Well, TSR was the company that put a trademark symbol next to the
word "Nazi" in one of the Indiana Jones modules.
(according to the Murphy's Rules column in Space Gamer)
(presumably THAT one was just a mixup and not a real attempt to
trademark the term)
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
Joel Rosenberg
"Michael Ikeda" <mmi...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:9bvi3p$gm9$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> In article <20010422155931...@ng-da1.aol.com>,
jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
> >Edward John Schoenfeld said:
> >
> >>TSR **was** forced to cease and desist from using the term "hobbit" in
any
> >>context.
> >
> >And it was totally TSR's fault. The Tolkien estate was perfectly willing
to let
> >them use "hobbit," _until they tried to copyright it_. This was a blatant
> >attempt to grab intellectual property that not only wasn't theirs, but
very
> >famously wasn't theirs. One is astonished at the effrontery of TSR, and
wonders
> >why they thought they could succeed in this insane action, given that
_Lord of
> >the Rings_ is one of the most famous books in the English language, and
had
> >been continuously in print for decades.
> >
> >
>
> Well, TSR was the company that put a trademark symbol next to the
> word "Nazi" in one of the Indiana Jones modules.
>
> (according to the Murphy's Rules column in Space Gamer)
>
> (presumably THAT one was just a mixup and not a real attempt to
> trademark the term)
My understanding is that the Nazi(tm) came from Speilberg's company -- I'd
have loved to have seen him sue the various neonazi parties for trademark
infringement.
Taki Kogoma
to rec.arts.sf.written decree...
>In article <20010422155931...@ng-da1.aol.com>, jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
>>Edward John Schoenfeld said:
>>>TSR **was** forced to cease and desist from using the term "hobbit" in any
>>>context.
>>
>>And it was totally TSR's fault. The Tolkien estate was perfectly willing to let
>>them use "hobbit," _until they tried to copyright it_. This was a blatant
>>attempt to grab intellectual property that not only wasn't theirs, but very
>>famously wasn't theirs. One is astonished at the effrontery of TSR, and wonders
>>why they thought they could succeed in this insane action, given that _Lord of
>>the Rings_ is one of the most famous books in the English language, and had
>>been continuously in print for decades.
>
>Well, TSR was the company that put a trademark symbol next to the
>word "Nazi" in one of the Indiana Jones modules.
>
> (according to the Murphy's Rules column in Space Gamer)
>
>(presumably THAT one was just a mixup and not a real attempt to
>trademark the term)
AIUI, the (tm) was intended for the *entire graphical representation*
of a particular cardboard-cutout-action-figure thingy representing a
"Nazi Thug"(tm).
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
quirk @ swcp.com | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
Doug Dawson
>Well, TSR was the company that put a trademark symbol next to the
>word "Nazi" in one of the Indiana Jones modules.
>
> (according to the Murphy's Rules column in Space Gamer)
>
>(presumably THAT one was just a mixup and not a real attempt to
>trademark the term)
IIRC, the module stated that a _particular image_ of a _particular Nazi_
had its copyright belong to Lucasfilm. It didn't take long for that
to mutate to "Nazi (TM of TSR)".
Nancy Lebovitz
Keith Morrison
> > The (now discontinued, I believe) RPC called _2300_ wanted an alien
> > species for humans to fight against, and they wanted them to be mean
> > and nasty brutes who would engage in a no-holds-barred struggle with
> > humanity, right bastards that humans would have no compunctions
> > about killing.
> >
> > Their solution was clever. The aliens, called the Kafer by humans,
> > evolved a biology that caused a chemical to be released when they
> > were in danger. Unlike adrenaline, which increases human physical
> > reactions, their analogue fired up their neural cells, literally
> > making them smarter. After the danger passed, their intelligence
> > dropped but not quite as far as it had been. Thus the smart Kafer
> > was one that actively sought out danger, and what's more dangerous
> > than trying to kill something that's actively trying to kill you?
> > The Kafer started a war with humans and *like* it because it allows
> > their people to get smarter through combat without endangering their
> > own species through infighting.
>
> Sounds to me like some really smart Kafer would invent some dangerous game
> hunting preserves, and sell tickets (and, of course, be one of his own best
> customers), as the chances of the equivalent of, say, polar bears banding
> together and wipe out their whole species would be basically nil, and the
> chances of humans doing that might be somewhat larger.
The backstory is that Kafer culture tended to be cyclical for much
of it's history; city-states would evolve but would tend to become
rather safer, thus the population stupider. Eventually a horde of
"smart barbarians" when come out of the boonies and wipe them out
and the cycle would start again. Eventually a system arose where
violence was institutionalized within the cities and the whole
society started evolving, but a constant trend is that their leaders
are, quite literally, addicted to violence. However, the "smart
barbarian" archetype stuck with them, the monster/boogeyman used
to scare small children and make sure that Johnny goes out and tries
to kill some crippled old man to make sure he doesn't get stupid
and let the wild Kafers overrun his city.
So when they happened upon humans, they met their nightmares. On
average, humans were smarter and come from outside, ergo they are
the "smart barbarians" that would come out of the hills to wipe
out civilization. So not only did they get a kick out of the war
they started, they were also fighting a monster from their cultural
unconsciousness.
--
Keith
Phil Fraering
> IMHO, the Centauri could well be Barrayarans several centuries
> down the timeline, when they have gone decadent after their
> glory days of mass conquest. Most likely in the timeline
> where the invasion of Escobar worked.
>
> Not that you'd ever get Cordelia to shave her head, of course....
I think in the original correspondence bit, the Centauri were
supposed to be equivalents to the Assyrians. But I'm still working
that out.
--
Phil Fraering "American-style iced tea is the perfect drink for
p...@globalreach.net a hot, sunny day. It's never really caught on in
the UK, probably because the last time we had a
hot, sunny day was back in 1957." - Tom Holt
Michael J. Lowrey
> Many (most?) aliens in SF represent aspects of humanness. So you have the
> warrior race, the trader race, the race that is obsessed by air-freshener,
> etc. I'd like to say that the aliens symbolise some part of the human
> spectrum, but it's usually a little too blatant for that: "Oh look, the
> tree symbolises trees." I can't think of an alien species that shows
> anything like the amount of variation that humans (and human cultures) do.
Hani.
> As a side note, which SF aliens are truely alien, in the sense of not
> being a subset of the human experience? The Phung, from the Tschai books,
> perhaps, and Joe Haldeman's Zen spiders from "There is no Darkness". These
> examples are basically fairies, though.
All the methane-side races in Cherryh's books.
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
Sunrise Book Reviews
Jordan S. Bassior
>But also think the queen in Tam Lin, the queen who Thomas the Rhymer
>shacked up with, Oberon, the king whose service Huon of the Horn
>eventually went into, the light elves of Norse mythology....
According to Neil Gaiman, at least one of the Elven _femme fatales_ was just
very seriously misunderstood ...
Here's to Nuala, one of the best elven characters in any fantasy I've ever read
:)
John DiFool
>
> > This is what makes me furious about much, if not most, of SF and
> > fantasy alike: Stereotyping races/species/bioforms.
> >
> > In Tolkien, in lots of other fantasy and certainly in lots of SF, the
> > biological descent is what decides about many facets of people's
> > characters. If that's not racism, what is?
>
> Well, in Tolkien (and other, earlier works), science was sufficiently
> primitive that many educated people thought that it actually worked that
> way. Not exactly likable, but understandable.
>
> As for others, such as the Klingons, it's been clearly demonstrated to
> be a social division, not a purely biological one, but a social
> constraint with clear biological precedent. Klingons have biologically
> short tempers, and it's not hard to imagine a biosphere where
> combativeness had increased value for survival benefits.
>
Well, in ST VI you had a 'cultured', Shakespeare spouting Klingon...
John DiFool
Gene Wirchenko
>Andrew Wheeler <andrew...@earthlink.com> wrote in
><3AE240D4...@earthlink.com>:
[snip]
>>There is a similar thought in comics circles -- that if a guy who
>>can fly, is nigh-invulnerable, etc. (or just comes close to the
>>original idea) suddenly turns up, he's going to be called
>>"Superman" right off the bat, and that name will stick.
>>However, if someone were to try to write a story that
>>way, trademark infringement attornrneys would descend as
>>a horde of locusts...
How about prior use? "Man and Superman"?
>Actually, news sources would probably be strongly pressured to call him
>"John Smith, popularly called 'Superman'" or some such, since just
>calling him "Superman" would get *them* called by AOL/Time-Warner's
>trademark protection squad. (Just as the Xerox Corporation sends those
>mildly threatening notes reminding everyone that it's "photocopying"
>unless it's done with a Xerox(tm) brand copier.) In normal
Nope. It's photocopying then, too. If ones word gets verbed,
there's a good chance one'll lose it as a trademark. That's why you
see such things as "<x>-brand <thingy>".
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Gene Wirchenko
>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, in rec.arts.sf.written,
>Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> said:
>
>>Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>> century. Which is yet another difference between SF and fantasy:
>>> nobody's going to sue you for use of "elves" and "dwarves".
>>
>>*cough* TSR *cough* Tolkien estate *cough*
>
>They wouldn't stand a chance, surely? That would be as absurd as the
>legendary alleged "Nazi Stormtrooper (tm)".
I have a book from Steve Jackson Games called "Murphy's Rules . .
. and Other Strange Stuff from Space Gamer" [The ellipses are part of
the actual title]. It is a collection of fun pokes at the gaming
industry. THE MATERIAL IS TRUE! Most are cartoons. On p. 32:
WHY DIDN'T WE THINK OF THIS IN 1942?
On the bases of three cardboard figures in its second INDIANA
JONES module, TSR has trademarked the term "Nazi".
>If I were the Tolkien estate, I'd be worrying about the heirs and
>assigns, if any, of Snorri Sturlusson.
Gene Wirchenko
>Del Cotter said:
[snip]
>>Probably there are copyright and trademark complications with that,
>>because the majority of seminal science fiction was written in the 20th
>>century. Which is yet another difference between SF and fantasy:
>>nobody's going to sue you for use of "elves" and "dwarves".
>
>Though, interestingly, the Tolkien estate now will over "hobbit" -- thank you,
>TSR, for forcing them to prevent that term from becoming public domain. And as
>a result, you have the "kenders" of the Dragonlance universe ...
A kender, gentler campaign?
Jorj Strumolo
NL> You may be thinking of _Hour of the Horde_ by Gordon Dickson.
That's a low-tech human on a ship with individuals of other
low-tech races, as one minor ship in a fleet defending the
galaxy, right? One of them has fast refelxes, being from a
high-gravity world?
Silver Horde is a series from Analog, with short furry aliens
who have what amounts to touch-telepathy with each other
through the palms of their hands. Unfortunately it seems none
of the actual stories had "Silver Horde" in its title, says ISFDb.
Nancy Lebovitz
Jorj Strumolo <jo...@yifan.net> wrote:
> Nancy Lebovitz:
>NL> You may be thinking of _Hour of the Horde_ by Gordon Dickson.
>
> That's a low-tech human on a ship with individuals of other
> low-tech races, as one minor ship in a fleet defending the
> galaxy, right? One of them has fast refelxes, being from a
> high-gravity world?
>
Yes, that's it.
> Silver Horde is a series from Analog, with short furry aliens
> who have what amounts to touch-telepathy with each other
> through the palms of their hands. Unfortunately it seems none
> of the actual stories had "Silver Horde" in its title, says ISFDb.
>
Oh. It sounds interesting, and I hope someone else remembers the
titles.
Steve Taylor
> And lots of alien races. The warrior race, the wise and mystical 'teacher'
> race, the insect race, the emotionless robots, the 'beserkers' (something
> evil that tries to kill everything else), and a number of others turn up
> quite a bit. Also, I think monarchy is only slightly less common in SF than
> in Fantasy.
Hounourable mention also to the telepathic alien pet (cats or dragons
preferred) which is emotionally bonded to the hero/heroine.
> Kevin Allegood
Steve
Steve Taylor
[... snippage of good stuff ...]
> As a side note, which SF aliens are truely alien, in the sense of not
> being a subset of the human experience? The Phung, from the Tschai books,
> perhaps, and Joe Haldeman's Zen spiders from "There is no Darkness". These
> examples are basically fairies, though.
There's those methane breathing hairballs from Cherryh's _Chanur_ books,
the Knnnnn or whatever they were called. Of course, they don't really do
a whole lot except drive dangerously.
ObBoardgame: In the game _Merchant of Venus_ (which, dammit, I *still*
haven't got around to playing) every race, in jolly SF cliche style, has
one product which they make much better than anyone else in the
universe. In our case it's Music Videos.
> Doug Palmer
Steve
Del Cotter
Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix3.netaxs.com> said:
>Jorj Strumolo <jo...@yifan.net> wrote:
>> Silver Horde is a series from Analog, with short furry aliens
>> who have what amounts to touch-telepathy with each other
>> through the palms of their hands. Unfortunately it seems none
>> of the actual stories had "Silver Horde" in its title, says ISFDb.
>
>Oh. It sounds interesting, and I hope someone else remembers the
>titles.
It sounds like a series by J. Brian Clarke, that began with "The
Expediter" in February 1984. It featured stargates left by another
civilisation, and a *very* small number of intelligent species,
including humans, Phuili (dog-like aliens wiz a zpeech defect) and the
aforementioned rabidly-omniphobic Silvers.
Feb 84 The Expediter
May 85 Earthgate
Mar 86 Joint Action
Aug 86 Intent of Mercy
May 87 The Testament of Geoffrey
Feb 88 Dry Run
Aug 88 Long Song
Jan 89 The Last Defender
Nov 89 Flaw on Serendip
Aug 90 Return of the Alphanauts
May 92 Adoption
As Jorj says, it's not easy to tell which of these stories belong to the
series, but I'd guess all of them up to Jan 89.
--
Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk
thomas jorgensen
Steve Taylor wrote:
Oh. My. Deity.
Thats funny. And I can totally see that. happening... So the
famed tentaceled monstrosity/singer of altair 7 goes to earth
and is lodged in hideously expensive living quarters to produce
the vidoes for its home planet... Oh man. I think I'll see if I
can track that game down.
Niall McAuley
>Although the archtypal example of this plot -- Tolkien's "Lord of the
>Rings" -- doesn't feature a return to equilibrium. Sauron is defeated
>but much of the old world passes away anyhow; it's just that it gives
>way to an age of men rather than an age of darkness.
That's because _LotR_ is a secret history so it must end up where
we are today.
--
Niall [real address ends in se, not es.invalid]
Charlie Stross
as <dsg...@visi.com> declared:
>I would say that Michael Flynn's world-view is more extreme than Ayn
>Rand's. Flynn believes in historical cycles which adhere to
>time-tables.
Yeah, but he doesn't write thirty-page lectures about it.
(Nor do I see indications that he, personally, believes it -- as
opposed to having used it as the McGuffin in "In the country of the
blind" and then re-used the universe in that future history series
he's working on. Remember: authors don't necessarily believe what
they write. Although I'd be really startled to discover that Ayn
Rand was a doctrinaire Leninist ...)
-- Charlie
I are sigfile disease!!
All your quote are belong to us.
Copy us every "sig"!
Gareth Wilson
>
> (Nor do I see indications that he, personally, believes it -- as
> opposed to having used it as the McGuffin in "In the country of the
> blind" and then re-used the universe in that future history series
> he's working on.
He did write a couple of fact articles in Analog which promoted the
"historical cycles" idea. The second, "Pson of Psychohistory", (published
in June 1994) is particularly amusing. He predicts economic and political
history of the next 50 years. So far he's gotten it completely.... wrong.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
Christchurch
New Zealand
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Doug Palmer
<oran...@uwm.edu> wrote:
> Doug Palmer wrote:
>> Many (most?) aliens in SF represent aspects of humanness. So you have
>> the warrior race, the trader race, the race that is obsessed by
>> air-freshener, etc. I'd like to say that the aliens symbolise some part
>> of the human spectrum, but it's usually a little too blatant for that:
>> "Oh look, the tree symbolises trees." I can't think of an alien species
>> that shows anything like the amount of variation that humans (and human
>> cultures) do.
>
> Hani.
I need a little memory refresh here. I can remember that the trader Hani
were different to the dirtside Hani. But I can't think of anything beyond
that.
>
>
>> As a side note, which SF aliens are truely alien, in the sense of not
>> being a subset of the human experience? The Phung, from the Tschai
>> books, perhaps, and Joe Haldeman's Zen spiders from "There is no
>> Darkness". These examples are basically fairies, though.
>
> All the methane-side races in Cherryh's books.
Again, all I can remember are the Knnnn. Who, as Steve points out, are
mostly just bad drivers. The Phung, the Zen spiders and the Knnnn are
also simply unknowable. The Dirdir, again from Tschai, are pretty good,
as they don't really have human motivations but you can get a little way
into their heads. (From the same books, I don't think the Pnume count, as
they're just museum curators at heart; I know the type.)
--
Doug Palmer do...@charvolant.org http://www.charvolant.org/~doug
Mark Atwood
>
> ObBoardgame: In the game _Merchant of Venus_ (which, dammit, I *still*
> haven't got around to playing) every race, in jolly SF cliche style, has
> one product which they make much better than anyone else in the
> universe. In our case it's Music Videos.
I supposed that's better in the Human's in Buck Godot's Gallimaphry,
where our unique contribution to Galactic Culture is the idea of
popsicles.
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Luke Webber
news:m3sniz7...@flash.localdomain...
> Steve Taylor <teapot7s...@ozemail.com.au> writes:
> >
> > ObBoardgame: In the game _Merchant of Venus_ (which, dammit, I *still*
> > haven't got around to playing) every race, in jolly SF cliche style, has
> > one product which they make much better than anyone else in the
> > universe. In our case it's Music Videos.
>
> I supposed that's better in the Human's in Buck Godot's Gallimaphry,
> where our unique contribution to Galactic Culture is the idea of
> popsicles.
Reminds me of the Vegan viewpoint in Zelazny's This Immortal. Seems the less
cultured of them thought that Coke was our crowning glory. Although they
also liked our women, the kinky sods. <g>
Luke
Bruce Hollebone
>Their solution was clever. The aliens, called the Kafer by
>humans, evolved a biology that caused a chemical to be
>released when they were in danger. Unlike adrenaline, which
>increases human physical reactions, their analogue fired up
>their neural cells, literally making them smarter.
I hate things like this. They are such obvious contrivances with
the requirement that everyone behave like idiots to avoid
destrying the plot. A bright biochemist and a few plant misters
would solve this problem immediately.
--
Kind Regards,
Bruce.
Vegard Valberg
>
> Captain Button <but...@eris.io.com> writes:
>
> > IMHO, the Centauri could well be Barrayarans several centuries
> > down the timeline, when they have gone decadent after their
> > glory days of mass conquest. Most likely in the timeline
> > where the invasion of Escobar worked.
> >
> > Not that you'd ever get Cordelia to shave her head, of course....
>
> I think in the original correspondence bit, the Centauri were
> supposed to be equivalents to the Assyrians. But I'm still working
> that out.
I thought they were based on the Romans, but of course there was really
very little difference between how the Romans and the Assyrians did
things.
---
--
- Vegard Valberg
My e-mail adress is <Vval...@online.no>,
that is two v's, not one W.
Keith Morrison
Nicotine patches have been available for quite some time. So why
do people still light up, stain their teeth, ruin their lungs and
generally stink up the place?
When something has become rooted into a society, even something
that has a simple fix, it can hang around a long time. Especially
if the "solution" comes along much later.
In the example of the Kafer, their society had evolved a solution
millenia before they had bright biochemists (or the biochemical
knowledge) to solve the problem. So why would they change what
obviously had worked just because some crank with a plant mister
says it can make their world a paradise?
ObSF: a lot where authors tend to assume that everyone hops on
the new idea bandwagon because the author thinks it's so obvious
--
Keith
Phil Fraering
> Dan Goodman said:
>
> >But also think the queen in Tam Lin, the queen who Thomas the Rhymer
> >shacked up with, Oberon, the king whose service Huon of the Horn
> >eventually went into, the light elves of Norse mythology....
>
> According to Neil Gaiman, at least one of the Elven _femme fatales_ was just
> very seriously misunderstood ...
>
> Here's to Nuala, one of the best elven characters in any fantasy I've ever read
> :)
Which book?
Phil Fraering
> Charlie Stross wrote:
>
> >
> > (Nor do I see indications that he, personally, believes it -- as
> > opposed to having used it as the McGuffin in "In the country of the
> > blind" and then re-used the universe in that future history series
> > he's working on.
>
> He did write a couple of fact articles in Analog which promoted the
> "historical cycles" idea. The second, "Pson of Psychohistory", (published
> in June 1994) is particularly amusing. He predicts economic and political
> history of the next 50 years. So far he's gotten it completely.... wrong.
Well, what did it say?
Any joint Sino-American task forces occupying New Zealand?
J.B. Moreno
> Benjamin Acosta <b...@HiWAAY.net> wrote:
> >
> >Well, it would certainly be a novel case for Miles to deal with. :-)
> >
> >Personally, I'd pity the poor Klingon. He won't know what hit him.
>
> ISTR that _Shards of Honor_ started life as a piece of Star Trek
> fanfic, with Cordelia as the representative of the Federation and Aral
> as a Klingon. If true, perhaps a Klingon appearing on Barrayar might
> not be so unexpected after all...
Google doesn't go back that far, but AFAICK Lois put the kibosh on that
myth.
--
JBM
"Your depression will be added to my own" -- Marvin of Borg
Neil Barnes
<VaoydtCm...@branta.demon.co.uk>:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, in rec.arts.sf.written,
> Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix3.netaxs.com> said:
>
>It featured stargates left by another
> civilisation, and a *very* small number of intelligent species,
> including humans, Phuili (dog-like aliens wiz a zpeech defect)
As an experiment, I scanned one of the stories from Analog. The combination
of cheap paper, small type, and the zpeech defectz didn't half make the OCR
software hiccough!
--
--
I have a quantum car. Every time I look at the speedometer I get lost...
barnacle
http://www.nailed-barnacle.co.uk
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Palmer <do...@charvolant.org> writes
>I can't think of an alien species that shows
>anything like the amount of variation that humans (and human cultures) do.
Authors are working under a disadvantage. They don't have the space in a
book to show the amount of cultural diversity that occurs on Earth. That
said Poul Anderson's Diomedeans ("War of the Wing Men" aka "The Man Who
Counts") have two very different cultures. His Ythrians and Monwaingi
are supposed to have wide cultural diversity. In general Poul Anderson
is good on diversity - I'll also adduce the Ishtarians.
George R.R. Martin is also good on diversity, but he tends to stick more
to humans.
C.J. Cherryh's mahen are supposed to be extremely culturally diverse,
but this is off stage.
Mary Gentle also produced a diverse world in Orthe.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Courtenay Footman
>I got a kick out of his civil war version of the same concept though, where
>they had to get off the one set of flying carpets and onto another because
>the spell casters had made the ley lines incompatible (the railroad lines
>had different gauges).
>
I don't understand the point of _Sentry Peak_. Grant's memoir tell the
same story, and are far better written. All the best lines in _Sentry
Peak_ are from other people's work, and reading them unfiltered is, IMHO,
a much more interesting experience. (Yes, Bragg once did get into an
argument with himself.)
--
Courtenay Footman I have again gotten back on the net, and
c...@lightlink.com again I will never get anything done.
(All mail from non-valid addresses is automatically deleted by my system.)
Gareth Wilson
> Gareth Wilson <gr...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> writes:
>
>
> > He did write a couple of fact articles in Analog which promoted the
> > "historical cycles" idea. The second, "Pson of Psychohistory", (published
> > in June 1994) is particularly amusing. He predicts economic and political
> > history of the next 50 years. So far he's gotten it completely.... wrong.
>
> Well, what did it say?
>
Nothing terribly interesting. Just a series of depressions that never happened,
Clinton getting beaten by Kemp in 1996, and Kemp getting beaten by someone in
2000.
Craig S. Richardson
wrote:
>In article <20010421141049...@ng-mj1.aol.com>,
>jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
>
>> Matt Ruff said:
>>
>> >And, conversely, while they may be called different things,
>> >many SF alien races are basically manifestations of the same
>> >stereotype/archetype, e.g., "the warlike race," which would
>> >include both Klingons and Burroughs' green martians.
>>
>> In that case, note that they come in two varieties: sympathetic-honorable
>> and despicable-evil.
>
>RIght. In classic 'Trek the Klingons were despicable and untrustworthy;
>in current 'Trek they've become honorable. (Clearly all Federation
>propaganda driven by political realities as the Klingons have moved from
>enemies to allies.)
Note that Romalans have made the opposite journey during the same time
period. Apparently there was more to the Klingon/Romulan treaty than
just exchange of ship technology. Either that, or there's a constant
amount of "honor" in the universe, and Klinzhai happens to be upriver
of Ch'Rihan.
--Craig
--
David Collins from Burnley: 70K pounds
Luke Weaver from Spurs: 500K pounds
Matthew Etherington from Grasshoppers-Zurich: 1.2M pounds
Leyton Orient 1-0 St. Mirren in the 2003 UEFA Cup Final: Priceless
Captain Button
I suspect this tends to be rooted in the common belief that everyone
really has the same desires and values deep down.
A lot of people criticize _The Mote In God's Eye_ because the
Moties aren't willing to hop on the birth control bandwagon
and let there line be wiped out by those who do't.
--
"You may have trouble getting permission to aero or lithobrake
asteroids on Earth." - James Nicoll
Captain Button - [ but...@io.com ]
Jordan S. Bassior
>> According to Neil Gaiman, at least one of the Elven _femme fatales_ was just
>> very seriously misunderstood ...
>>
>> Here's to Nuala, one of the best elven characters in any fantasy I've ever
read
>> :)
>
>Which book?
The whole _Sandman_ series, starting with the dinner-party of the Gods.
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
"To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On
the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too
late." (Churchill, 1934)
--
Chad R. Orzel
<kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote:
>When something has become rooted into a society, even something
>that has a simple fix, it can hang around a long time. Especially
>if the "solution" comes along much later.
>ObSF: a lot where authors tend to assume that everyone hops on
>the new idea bandwagon because the author thinks it's so obvious
In that vein, I really love the explanation of why people _don't_ use
video phones in _Infinite Jest,_ despite the technology being readily
available.
Later,
OilCan
Steve Taylor
>> ISTR that _Shards of Honor_ started life as a piece of Star Trek
>> fanfic, with Cordelia as the representative of the Federation and Aral
>> as a Klingon. If true, perhaps a Klingon appearing on Barrayar might
>> not be so unexpected after all...
> Google doesn't go back that far, but AFAICK Lois put the kibosh on that
> myth.
Oh oh - we're getting cross universe drift again. I'm pretty sure
(though not 100%) that I've read here *confirming* this story in
_Dreamweavers Dillema_, her Boskone Guest of Honour book.
> JBM
Steve
Steve Taylor
>>> ObBoardgame: In the game _Merchant of Venus_ (which, dammit, I *still*
>>> haven't got around to playing) every race, in jolly SF cliche style, has
>>> one product which they make much better than anyone else in the
>>> universe. In our case it's Music Videos.
>> I supposed that's better in the Human's in Buck Godot's Gallimaphry,
>> where our unique contribution to Galactic Culture is the idea of
>> popsicles.
> Reminds me of the Vegan viewpoint in Zelazny's This Immortal. Seems the less
> cultured of them thought that Coke was our crowning glory. Although they
> also liked our women, the kinky sods. <g>
I saw a short computer animated film once which had a flying saucer
hovering near the the shattered ruins of planet Earth, now just orbiting
rubble after WWVII or whatever. There was an orbiting memorial with a
plaque in honourof "Humankind, famous throughout the galaxy as the
inventors of Velcro(tm)".
> Luke
Steve