Authors SF readers like
Howard Brazee
many of the same authors.
What non SF have you seen that SF authors like in common?
Coyu
Mysteries. Not the boilerplate series, but the quirky ones.
Luke Webber
news:20010815085915...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
No mysteries for me thanks, but I think that word "quirky" might well be the
key. On the very rare occasions that I do choose to read something non-SF
other than a technical reference, I definitely look for something beyond the
usual, formulaic stuff. Joseph Heller and John Irving spring instantly to
mind.
Luke
James Nicoll
Like Westlake? Westlake seems to be an author's author.
Louann Miller
wrote:
>It seems to me that when I talk about non-SF to SF fans, we tend to like
>many of the same authors.
>
>What non SF have you seen that SF authors like in common?
Jane Austen, Patrick O'Brian, and Bernard Cornwell come to mind.
Louann, who feels that historical fiction and SF have a lot in common.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Jane Austen, Patrick O'Brian, and Bernard Cornwell come to mind.
>
>Louann, who feels that historical fiction and SF have a lot in common.
I agree, because both involve the exploration of other times and places.
Incidentally, Jane Austen was writing "contemporary" fiction when she wrote her
novels -- though she inspired the 20th century Regency romance tradition.
--
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)
--
Louann Miller
wrote:
>Louann Miller said:
>
>>Jane Austen, Patrick O'Brian, and Bernard Cornwell come to mind.
>>
>>Louann, who feels that historical fiction and SF have a lot in common.
>
>I agree, because both involve the exploration of other times and places.
>Incidentally, Jane Austen was writing "contemporary" fiction when she wrote her
>novels -- though she inspired the 20th century Regency romance tradition.
I know. I just didn't want to go back and complicate the sentence.
One of the big parallels between historical and SF is the necessity
for the author to paint a world unfamiliar to the reader without "as
you know, Bob" lectures to hell and gone. Most of us know no more
about Napoleanic ship's riggings or Victorian inheritance laws by
direct experience than we do about Warshawski sails and other
stardrives. And in both cases, spending time in a totally foreign
world is a big part of the appeal of the genre.
This dual trait -- the lure of a strange world, and the writer's need
to explain it readably -- would also take in parts of the mystery
genre such as Dick Francis and Tony Hillerman. Both of which I for one
enjoy a lot.
Louann
Luke Webber
news:gpvknt88atntqvl7k...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> One of the big parallels between historical and SF is the necessity
> for the author to paint a world unfamiliar to the reader without "as
> you know, Bob" lectures to hell and gone. Most of us know no more
> about Napoleanic ship's riggings or Victorian inheritance laws by
> direct experience than we do about Warshawski sails and other
> stardrives. And in both cases, spending time in a totally foreign
> world is a big part of the appeal of the genre.
You might have chosen the wrong metaphors there. Most of us know very little
about modern-day warships, or modern-day inheritance laws even as applied in
our own jurisdiction. Equally, even in Napoleonic times, if the dreary
details of a ship's rigging were important to a yarn (yawn!), they would
have to be pointed out to the reader, unless the writer were just targeting
the French marine market.
I daresay the real challenge lies in identifying the commonplaces of life in
the time you want to represent and then representing them _as commonplace_.
Make sure that the reader notes those differences, but don't diverge into
rambling expositions that jolt the reader out of the mood. Let them soak up
the meanings of unfamiliar terms from context. If need be, provide a
glossary, though I prefer to think that should be unnecessary.
Luke
Lee DeRaud
wrote:
Or maybe Lawrence Block...just once, I'd like to see Bernie Rhodenbarr
and John Dortmunder do a job together.
I've also got a place in my heart for Andrew Vachss stuff, although
it's right on the edge of what you'd normally classify as "mystery".
Lee
Bill Twist
> many of the same authors.
>
> What non SF have you seen that SF authors like in common?
I think you mean to say what non-SF authors do we like? If so, here is my
list, in no particular order:
Tom Clancy: His last couple of books were a disappointment, but I still
go back and read "Without Remorse", "Red Storm Rising", "The Hunt for Red
October", and several others.
John Ross: He only has one fiction work out so far, "Unintended
Consequences". If the gun culture baffles you, and you wonder why we
get upset about how we are characterized in most media, read this book and
learn.
William Shakespeare: Macbeth. 'Nuff said.
Doestoyevsky: Crime and Punishment. Again, 'nuff said.
Herman Melville: I have been meaning to get around to "Billy Budd", having
read "Moby Dick" several times. I was actually introduced to Melville by
the 1950's John Huston movie. Avoid the newer movie that stars Kennewick
Man (Patrick Stewart).
I tend to be selective about my fiction reading, and these are the authors
that have made a good impression on me (at least, enough of an impression
that I can remember them while away from my library). I tend to read
mostly non-fiction anyway. Of course, my favorite fiction author is
Robert Heinlein. I got hooked the first time I read "And He Built a
Crooked House" back before I was a teenager. Since he was most definitely
an SF writer, I couldn't include him in the list above.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Real men use flintlocks... In the rain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenberg
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:3B7A66AE...@brazee.net...
> It seems to me that when I talk about non-SF to SF fans, we tend to like
> many of the same authors.
>
> What non SF have you seen that SF authors like in common?
>
Donald Westlake, Mark Twain, Donald Hamilton, John McPhee, Ed McBain,
Raymond Chandler, early Robert B. Parker, Rex Stout, and William Goldman are
fairly common. W.E.B. Griffin, for whom I have a terrible fondness, doesn't
seem nearly as popular.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.268 / Virus Database: 140 - Release Date: 8/7/2001
Joel Rosenberg
"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9ldt47$rse$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Westlake isn't consistently on the New York Times bestseller list. Not only
is his stuff wonderful, but it's very accessible.
James Nicoll
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
>
>"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:9ldt47$rse$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>> In article <20010815085915...@ng-bd1.aol.com>,
>> Coyu <co...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >Howard Brazee wrote:
>> >
>> >>It seems to me that when I talk about non-SF to SF fans, we tend to like
>> >>many of the same authors.
>> >>
>> >>What non SF have you seen that SF authors like in common?
>> >
>> >Mysteries. Not the boilerplate series, but the quirky ones.
>>
>> Like Westlake? Westlake seems to be an author's author.
>>
>Yep. It's a matter of some puzzlement to many -- myself included -- why
>Westlake isn't consistently on the New York Times bestseller list. Not only
>is his stuff wonderful, but it's very accessible.
Weird, isn't it? It's not like his publishers don't put effort
into promoting his work, because they do.
It's a pity (although an entirely seperate problem from why
DW isn't a best seller) that the movies based on his books seem to
getting worse, twenty years after they hit the Gary Coleman Vehicle
level. At least Westlake is getting the option money but it would
be nice if the movies were good enough to inspire people to run out
and buy the books.
James Nicoll
Jim Deutch
> many of the same authors.
>
> What non SF have you seen that SF authors like in common?
Without reading other posts first:
Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Mark Helprin
Mary Renault
All have "fantastic" elements in their novels...
Jim Deutch
Coyu
>>>It seems to me that when I talk about non-SF to SF fans, we tend to like
>>>many of the same authors.
>>>
>>>What non SF have you seen that SF authors like in common?
>>
>>Mysteries. Not the boilerplate series, but the quirky ones.
>
> Like Westlake? Westlake seems to be an author's author.
Westlake, Gregory McDonald (and whatever happened to him?),
James Ellroy, Jerome Charyn. Thomas Disch had good things to
say about Kenneth Fearing. I bet many SF writers read certain books
by Sharyn McCrumb, though I see the re-issues have toned down
the covers drastically. Patricia Highsmith.
Of course, IANTA, so this is based on what I've read in interviews
and the like.
Joel Rosenberg
> In article <9le4ol$8ubv5$1...@ID-62889.news.dfncis.de>,
> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
> >
> >"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >news:9ldt47$rse$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> >> In article <20010815085915...@ng-bd1.aol.com>,
> >> Coyu <co...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >Howard Brazee wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>It seems to me that when I talk about non-SF to SF fans, we tend to
like
> >> >>many of the same authors.
> >> >>
> >> >>What non SF have you seen that SF authors like in common?
> >> >
> >> >Mysteries. Not the boilerplate series, but the quirky ones.
> >>
> >> Like Westlake? Westlake seems to be an author's author.
> >>
> >Yep. It's a matter of some puzzlement to many -- myself included -- why
> >Westlake isn't consistently on the New York Times bestseller list. Not
only
> >is his stuff wonderful, but it's very accessible.
>
> Weird, isn't it? It's not like his publishers don't put effort
> into promoting his work, because they do.
Yup. Tom Doherty, quite a few years ago, went to some trouble to promote
Kahawa -- a terrific novel that started out being a somewhat light heist
story about stealing $9 million worth of Idi Amin's coffee, but turned very
dark and very serious, and has an image on the last page that occasionally
wakes me up at night -- but it didn't do more than okay.
>
> It's a pity (although an entirely seperate problem from why
> DW isn't a best seller) that the movies based on his books seem to
> getting worse, twenty years after they hit the Gary Coleman Vehicle
> level. At least Westlake is getting the option money but it would
> be nice if the movies were good enough to inspire people to run out
> and buy the books.
>
I think that the Mel Gibson Parker movie could have been very, very good, if
they had had Mel Gibson actually play Parker, rather than a somewhat kinder,
gentler, funnier version. I don't know that it would have done well,
mind -- but many of the Parker novels would make terrific movies. For one
thing, they are typically short.
Elf Sternberg
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> writes:
Fiction or non-fiction? Recently my non-fiction has included
Daniel Dennet, Ray Kurzweil, James Bailey, Simon Singh, James Loewen,
Howard Zinn, Janet Burroway, Scott McCloud, Hikaru Hayashi, and Ozawa
Tadashi.
My fiction outside of SF has mostly been Catherine Coulter,
Beatrice Small, and Haruki Murakami.
I think I've just outed myself...
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
Today is gone, today was fun. Tomorrow will be a better one.
From there to here, from here to there, funny things are everywhere.
Bernard Peek
<how...@brazee.net> writes
>It seems to me that when I talk about non-SF to SF fans, we tend to like
>many of the same authors.
>
>What non SF have you seen that SF authors like in common?
There are certainly other genres that seem to have a big overlap in
readership, but that may just be because in any group of readers there
are bound to be readers of any specific genre.
I know a lot of people who read mysteries and a lot who read historical
fiction, like Dorothy Dunnett.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
In search of cognoscenti
Louann Miller
<jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
>Tastes vary, of course, but I think my own fondness for, among others,
(snip)
> early Robert B. Parker
You mean it wasn't just me who found the get-back-with-Susan novel
unworkable? It wasn't a case of the Eight Deadly Words, it was "I
can't believe that these people I know well have suddenly turned into
_these_ people" bordering on "I can't believe _anyone_ could be these
people."
Louann
Joel Rosenberg
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 10:31:27 -0500, "Joel Rosenberg"
> <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
>
> >Tastes vary, of course, but I think my own fondness for, among others,
>
> (snip)
>
> > early Robert B. Parker
>
> You mean it wasn't just me who found the get-back-with-Susan novel
> unworkable?
No, it wasn't just you. I didn't like Catskill Eagle at all, and I'm not the
only one.
But it's more than that. Parker has been, in effect, promising a major
confrontation between Spenser and Hawk for years and years, and instead, we
have Hawk playing Tonto. I don't like that.
Randy Money
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Rudyard Kipling. Back in the '70s,
early '80s when I was paying a fair amount of attention to the sf field,
I came across several interviews with authors who mentioned loving
Kipling -- Poul Anderson and Gordon Dickson, for instance. Not
positive, but I'm pretty sure Heinlein mentioned him, too.
I think I've heard that Michael Bishop and Greg Benford both like
William Faulkner, and I seem to recall Bishop alluding to Flannery
O'Connor.
Harlan Ellison and Barry Malzberg both mentioned Cornell Woolrich at
various times, Ellison writing an intro. to a collection, and Malzberg
waxing quite eloquent in _Engines of the Night_.
C. S. Lewis I believe mentioned William Hope Hodgson, specifically
_Night Land_ (geez, I hope that's the right title).
I'd be shocked to learn William Gibson didn't admire some combination of
Dashiell Hammett, James M. Cain and/or Raymond Chandler.
Years ago I read something by Bradbury saying how Henry Kuttner drove
him to read Faulkner, Hemingway, and a bunch of other heavyweights. And
Bradbury has said he travels with a volume of George Bernard Shaw.
Randy M.
James Nicoll
book for me wrt Parker. Spenser and Hawk playing at Batman and Robin
struck about as well as Honor Harrington suddenly whipping out a light
saber and talking about The Force.
I am told Parker recovered somewhat since then, though.
James Nicoll
re the odd way Westlake is not a best seller
>>
>> Weird, isn't it? It's not like his publishers don't put effort
>> into promoting his work, because they do.
>
>Yup. Tom Doherty, quite a few years ago, went to some trouble to promote
>Kahawa -- a terrific novel that started out being a somewhat light heist
>story about stealing $9 million worth of Idi Amin's coffee, but turned very
>dark and very serious, and has an image on the last page that occasionally
>wakes me up at night -- but it didn't do more than okay.
That was my first Westlake, followed by _Why Me?_. Fair span of
tone there. Picked it up because John McMullen, who was working at Classics
at the time, kept pushing Westlake at me and those were the only two Classics
had on hand at the time.
>> It's a pity (although an entirely seperate problem from why
>> DW isn't a best seller) that the movies based on his books seem to
>> getting worse, twenty years after they hit the Gary Coleman Vehicle
>> level. At least Westlake is getting the option money but it would
>> be nice if the movies were good enough to inspire people to run out
>> and buy the books.
>>
>
>I think that the Mel Gibson Parker movie could have been very, very good, if
>they had had Mel Gibson actually play Parker, rather than a somewhat kinder,
>gentler, funnier version. I don't know that it would have done well,
>mind -- but many of the Parker novels would make terrific movies. For one
>thing, they are typically short.
>
I had forgotten that was a Westlake. Not _awful_ and gee, Lucy
Liu has way cute freckles but Not My Thing for some reason. Reminded me a
little of _Ghost Dog_ in that the plot was driven by the Mob's inability to
uderstand why the main character was doign what he was doing.
Joel Rosenberg
aside.
"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9leivj$9mu$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Joel Rosenberg
> >
> >I think that the Mel Gibson Parker movie could have been very, very good,
if
> >they had had Mel Gibson actually play Parker, rather than a somewhat
kinder,
> >gentler, funnier version. I don't know that it would have done well,
> >mind -- but many of the Parker novels would make terrific movies. For
one
> >thing, they are typically short.
> >
> I had forgotten that was a Westlake. Not _awful_ and gee, Lucy
> Liu has way cute freckles but Not My Thing for some reason. Reminded me a
> little of _Ghost Dog_ in that the plot was driven by the Mob's inability
to
> uderstand why the main character was doign what he was doing.
That bit, though, was one of the recurring funny things in the otherwise
pretty typically grim Westlake/Stark book -- Parker is absolutely intent on
getting his share, and doesn't want a penny more.
I also didn't like the way the movie couldn't seem to decide when it was
set. I think they thought that it was a period piece.
Lee Ann Rucker
"Joel Rosenberg" <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
> W.E.B. Griffin, for whom I have a terrible fondness, doesn't
> seem nearly as popular.
I like Griffin, I just wish he'd *finish* one series before starting
another.
Taki Kogoma
to rec.arts.sf.written decree...
Well, I get the impression that he *thought* he'd finished "Brotherhood
of War" with _The Generals_, but then he got some more ideas of what he
could do with the characters...
--
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
Dr. Fidelius
>It seems to me that when I talk about non-SF to SF fans, we tend to like
>many of the same authors.
>
>What non SF have you seen that SF authors like in common?
I prefer Hugo to Dumas.
I have been reading a great amount of historical fiction of late, especially
Patrick O'Brien.
I have been hunting for as much Joseph Conrad I can find in the Used Book
Stores (because I am a frugal man, although The Wife uses a different term).
Kipling and Jack London occupy portions of my shelves, and I will finish
Joyce's _Ulysses_ one day. I have only been reading that for twenty-five
years. I think I am up to about page 350.
I have developed a regrettable fondness for techno-military thrillers. (World
War Three? No problem. We have a submarine captain who knows when to disobey
orders, and a specially modified Piper Cub that can penetrate enemy
airspace...)
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Curator of Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason.
Matt
Howard Brazee wrote:
> It seems to me that when I talk about non-SF to SF fans, we tend to like
> many of the same authors.
>
> What non SF have you seen that SF authors like in common?
<de-lurk>
Off the top of my head...Fiction: James Joyce, Kafka, Camus, Twain,
Conrad, Poe; Poetry: Goethe, Yeats; Philosophy: Nietzsche, Hume, Spinoza,
Plato; Nonfic: Feynman, Sagan, varius and sundry Dover reprints of math
textbooks; of course Shakespeare. I know that in about 15 minutes from now,
I'll smack myself in the forehead with a list twice the size of authors (de
Maupassant has just entered my mind, as well as London). And then were not
even going to count all the authors that people who don't like sci-fi
consider mainstream literature (though I probably should mention Huxley's
non-fiction, anyway).
And then I could make a list twice the size of all the non-scifi I want
to read, but haven't gotten the chance to.
--Matt
Richard Horton
<jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
>I think that the Mel Gibson Parker movie could have been very, very good, if
>they had had Mel Gibson actually play Parker, rather than a somewhat kinder,
>gentler, funnier version. I don't know that it would have done well,
>mind -- but many of the Parker novels would make terrific movies. For one
>thing, they are typically short.
I thought that movie was OK, but note -- not only is it based on a
novel written pseudonymously, but the title of the novel and the title
of the movie are different.
Those factors surely made it harder for the Gibson movie to give
Westlake's career a big push.
His latest (Dortmunder) novel does seem to have gotten considerable
notice -- I'm not sure how it's selling.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Steve Gontarek
wrote:
>It seems to me that when I talk about non-SF to SF fans, we tend to like
>many of the same authors.
>
>What non SF have you seen that SF authors like in common?
I may be speaking personally, but I think a good chunk of SF fans
probably read historical stuff too. A good historical author will try
get the 'feel' of the time period & culture right, which invariably is
as different to our own time as some SF futures are: thus providing
one of the essential elements of escapism. By historical I'm probably
talking Medievil (with all its links to Fantasy) down to ancient times
(roman, egyptian etc).
Steve
Jim Deutch
> many of the same authors.
>
> What non SF have you seen that SF authors like in common?
Without reading other posts first:
Kate Nepveu
> On 15 Aug 2001 09:23:19 -0400, jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll)
> wrote:
> >In article <20010815085915...@ng-bd1.aol.com>,
> >Coyu <co...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>Howard Brazee wrote:
> >>>It seems to me that when I talk about non-SF to SF fans, we tend to like
> >>>many of the same authors.
> >>Mysteries. Not the boilerplate series, but the quirky ones.
> > Like Westlake? Westlake seems to be an author's author.
> Or maybe Lawrence Block...just once, I'd like to see Bernie Rhodenbarr
> and John Dortmunder do a job together.
Hmm. No, can't see that happening.
I'd like to see Andy Kelp meet Carolyn, though.
Here's something Chad & I were kicking around, that I think
might have something to do with why sf fans often like open-ended/
episodic mystery series. I thought it had something to do with
the investment in creating a good pov character for mysteries;
it seems to me that this might resonate a bit with sf people who
like intricate world-building, as it were. (The same goes for
historical novels, though "world-building" isn't exactly accurate
for that, either...).
Kate
--
http://www.steelypips.org/elsewhere.html -- kate....@yale.edu
Paired Reading Page; Book Reviews; Outside of a Dog: A Book Log
"The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Aloud."
--Coco Chanel
James Nicoll
Kate Nepveu <kh...@pantheon.yale.edu> wrote:
>Lee DeRaud (lee.d...@boeing.com) wrote:
>> On 15 Aug 2001 09:23:19 -0400, jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll)
>> wrote:
>> >In article <20010815085915...@ng-bd1.aol.com>,
>> >Coyu <co...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>> >>>It seems to me that when I talk about non-SF to SF fans, we tend to like
>> >>>many of the same authors.
>
>> >>Mysteries. Not the boilerplate series, but the quirky ones.
>
>> > Like Westlake? Westlake seems to be an author's author.
>
>> Or maybe Lawrence Block...just once, I'd like to see Bernie Rhodenbarr
>> and John Dortmunder do a job together.
>
>Hmm. No, can't see that happening.
Heh.
There's this Thing. Two groups of people want it. One
group goes to Kelp, who convinces Dortmunder to take the job.
The other group goes to Rhodenbarr and convinces him to take
the job for them. Neither Dortmunder or Rhodenbarr know the
other guy is on the job. They spend the rest of the book working
at cross-purposes while Rhodenbarr tries to extricate himself
from the murder he stumbles over trying to retrieve the Thing
and Dortmunder just has Dortmunder Luck. I imagine they could
steal the Thing from each other several times.
Westlake and Block could alternate chapters, doing each
from their own character's POV.
>I'd like to see Andy Kelp meet Carolyn, though.
>
>Here's something Chad & I were kicking around, that I think
>might have something to do with why sf fans often like open-ended/
>episodic mystery series. I thought it had something to do with
>the investment in creating a good pov character for mysteries;
>it seems to me that this might resonate a bit with sf people who
>like intricate world-building, as it were. (The same goes for
>historical novels, though "world-building" isn't exactly accurate
>for that, either...).
>
Hrm.
It's a pity some of the techniques used in series mystery
haven't kept on being used in SF. Linked but stand-alone stories,
I mean.
Kate Nepveu
> In article <9lh950$620$5...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
> Kate Nepveu <kh...@pantheon.yale.edu> wrote:
> >Lee DeRaud (lee.d...@boeing.com) wrote:
> >> > Like Westlake? Westlake seems to be an author's author.
> >> Or maybe Lawrence Block...just once, I'd like to see Bernie Rhodenbarr
> >> and John Dortmunder do a job together.
> >Hmm. No, can't see that happening.
> Heh.
> There's this Thing. Two groups of people want it. One
> group goes to Kelp, who convinces Dortmunder to take the job.
> The other group goes to Rhodenbarr and convinces him to take
> the job for them. Neither Dortmunder or Rhodenbarr know the
> other guy is on the job. They spend the rest of the book working
> at cross-purposes while Rhodenbarr tries to extricate himself
> from the murder he stumbles over trying to retrieve the Thing
> and Dortmunder just has Dortmunder Luck. I imagine they could
> steal the Thing from each other several times.
At the end, when they realize that they've both been double-
crossed, Dortmunder comes up with the brilliant plan to get
at the Thing or the two groups, and Bernie plants the evidence
and calls in Ray to have the groups arrested.
> Westlake and Block could alternate chapters, doing each
> from their own character's POV.
I'd buy it. In fact, I'd pay rather a lot of money for it.
> >Here's something Chad & I were kicking around, that I think
> >might have something to do with why sf fans often like open-ended/
> >episodic mystery series. I thought it had something to do with
> >the investment in creating a good pov character for mysteries;
> >it seems to me that this might resonate a bit with sf people who
> >like intricate world-building, as it were. (The same goes for
> >historical novels, though "world-building" isn't exactly accurate
> >for that, either...).
> Hrm.
> It's a pity some of the techniques used in series mystery
> haven't kept on being used in SF. Linked but stand-alone stories,
> I mean.
Agreed.
I guess this cuts two ways, though. If an sf author is going to
invest that much time in the background, 1) the author might be
justified in saying that if people are going to invest that much
in a world anyways, such that they couldn't really drop into things
in the middle and have a good handle on what's going on, then s/he
might as well tell a really in-depth story, or 2) the author might
be justified in saying that if people are going to invest etc., then
they don't want to also invest a lot of time in remembering what the
hell happened to Sir so-and-so in book 1.
#2 is why I'm not really reading Martin's A Song of Fire & Ice
anymore, and why I've grown almost indifferent to Jordan.
I'm having trouble thinking what fits under #1 that I'm still
reading, frankly. But my brain is fried; moving and (separately)
very important school papers due very soon, that are very
incomplete, will do that to you...
James Nicoll
Kate Nepveu <kh...@pantheon.yale.edu> wrote:
>James Nicoll (jdni...@panix.com) wrote:
>> In article <9lh950$620$5...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
>> Kate Nepveu <kh...@pantheon.yale.edu> wrote:
>> >Lee DeRaud (lee.d...@boeing.com) wrote:
>
>> >> > Like Westlake? Westlake seems to be an author's author.
>
>> >> Or maybe Lawrence Block...just once, I'd like to see Bernie Rhodenbarr
>> >> and John Dortmunder do a job together.
>
>> >Hmm. No, can't see that happening.
>
>> Heh.
>
>> There's this Thing. Two groups of people want it. One
>> group goes to Kelp, who convinces Dortmunder to take the job.
>> The other group goes to Rhodenbarr and convinces him to take
>> the job for them. Neither Dortmunder or Rhodenbarr know the
>> other guy is on the job. They spend the rest of the book working
>> at cross-purposes while Rhodenbarr tries to extricate himself
>> from the murder he stumbles over trying to retrieve the Thing
>> and Dortmunder just has Dortmunder Luck. I imagine they could
>> steal the Thing from each other several times.
And while _Bernie_ is prepared to have his house broken
into, if I remember the early Burglar books, Dortmunder isn't.
I wonder how he handles coming home to an apartment missing all
the cool stuff he nicked in a previous burglary?
>At the end, when they realize that they've both been double-
>crossed, Dortmunder comes up with the brilliant plan to get
>at the Thing or the two groups, and Bernie plants the evidence
>and calls in Ray to have the groups arrested.
Yeah.
>> Westlake and Block could alternate chapters, doing each
>> from their own character's POV.
>
>I'd buy it. In fact, I'd pay rather a lot of money for it.
I think I would too.
>> >Here's something Chad & I were kicking around, that I think
>> >might have something to do with why sf fans often like open-ended/
>> >episodic mystery series. I thought it had something to do with
>> >the investment in creating a good pov character for mysteries;
>> >it seems to me that this might resonate a bit with sf people who
>> >like intricate world-building, as it were. (The same goes for
>> >historical novels, though "world-building" isn't exactly accurate
>> >for that, either...).
>
>> Hrm.
>
>> It's a pity some of the techniques used in series mystery
>> haven't kept on being used in SF. Linked but stand-alone stories,
>> I mean.
>
>Agreed.
>
>I guess this cuts two ways, though. If an sf author is going to
>invest that much time in the background, 1) the author might be
>justified in saying that if people are going to invest that much
>in a world anyways, such that they couldn't really drop into things
>in the middle and have a good handle on what's going on, then s/he
>might as well tell a really in-depth story, or 2) the author might
>be justified in saying that if people are going to invest etc., then
>they don't want to also invest a lot of time in remembering what the
>hell happened to Sir so-and-so in book 1.
>
>#2 is why I'm not really reading Martin's A Song of Fire & Ice
>anymore, and why I've grown almost indifferent to Jordan.
I am saving the GRRM books until no more are coming, then I
will read them. RJ is off my scope but not for anything he's done.
>I'm having trouble thinking what fits under #1 that I'm still
>reading, frankly. But my brain is fried; moving and (separately)
>very important school papers due very soon, that are very
>incomplete, will do that to you...
!
Jordan S. Bassior
>One of the big parallels between historical and SF is the necessity
>for the author to paint a world unfamiliar to the reader without "as
>you know, Bob" lectures to hell and gone. Most of us know no more
>about Napoleanic ship's riggings or Victorian inheritance laws by
>direct experience than we do about Warshawski sails and other
>stardrives.
Which is one reason why Austen's works now generally need footnotes.
>And in both cases, spending time in a totally foreign
>world is a big part of the appeal of the genre.
Especially for Jack Vance's and Poul Anderson's work.
--
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)
--
Lois Tilton
> Which is one reason why Austen's works now generally need footnotes.
Nonsense
--
LT
Mike Kozlowski
Kate Nepveu <kh...@pantheon.yale.edu> wrote:
>might as well tell a really in-depth story, or 2) the author might
>be justified in saying that if people are going to invest etc., then
>they don't want to also invest a lot of time in remembering what the
>hell happened to Sir so-and-so in book 1.
>
>#2 is why I'm not really reading Martin's A Song of Fire & Ice
>anymore,
I don't know how much you really need to remember stuff between books,
there. Obviously, if you want to be one of the people who contribute to
long intricate threads here, you need to pay close attention; but if you
just want to be a casual reader, it doesn't hurt to forget everything
between books. Sure, you spend the first 10-20% of the book wondering
what the hell's going on, but you spend the first 10-20% of most
non-series SF wondering the same thing (and the first 90-100% of most John
M. Ford novels), so that's not a big downside.
But I do know what you mean -- there are a lot of series where I've read
the first book, enjoyed it, waited for the second book, and then been too
afraid to pick it up because I'd forgotten everything that was happening.
I thought I'd found the cure for that in waiting for series to be complete
before reading them, but that turned out not to be the case -- I get
easily daunted by four 700-page books staring out at me, too. So I mostly
just read short stand-alones...
--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/
Jordan S. Bassior
Depends on the book and the reader, but a lot of what goes on in Jane Austen is
based upon cultural and legal assumptions that do not apply often in the modern
world. For instance, the basic problem of the Bennets in _Pride and Prejudice_
stems from the fact that their land is destined to pass to a collateral line
because Mr. Bennet has no male heir. This situation ("entail") is very rare
today.
The heroic surrender of pride to love that Mr. Darcy makes is probably not
understandable to most modern readers. We're close enough to a time when it was
considered shameful for a unmarried woman herself to have open sexual relations
with a man to understand why Lizzie is contemptuous of Lydia's means "of
getting a husband," but it's not obvious to most folk of 2001 why not only is
Lizzie afraid that Mr. Darcy will thus never marry her herself (when Lizzie
has, after all, is personally guilty of no sexual sin), but that the Bennets
feel that Mr. Darcy would be perfectly reasonable in doing so, _despite the
obvious fact that he loves Lizzie_.
Jane Austen uses slang that most modern readers wouldn't easily get. How many
people know that when her characters engage in "quizzing," this means they're
doing exactly what Daria Morgendorffer and Jane Lane do when they make fun of
their classmates?
Brenda W. Clough
"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:
>
> Which is one reason why Austen's works now generally need footnotes.
>
Uh? I read them with pleasure without any assistance. And I have never studied
them in college, and know of the period only from desultory reading.
Now, if you had said Chaucer, I would agree.
Brenda
--
What do you do with a secret?
Whisper it in a desert at high noon.
Lock it up and bury the key.
Tell the nation on prime-time TV.
Choose a door . . .
Doors of Death and Life
by Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda
Tor Books
ISBN 0-312-87064-7
Jordan S. Bassior
>Now, if you had said Chaucer, I would agree.
*Monty Python King Arthur voice*
Modern or Middle English version?
Shane Stezelberger
<jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
>Tastes vary, of course, but I think my own fondness for, among others,
>Donald Westlake, Mark Twain, Donald Hamilton, John McPhee, Ed McBain,
>Raymond Chandler, early Robert B. Parker, Rex Stout, and William Goldman are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You mean the guy who wrote _Lord of the Flies_?!??!!!?!?
(Sorry. That's twice in one month. I promise I'll stop.)
>fairly common. W.E.B. Griffin, for whom I have a terrible fondness, doesn't
>seem nearly as popular.
Ditto on John McPhee, BTW. Anybody seen a spare copy of _Encounters
With The Archdruid_ lying around?
--
Shane Stezelberger
sstezel at erols dot kom
Laurel, MD
Lois Tilton
> Depends on the book and the reader, but a lot of what goes on in Jane Austen is
> based upon cultural and legal assumptions that do not apply often in the modern
> world. For instance, the basic problem of the Bennets in _Pride and Prejudice_
> stems from the fact that their land is destined to pass to a collateral line
> because Mr. Bennet has no male heir. This situation ("entail") is very rare
> today.
The situation is also made quite clear in the book.
--
LT
Carl Dershem
>
> "Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:
>
> >
> > Which is one reason why Austen's works now generally need footnotes.
> >
>
> Uh? I read them with pleasure without any assistance. And I have never studied
> them in college, and know of the period only from desultory reading.
>
> Now, if you had said Chaucer, I would agree.
Austen's works now generally require Chaucer? Nah. :)
Andrew Wheeler
>
> In article <9lh950$620$5...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
> Kate Nepveu <kh...@pantheon.yale.edu> wrote:
> >Lee DeRaud (lee.d...@boeing.com) wrote:
> >> On 15 Aug 2001 09:23:19 -0400, jdni...@panix.com (James
> >> Nicoll) wrote:
> >> > Like Westlake? Westlake seems to be an author's
> >> > author.
> >
> >> Or maybe Lawrence Block...just once, I'd like to see
> >> Bernie Rhodenbarr and John Dortmunder do a job together.
> >
> >Hmm. No, can't see that happening.
>
> Heh.
>
> There's this Thing. Two groups of people want it. One
> group goes to Kelp, who convinces Dortmunder to take the job.
> The other group goes to Rhodenbarr and convinces him to take
> the job for them. Neither Dortmunder or Rhodenbarr know the
> other guy is on the job. They spend the rest of the book
> working at cross-purposes while Rhodenbarr tries to extricate
> himself from the murder he stumbles over trying to retrieve
> the Thing and Dortmunder just has Dortmunder Luck. I imagine
> they could steal the Thing from each other several times.
>
> Westlake and Block could alternate chapters, doing
> each from their own character's POV.
Westlake already sort-of did this: his _Drowned Hopes_ crosses over
with a Joe Gores novel (I think it's _Dead Skip_, and I'm sure someone
will correct that). The Gores characters are repo men, and they come
to claim a car Dortmunder and the crew are using. The scene is shown
from the different POVs in the two books.
I, too, would love to see a Dortmunder-Rhodenbarr book (and doesn't
that sound like either a nasty virus or an equally nasty law firm?),
but it'll probably never happen.
--
Andrew Wheeler
Editor, SF Book Club (USA) -- speaking only for myself
“Why should I know better by now, when I’m old enough not to?"
Richard Horton
wrote:
>Depends on the book and the reader,
Footnotes may help, but they are absolutely not necessary. I read all
the Austen novels for the first time in my mid teens, and I understood
them quite well, thank you.
As well say '50s SF needs footnotes.
cofax
Shane Stezelberger wrote:
>
> Ditto on John McPhee, BTW. Anybody seen a spare copy of _Encounters
> With The Archdruid_ lying around?
One copy, yes. A *spare* copy, no.
I made sure to get a memorial copy in honor of David Brower.
I think John McPhee is on the list for his ability to make
complexities understandable, and to put so many of these complexities
in human terms. The world could use some more John McPhees.
later-
C
David Cowie
like
> many of the same authors.
>
>
I like US crime fiction. I've gone through periods of liking James
Ellroy, Joseph Wambaugh, Carl Hiaasen, Andrew Vachss, Patricia
Cornwell. It's another world over there.
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>Brenda W. Clough said:
>
>>Now, if you had said Chaucer, I would agree.
>
>*Monty Python King Arthur voice*
>
>Modern or Middle English version?
Isn't Chaucer actually classified as (Early) Modern English?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Louann Miller
<lti...@shell-2.enteract.com> wrote:
It is laid out, but to many modern readers it wouldn't be clear that
that piece of boilerplate early in the book is vital plot information
which defines who everyone is and who they can become in the context
of their culture. Ditto with the detailed inheritance stuff at the
beginning of "Sense and Sensibility" and "Mansfield Park." I don't
know that I'd go so far as to add footnotes, but a baseline knowledge
of how that world works is essential to get the nuances. And since
Miss Jane was writing about things that would be completely clear to
her intended audience, she doesn't drop in bits of background
explanation the way an author writing historical fiction does -- the
fish-aware-of-water problem again.
Heck, there are probably modern readers who don't realize that
Northranger Abbey is a wide-open parody, let alone laugh out loud at
the jokes.
Louann
Lee DeRaud
<david...@libertySERF.co.uk> wrote:
>I like US crime fiction. I've gone through periods of liking James
>Ellroy, Joseph Wambaugh, Carl Hiaasen, Andrew Vachss, Patricia
>Cornwell. It's another world over there.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Since one of my favorite movies (over *here*) is "Lock, Stock, and Two
Smoking Barrels", I'd have to agree :-)
You might also want to try John Sandford and Thomas Perry.
Lee
Euan Troup
>Heck, there are probably modern readers who don't realize that
>Northranger Abbey is a wide-open parody, let alone laugh out loud at
>the jokes.
>
>Louann
>
--
Euan Troup etr...@UNSPAM.goonumbla.demon.co.uk
...mostly harmless
Matthew Austern
> Heck, there are probably modern readers who don't realize that
> Northranger Abbey is a wide-open parody, let alone laugh out loud at
> the jokes.
Actually, what really struck me the most about Northanger Abbey
when I reread it recently was that the part everyone remembers---
the _Udolpho_ parody, the part where the main character imagines
all sorts of sinister secrets---is a very small part of the book.
Mark Reichert
news:gpvknt88atntqvl7k...@4ax.com...
> This dual trait -- the lure of a strange world, and the writer's need
> to explain it readably -- would also take in parts of the mystery
> genre such as Dick Francis and Tony Hillerman. Both of which I for one
> enjoy a lot.
That's also why all three, as far as I know, are resisting the takeover by
memoirs. NPR had a piece and a guest all reporting on the sharp rise in the
numbers of memoirs and how the novels about contemporary life are not
selling or not being picked up by publishers as much. Of course they
aren't, they are the most like the contemporary lives portrayed by those
writing memoirs.
Until time or cross reality travel is possible, nobody is going to be
writing memoirs anything like historical fiction, science fiction, or
fantasy.
Kate Nepveu
> In article <9lhbj9$8a5$1...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
> Kate Nepveu <kh...@pantheon.yale.edu> wrote:
> >James Nicoll (jdni...@panix.com) wrote:
[imagning a Dortmunder-Rhodenbarr crossover]
> >> There's this Thing. Two groups of people want it. One
> >> group goes to Kelp, who convinces Dortmunder to take the job.
> >> The other group goes to Rhodenbarr and convinces him to take
> >> the job for them. Neither Dortmunder or Rhodenbarr know the
> >> other guy is on the job. They spend the rest of the book working
> >> at cross-purposes while Rhodenbarr tries to extricate himself
> >> from the murder he stumbles over trying to retrieve the Thing
> >> and Dortmunder just has Dortmunder Luck. I imagine they could
> >> steal the Thing from each other several times.
> And while _Bernie_ is prepared to have his house broken
> into, if I remember the early Burglar books, Dortmunder isn't.
> I wonder how he handles coming home to an apartment missing all
> the cool stuff he nicked in a previous burglary?
Dortmunder does usually hide cash, when he's got it; I think it's
_What's the Worst that Could Happen?_ where he keeps getting
interrupted by the phone when he's trying to build a new hidey-hole?
He doesn't seem to like to have stuff just-stolen around the place,
but I can imagine how it would be necessary.
> >At the end, when they realize that they've both been double-
> >crossed, Dortmunder comes up with the brilliant plan to get
> >at the Thing or the two groups, and Bernie plants the evidence
> >and calls in Ray to have the groups arrested.
> Yeah.
I don't see them being friends, but I bet they'd make very good
allies of convenience.
Like a really warped version of the scene in _L.A. Confidential_
where the two beat each other up and then realize what's going
on and go out to run the good cop-bad cop routine on someone
more deserving...
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
<0892EC43B48E3FB3.67C054B1...@lp.airnews.net>,
Bill Snyder <bsn...@iadfw.net> spake:
> On 17 Aug 2001 00:59:25 GMT, jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior)
> wrote:
>>Brenda W. Clough said:
>>>Now, if you had said Chaucer, I would agree.
>>*Monty Python King Arthur voice*
>>Modern or Middle English version?
> Isn't Chaucer actually classified as (Early) Modern English?
Middle English is what my copy said, and certainly it's fairly hard to
read straight through. It's easy enough to concentrate and translate
most of it, but you lose the flow of the story then, and some words are
completely different, so you need a ME glossary.
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
"You have grown old in the fine art of bastardy. My compliments."
-Suresh Ramasubramanian
Jerry Friedman
The fictional version is another world, that's for sure.
You might try Elmore James and Robert B. Parker, by the way.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
> It seems to me that when I talk about non-SF to SF fans, we tend to like
> many of the same authors.
>
> What non SF have you seen that SF authors like in common?
If you really mean authors, Steven Brust mentions Robert P. Parker in
_Cowboy Feng..._, and early Vlad is a *lot* like early Spenser. Then
there's Lois Bujold's dedication to _A Civil Campaign_, mentioned
elsewhere in this NG. Heinlein had kind words for Twain and Kipling
and, I suspect, was strongly influenced by Shaw.
If you mean readers, I like lots of mystery writers, notably Rex Stout
(the only non-Wolfe book I've read is the one with Dol Bonner),
Dorothy Sayers, Josephine Tey, Ruth Rendell, and yes, Tony Hillerman,
Dick Francis, and Robert B. Parker. Also Shakespeare (sorry, can't
help it), Tolstoy, Borges, Nabokov, Cormac McCarthy's Border trilogy,
some Toni Morrison, and some other Usual Suspects. Robertson Davies
(who wrote some sf, not marketed as such). I'm not as big on
historical fiction as many sf readers, though a friend is practically
forcing me to try Dorothy Dunnett.
--
Jerry Friedman
Sea Wasp
>
> In article <of7qnt0s3juts04p3...@4ax.com>, Louann says...
>
> >
>
> >Heck, there are probably modern readers who don't realize that
>
> >Northranger Abbey is a wide-open parody, let alone laugh out loud at
>
> >the jokes.
>
> >
>
> >Louann
>
> >
>
> Set amongst the Texas Rangers, no doubt.
Of course not. It's actually set in Canada, the Mounties being "North
Rangers" to the heroine, a displaced Texan (naturally) named Vengeance
Jones.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Howard Brazee
David Cowie wrote:
> I like US crime fiction. I've gone through periods of liking James
> Ellroy, Joseph Wambaugh, Carl Hiaasen, Andrew Vachss, Patricia
> Cornwell. It's another world over there.
So Carl Hiaasen's world is the same as Joseph Wambaugh's?
Katie Schwarz
>On 17 Aug 2001 00:59:25 GMT, jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior)
>wrote:
>>Brenda W. Clough said:
>>
>>>Now, if you had said Chaucer, I would agree.
>>
>>*Monty Python King Arthur voice*
>>
>>Modern or Middle English version?
>
>Isn't Chaucer actually classified as (Early) Modern English?
Chaucer is Middle English; Shakespeare is Early Modern English. I
looked it up a while ago when somebody was claiming that Shakespeare
was Middle English. The boundary is in the 1450-1500 range, depending
on which reference you use. The introduction of printing to England
in 1470-something makes a good dividing line.
The grammatical changes between Middle and Early Modern include, for
example, the loss of many grammatical endings such as -en on verbs
with plural subjects, as in "then longen folks to goon on pilgrimages."
--
Katie Schwarz
"There's no need to look for a Chimera, or a cat with three legs."
-- Jorge Luis Borges, "Death and the Compass"
Kate Nepveu
> In article <9lhbj9$8a5$1...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
> Kate Nepveu <kh...@pantheon.yale.edu> wrote:
> >might as well tell a really in-depth story, or 2) the author might
> >be justified in saying that if people are going to invest etc., then
> >they don't want to also invest a lot of time in remembering what the
> >hell happened to Sir so-and-so in book 1.
> >#2 is why I'm not really reading Martin's A Song of Fire & Ice
> >anymore,
> I don't know how much you really need to remember stuff between books,
> there. Obviously, if you want to be one of the people who contribute to
> long intricate threads here, you need to pay close attention; but if you
> just want to be a casual reader, it doesn't hurt to forget everything
> between books. Sure, you spend the first 10-20% of the book wondering
> what the hell's going on, but you spend the first 10-20% of most
> non-series SF wondering the same thing (and the first 90-100% of most John
> M. Ford novels), so that's not a big downside.
Nah. It's just too annoying. Unless you have someone around to say,
"What the hell was up with X?" (which is how I read the last Jordan
book), it's not worth the effort.
I did skim through the most recent Martin & I think got most of the
gory bits read, though.
> But I do know what you mean -- there are a lot of series where I've read
> the first book, enjoyed it, waited for the second book, and then been too
> afraid to pick it up because I'd forgotten everything that was happening.
> I thought I'd found the cure for that in waiting for series to be complete
> before reading them, but that turned out not to be the case -- I get
> easily daunted by four 700-page books staring out at me, too. So I mostly
> just read short stand-alones...
I keep meaning to re-read Dunnett's Lymond books and am daunted for
just that reason. At least I read them once, though.
I don't mind reading complete series--I read Holly Lisle's Secret Texts
(aka _Diplomacy of Wolves_ et al.) this summer--or reasonably stand-alone
series, like Elizabeth Moon's space opera books, of which I've read
a handful rather out of order. But these days I don't really have the
energy for ongoing, one-story-in-many volumes series, and can't think
of any I've started recently.
margali
Francis [I love horses and used to compete in dressage] Robert
Crais, Grisham, Janet Evanovich ...
Thomas Costain, Lindsey Davis, Ellis Peters ...
margali
Ok, the Harry Potter novels [does that count as a secret vice?]
--
~~~~~
The Quote Starts Here:
Howard Brazee
margali wrote:
> Hiaasen, Vachss, Diane Mott Davidson [I also love to cook]
My wife has most of Davidson's books. I'll get around to them again,
but maybe I picked a bad first one - I just got started when she
discussed an ex-husband who she slept with after her divorce - who took
a hammer to her fingers one time.
This was mentioned as something that happened in the past - but her
casual acceptance of such an evil was as sickening to me as the event
itself. And I mean sickening - it upset my stomach to read it.
Jens Kilian
> Ok, the Harry Potter novels [does that count as a secret vice?]
It's only a *secret* vice if you buy the "adult" versions.
--
mailto:j...@acm.org phone:+49-7031-464-7698 (TELNET 778-7698)
http://www.bawue.de/~jjk/ fax:+49-7031-464-7351
PGP: 06 04 1C 35 7B DC 1F 26 As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish,
0x555DA8B5 BB A2 F0 66 77 75 E1 08 so is contempt to the contemptible. [Blake]
margali
I had a fiancee who decided it was ok to abuse me because I
killed his son [well, only technically, the foetus died and I
ended up with kidney failure from the toxemia, so in a vague sort
of way because I was unable to support a foetus to tern I did
kill his son ...]
Once the survivor guilt and brainwashing are dealt with, what do
you want us to do? Hide it like we are ashamed it happened?
Ignore it like it never happened? I prefer to be able to discuss
it rationally and not let it upset me any more. Not bad,
considering that the @$$h*1e is still stalking me off and on
after 15 years.
Get past the problems - the descriptions are short and nowhere as
twitchmaking as King's 'Rose Madder', and enjoy the descriptions
of food and the mysteries that are there to be solved.
margali
right now I am re-reading 'The Grilling Season'
fair use quote of a recipe:
Power Play Potatoes and Fish
4 6 to 8 oz each fresh chilean sea bass fillets
.5 cup flour
2 eggs
4 large russet potatoes
2 tbsp olive oil
salt and freshly ground black pepper
Preheat oven to 400 degrees fahrenheit. Butter a 9x13 inch baking
dish.
Rinse off the fillets and pat dry with paper towels. Sprinkle the
flour on a plate. Beat the eggs in a shallow bowl. Peel the
potatoes. Grate them onto a large clean kitchen towel that can be
stained. Roll the potatoes up in the towel and wring to remove
moisture. (It is best to do this over a sink.) Divide the
potatoes into 4 piles.
In a wide skillet, heat the olive oil. Working quickly, dip each
fillet in the flour and then the egg. Pat half of each potato
pile on the top and bottom of each fillet. (The equivalent of one
potato per fillet.) Bring the skillet up to medium high heat.
Place the potato covered fillets in the hot oil, salt and pepper
them, and brown quickly on each side. When all teh fillets are
browned, put them into the buttered pan and bake about 10
minutes, or until they are cooked through. Do not overcook the
fish.
Serves 4
--
~~~~~
The Quote Starts Here:
William December Starr
Richard Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> said:
> Footnotes may help, but they are absolutely not necessary. I read
> all the Austen novels for the first time in my mid teens, and I
> understood them quite well, thank you.
>
> As well say '50s SF needs footnotes.
When I recently reread the six stories in the Heinlein collection _The
Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag_ (a/k/a _6 x Heinlein_), I was
surprised at how dated some of them were, including the title piece.
Still, no footnotes required. I'm far from convinced that the analogy
works, simply because the time of Austen's contemporary audience is so
much further removed from people today than are the 1940s and 1950s --
it's been almost 190 years since _Pride and Prejudice_ was written,
but only about sixty for "Unpleasant Profession." Come back in 2130
and that story may very well need annotation too.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Howard Brazee
> Been there, done that, left without the t-shirt to stay alive.
>
> I had a fiancee who decided it was ok to abuse me because I
> killed his son [well, only technically, the foetus died and I
> ended up with kidney failure from the toxemia, so in a vague sort
> of way because I was unable to support a foetus to tern I did
> kill his son ...]
I still find it sickening, and I had to put the book aside last year. I
might get back to it.
I don't read to find about spousal abuse, nor about someone who came back to
an abuser. I want to enjoy myself.
margali
close to reality. King really dwelt on Rose's experiences. In
Davidson's series, the abuse is mentioned more in the occasional
retrospective [mentioning an ache from an abusive injury, or
small things like that.] I can put up with it because I am like
Goldie - now, although it took my husband years of understanding
and support to break small habits I developed in order to cope.
margali
currently with a batch of chocolate comfort cookies in the oven
from the recipe in the book - smells heavenly!
--
~~~~~
The Quote Starts Here:
Danny Sichel
> > >> Or maybe Lawrence Block...just once, I'd like to see Bernie Rhodenbarr
> > >> and John Dortmunder do a job together.
>> There's this Thing. Two groups of people want it. One
>> group goes to Kelp, who convinces Dortmunder to take the job.
>> The other group goes to Rhodenbarr and convinces him to take
>> the job for them. Neither Dortmunder or Rhodenbarr know the
>> other guy is on the job. They spend the rest of the book working
>> at cross-purposes while Rhodenbarr tries to extricate himself
>> from the murder he stumbles over trying to retrieve the Thing
>> and Dortmunder just has Dortmunder Luck. I imagine they could
>> steal the Thing from each other several times.
> At the end, when they realize that they've both been double-
> crossed, Dortmunder comes up with the brilliant plan to get
> at the Thing or the two groups, and Bernie plants the evidence
> and calls in Ray to have the groups arrested.
Why stop there?
It's not just a Thing....
it's a bag of Cetagandan scalps.
Just imagine Bernie Rhodenbarr in Vorkosigan House...