The Praxis -- Walter Jon Williams
Charlie Stross
"The Praxis" appears to be the first part of a new space opera trilogy by
Walter Jon Williams. It's WJW-lite, but still fun. For millennia the Shaa
have ruled over their empire by the iron law of the Praxis, conquering
alien species and binding them into their network of wormhole-connected
star systems. The Praxis is a draconian legal/philosophical code which
forbids on pain of death (or planetary bombardment) various activities
(insert long list of SFnal tropes associated with a Vingean singularity --
AI, nanotech, life extension, genetic engineering, etc). But for the past
millennium the Shaa have been dying. Now the last master is dead, what
are the subject races -- humans included -- going to do with the empire?
I'm not going to give away any spoilers, because while "The Praxis" is
on sale in the UK (trade paperback from Earthlight, Simon & Schuster's
UK SF imprint) it's not due out until next October in the US. But it's
a fun look at the working of an interstellar system so conservative
and ossified that it makes the Chinese empire look like a hotbed of
radicalism. Swash is swashed, buckles and buckled, and some rip-roaring
space opera is sung. So now I've got to wait a year for the second
installment ...
Life's not fair!
-- Charlie
Due out next year ...
Jan 2003: "Festival of Fools" -- Big Engine (UK edition of "Singularity Sky")
Aug 2003: "Singularity Sky" -- Ace Books (US edition of "Festival of Fools")
Dec 2003: "The Atrocity Archive" -- Golden Gryphon (US)
Aaron Bergman
Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> wrote:
> I'm not going to give away any spoilers, because while "The Praxis" is
> on sale in the UK (trade paperback from Earthlight, Simon & Schuster's
> UK SF imprint) it's not due out until next October in the US.
As in one year from now October?
Crap. Time for another amazon.co.uk purchase.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
<http://www.princeton.edu/~abergman/>
Default User
> I'm not going to give away any spoilers, because while "The Praxis" is
> on sale in the UK (trade paperback from Earthlight, Simon & Schuster's
> UK SF imprint) it's not due out until next October in the US. But it's
> a fun look at the working of an interstellar system so conservative
> and ossified that it makes the Chinese empire look like a hotbed of
> radicalism. Swash is swashed, buckles and buckled, and some rip-roaring
> space opera is sung. So now I've got to wait a year for the second
> installment ...
How "cliffhangery" does it end? I hate starting multi-volume series that
take me years and years to finish. Ya hear me Roger MacBride Allen?
Brian Rodenborn
Captain Button
Aaron Bergman <aber...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <slrnaqto1j....@raq981.uk2net.com.antipope.org>,
> Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> wrote:
>
>> I'm not going to give away any spoilers, because while "The Praxis" is
>> on sale in the UK (trade paperback from Earthlight, Simon & Schuster's
>> UK SF imprint) it's not due out until next October in the US.
>
>As in one year from now October?
>
>Crap. Time for another amazon.co.uk purchase.
Or time for a first, in my case.
--
American Express says I'm deceased. Boo! Consider yourself haunted.
Captain Button - but...@io.com
Aaron Bergman
but...@io.com (Captain Button) wrote:
> In article <abergman-A503AA.12595717102002@localhost>,
> Aaron Bergman <aber...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <slrnaqto1j....@raq981.uk2net.com.antipope.org>,
> > Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not going to give away any spoilers, because while "The Praxis" is
> >> on sale in the UK (trade paperback from Earthlight, Simon & Schuster's
> >> UK SF imprint) it's not due out until next October in the US.
> >
> >As in one year from now October?
> >
> >Crap. Time for another amazon.co.uk purchase.
>
> Or time for a first, in my case.
Which gives me an idea: Any suggestions for some UK first or only books
to buy? What are the new Alastair Reynolds? Is the rest of Ian Irvine's
stuff worth the shipping? I've heard decent stuff about this Steve
Erickson person. Who else gets the UK first treatment these days?
(Off to look for my latest Locus....)
Jason Larke
>>>>> <aber...@princeton.edu> said:
AB> Which gives me an idea: Any suggestions for some UK first or
AB> only books to buy? What are the new Alastair Reynolds? Is the
AB> rest of Ian Irvine's stuff worth the shipping? I've heard
AB> decent stuff about this Steve Erickson person. Who else gets
AB> the UK first treatment these days?
There's some good Iain Banks I've had trouble finding in the US.
K.J. Parker's _Colours in the Steel_ and its two sequels will
appeal to fans of Martin's _Song of Ice and Fire_. They're a
little depressing and nihistic but good. I really don't know why
it hasn't been published in the US.
--
Jason Larke- jla...@uu.net- http://www.nnaf.net/~jlarke Send mail for PGP key
I don't speak for UUNET or Worldcom. I speak for Odin. And he's *pissed*.
Any sufficiently advanced weapon is indistinguishable from a practical joke.
"People change, and smile: but the agony abides."-T.S. Eliot, The Dry Salvages
Joe Slater
>Which gives me an idea: Any suggestions for some UK first or only books
>to buy?
I've enjoyed the first two books of the _Arabesk_ series by Jon
Courtenay Grimwood: Pashazade and Effendi.
They're sort of high-tech alternate-future stories about a very
fortunate young man in a world where the Ottoman empire hung around.
He inherits a government post amid much intrigue.
jds
--
If I'd known anyone would take that much interest, I'd have written better books.
- Terry Pratchett, musing about his twenty-fifth novel.
Catherine Hampton
<aber...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>> I'm not going to give away any spoilers, because while "The Praxis" is
>> on sale in the UK (trade paperback from Earthlight, Simon & Schuster's
>> UK SF imprint) it's not due out until next October in the US.
>
>As in one year from now October?
>
>Crap. Time for another amazon.co.uk purchase.
No sh*t. I'm not waiting a year for this either. :)
--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@spambouncer.org>
Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)
Charlie Stross
as <first...@company.com> declared:
> How "cliffhangery" does it end? I hate starting multi-volume series that
> take me years and years to finish. Ya hear me Roger MacBride Allen?
I'd give it 7/10 on the cliff-hanger-ometer; our hero and heroine are
both clearly in situations that need to be resolved with bloodshed when
the book comes screeching (TO BE CONTINUED).
-- Charlie
David Bilek
What gets a 10/10 on the cliff-hanger-ometer? A novel that ends with
the hero about to be sh
-David
gareth bellaby
I would give "The Knight of the Demon Queen" by Barbara Hambly
10/10.
--
Gareth
"There's a fetid shade that only haunts the study lamp
And it gives my neck a cramp
And it flickers off and on
As I try to read my Necronomicon"
Scarlet's Well, "Why Do Spirits Haunt Ruby Auburn?"
Rick Kleffel
>
> Which gives me an idea: Any suggestions for some UK first or only books
> to buy? What are the new Alastair Reynolds? Is the rest of Ian Irvine's
> stuff worth the shipping? I've heard decent stuff about this Steve
> Erickson person. Who else gets the UK first treatment these days?
The latest ALastair Reynolds is 'Redemption Ark'. If you can get a UK
hardcover, it's well worth it. coldtonnage.com or ziesingbooks.com
will probably have firsts, perhaps signed. It won't come out in the
US till 01/03. It's definitely worth getting in the UK edition, as
they tend to accumulate value, if you're interested in that sort of
thing.
I'd also second the suggestion for Jon Courtenay Grimwood's novels,
Arabesk and Effendi.
You can get Neal Asher's 'Gridlinked' and 'The Skinner' only through
UK; they'll be out late next year in the US, but are well worth
reading now. They're trade PBs, and thus not too expensive.
Justina Robson has two novels out, 'Silver Screen' and 'Mappa Mundi'.
They're not out in the US.
Robert Holdstock's 'Iron Grail' and 'Celticka' if you like fantasy;
James' Barclay's novels for more on the 'heroic' fantasy side, and
Mark Chadbourne's novels for more on the horrific fantasy side. All
worth reading, all UK-only.
I've only read one novella by Erikson, but have his other novels in waiting.
I have reviews of most of these up at:
along with various commentaries. There are even some interviews with
the authors....
Thanks ,
Rickk
Lois Tilton
> Which gives me an idea: Any suggestions for some UK first or only books
> to buy? What are the new Alastair Reynolds? Is the rest of Ian Irvine's
> stuff worth the shipping? I've heard decent stuff about this Steve
> Erickson person. Who else gets the UK first treatment these days?
Speaking of which, has anyone seen Barry Unsworth's take on the Trojan War?
Worth the overseas fare?
LT
Charlie Stross
> What gets a 10/10 on the cliff-hanger-ometer? A novel that ends with
> the hero about to be sh
Ye
Nyrath the nearly wise
> Which gives me an idea: Any suggestions for some UK first or only books
> to buy?
There is a collection of all of Brian Stablefords
Grainger (Hooded Swan) novels, entitled "Swan Songs".
Not yet available here in the USA.
Michael Grosberg
> Bastard. I was up 'til three in the morning finishing this.
Well Well. My Amazon.co.uk order arrived only yesterday, so I'm about
a 100 pages into the book by now. My take on "Praxis" so far? seems to
be WJW decided to write Mil-SF. It reminded me, at the beginning, of a
Pournell or a David Drake type Hornblower-in-space novel. But this is
Williams, and he likes to deconstruct SF tropes (just look what he did
with downloading into a virtual paradise in "Daddy's World"). And the
characters are certainly not the usual hero types. I'm keeping my
hopes up for this book.
And I'm still waiting for that third book in the Metropolitan trilogy.
Now that Williams has published a Star Wars novel, and hopefully got
some new audience and better sales rank, It seems possible at last. I
just hope I won't have to wait for him to finish all the Praxis
sequels first.
Richard D. Latham
"Up The Line" by Silverberg.
This first person narrative literally ends right in the middle of a
sentence.
"Our hero", has been marked for expunging with extreme prejudice,
because he is actually a duplicate entity who has popped into being
due to not following the rules of time travel.
--
#include <disclaimer.std> /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
/* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
/* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
Richard D. Latham lat...@us.ibm.com
Richard Kennaway
> K.J. Parker's _Colours in the Steel_ and its two sequels will
> appeal to fans of Martin's _Song of Ice and Fire_. They're a
> little depressing and nihistic but good. I really don't know why
> it hasn't been published in the US.
Because they're depressing and nihilistic? Now, I think depressing and
nihilistic are excellent traits in a book, and Parker's trilogy has that
in abundance, especially in the third volume, in which [see below the
spoiler space], but maybe a publisher has taken the view that that won't
sell in the American market?
(spoiler space)
everyone that we have got to know over three volumes dies violently,
with only one real exception, and two characters who are clearly going
to die a few pages after the end of the book. Not to mention that bow
that Bardas makes for Gorgas.
-- Richard Kennaway
Michael Grosberg
"An infinite, sweeping saga of interstellar war".
An infinite saga? Will there be an infinite number of books in this
series?
Karl M. Syring
Nah, in this case it would be cold "The Wheel of Praxis".
Karl M. Syring
Alex McLintock
Should be available on Amazon.com
It is published by Big Engine books.
We have reviews of most of the books mentioned on this thread at
http://news.diversebooks.com/
We are UK based fannish reviewers , and so review more UK stuff than
US stuff.
Alex
http://news.DiverseBooks.com/ news reviews of SF and other books
Enter our Competition! Win a prize
Walter Jon Williams
Aww. I only give it a 4 or 5. While our protagonists are each on the way
to somewhere else, where further adventures will obviously ensue, they are
both out of immediate peril. They're not hanging from a cliff by their
fingernails.
And if you absolutely can't stand the suspense for a year, you can wait
for the US editions, which will be published very closely together. (I
don't mind, I get paid either way.)
In any case, Charlie, thanks for the good word.
Yes, there will be a third Metropolitan book, but my UK publisher left me
in a very bad situation by buying the first book and not the second, and
my US editor got fired and his whole line cancelled. So it will be some
time before I'm in a position to write Metropolitan III, probably a couple
years at least. But I'm committed to the series, even if no one else is,
so the book will get written eventually.
JoatSimeon
>From: ar...@dircon.co.uk (Richard Kennaway)
>, but maybe a publisher has taken the view that that won't
>sell in the American market?
-- you are talking about a country where "loser" is about the worst insult
possible. Ie., it implies not only that you lost, but that you deserve to do
so.
JoatSimeon
gloat, gloat.
Peter D. Tillman
Walter Jon Williams <wal...@thuntek.net> wrote:
>
> Yes, there will be a third Metropolitan book, but my UK publisher left me
> in a very bad situation by buying the first book and not the second, and
> my US editor got fired and his whole line cancelled. So it will be some
> time before I'm in a position to write Metropolitan III, probably a couple
> years at least. But I'm committed to the series, even if no one else is,
> so the book will get written eventually.
Very good news. Those are two of your finest books. Arguably the best
yet.
I've been having a private WJW-fest, rereading Days of Atonement, Angel
Station, Voice of the Whirlwind and Hardwired in the last few weeks. All
hold up very well -- though the opening pages of Hardwired had me a bit
worried ;-]. I particularly enjoyed the northern NM settings in
Hardwired, which I'd completely forgotten.
Incidentally, the fictional mining town in Days of Atonement struck me
this time as a combination of Silver City & Questa. Comments? And this
is perhaps the best portrayal of red rage I've read anywhere.
Thanks & cheers -- Pete Tillman
tabu La Raza
"Joe Slater" <joe [please don't spam me] at slater.net> wrote in message
news:o7ruquo66etm9h6q9...@4ax.com...
> Aaron Bergman <aber...@princeton.edu> wrote:
> >Which gives me an idea: Any suggestions for some UK first or only books
> >to buy?
>
> I've enjoyed the first two books of the _Arabesk_ series by Jon
> Courtenay Grimwood: Pashazade and Effendi.
>
only available in a UK edition. I believe Amazon.co.uk gives a 3 pound
(currency) discount to first time purchasers. Also there $6.00 to7.00
postage beats some places charging as high as $10.00 +.
Thomas Lindgren
Walter Jon Williams <wal...@thuntek.net> writes:
> Yes, there will be a third Metropolitan book, /.../
Yaaay!
> But I'm committed to the series, even if no one else is, so the book
> will get written eventually.
Well, _I_ am committed to it too if it's any help :-)
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren
I'd rather write programs that write programs than write programs-[R. Sites]
Walter Jon Williams
news:tillman-63E167...@news.toast.net:
> Incidentally, the fictional mining town in Days of Atonement struck me
> this time as a combination of Silver City & Questa. Comments? And this
> is perhaps the best portrayal of red rage I've read anywhere.
Atocha is more Silver City than anything else, but I knew that this was
most likely the only book I'd get to write about New Mexico, so I tossed
in everything I thought was interesting about the state without regard to
where I got it. The excessive number of churches, and the dry town
sitting in the wet county, is drawn from Portales, Jack Williamson's home
town, which is in SE New Mexico as opposed to SW, very different country.
The old Spanish families who run everything are based on the Seven (or
Nine, or Ten) Northern New Mexico Families who are still keeping a
tenacious grip on politics in the state.
The brothel, with its exceedingly colorful madame, is taken very much from
Silver City, though. The real-life madame just died a few months ago.
(A friend of mine worked on her autobiography, but had to quit when some
of the Big Boys from Santa Fe came down and explained to her what would
happen to her if she actually tried to publish it.)
John S. Novak, III
> Walter Jon Williams <wal...@thuntek.net> writes:
>> But I'm committed to the series, even if no one else is, so the book
>> will get written eventually.
> Well, _I_ am committed to it too if it's any help :-)
Perhaps we could just all mail the proper editor and/or publishing
company en masse.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
The Humblest Man on the Net
Serg
> In article <B9D4C53A...@pm3-2-user-9.cvl.hom.net>,
> but...@io.com (Captain Button) wrote:
>
> > In article <abergman-A503AA.12595717102002@localhost>,
> > Aaron Bergman <aber...@princeton.edu> wrote:
> >
> Which gives me an idea: Any suggestions for some UK first or only books
> to buy? What are the new Alastair Reynolds?
I liked first two better. _Revelation Space_ I liked most. _Redemption
Ark_ is a tie-in for series. Looks like Alastair Reynolds caught Wheel
of the Time disease.
James Nicoll
Well, except stuff actually happened in RA and the series is at
a point where he could stop it without having left too many issues un-
resolved. Personally I think he's getting better as a writer.
--
"Frankly, Captain, I feel interstellar diplomacy is out of our
depth."
"Ah, hence the nuclear weapons."
Mark Landin
wrote:
>
>Yes, there will be a third Metropolitan book,
Great news!
Do you have any plans to write anything more in the Hardwired tableau?
I've always loved that book ... it's on my short list of "reread this
one every year" books.
Rick Kleffel
> >I liked first two better. _Revelation Space_ I liked most. _Redemption
> >Ark_ is a tie-in for series. Looks like Alastair Reynolds caught Wheel
> >of the Time disease.
>
> Well, except stuff actually happened in RA and the series is at
> a point where he could stop it without having left too many issues un-
> resolved. Personally I think he's getting better as a writer.
> --
want to leave readers waiting. Yes, that's right -- a writer who
cares abouthis readers! In the itnerim, try as hard as you can to
find Turquoise days -- it's superb!
--Rickk
Walter Jon Williams
news:20021019233215...@mb-fp.aol.com:
> And I get to read the second volume chapter by chapter as it's
written...
> gloat, gloat.
>
Now now, Steve. It is unseemly to gloat . . .
Walter Jon Williams
news:aovfee$ptvaq$1...@ID-100778.news.dfncis.de:
> In article <lzn0p8p...@no-longer-at.bluetail.com>, Thomas Lindgren
> wrote:
>> Walter Jon Williams <wal...@thuntek.net> writes:
>
> [Metropolitan]
>
>>> But I'm committed to the series, even if no one else is, so the book
>>> will get written eventually.
>> Well, _I_ am committed to it too if it's any help :-)
>
> Perhaps we could just all mail the proper editor and/or publishing
> company en masse.
>
If only we knew who that would be . . . it seems to me that the proper
editor should be contacting =me.=
>> Do you have any plans to write anything more in the Hardwired tableau?
>> I've always loved that book ... it's on my short list of "reread this
>> one every year" books.
>>
>>
I re-read that one just recently, editing the e-book version (from
Scorpiusdigital.com), and was pleased to discover that it was a pretty
good book, and that it pretty much held up. (Unless there's some reason,
I never re-read my own work.) At one point, though, I muttered to myself,
"Too bad these guys never heard of cell phones." You can't get them all.
I'm always leery of doing sequels to books that are successes, and
Hardwired was probably my biggest success in terms of exposure and
popularity. (I don't think any of the Dune sequels improved on the
original, do you?) To do a book-length sequel I'd have to get a really,
really good idea, and I haven't had one yet.
Michael Grosberg
> Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> wrote in message news:<slrnaqto1j....@raq981.uk2net.com.antipope.org>...
> > Bastard. I was up 'til three in the morning finishing this.
>
Just finished it yesterday. A very quick read, and a lot of fun.
Actually this book has a number of different elements in it: A
military SF story with a lot of hard SF, ships, tactics and all that.
Then there's the part about the aristocracy - light comedy, most of
it. WJW doesn't hold the upper classes in very high regeard...
Reminded me Of Jeeves and Wooster in parts (too bad PJ wasn't called
PG...). I haven't read the Meijstral but I suspect it's similar. And
lastly there's the story of Caroline Sula's past, which is dark and
emotionally heavy, and reminded me of the tone of Hardwired.
And somehow all of these parts come together. In spite of looking like
Mil-SF at the beginning this is a story about people, and Caro and
Martinez are well-drawn, interesting (and most notably human and
imperfect) characters.
Simon Bisson
> PG...). I haven't read the Meijstral but I suspect it's similar. And
Very much the same. The culture of the Praxis ends up structured in a
similar manner (and for similar reasons) to Drake Maijstral's world.
If I had to provide a quick summary of The Praxis, I'd call it "Dark
Divertimenti"...
S.
Nancy Lebovitz
>in a very bad situation by buying the first book and not the second, and
>my US editor got fired and his whole line cancelled. So it will be some
>time before I'm in a position to write Metropolitan III, probably a couple
>years at least. But I'm committed to the series, even if no one else is,
>so the book will get written eventually.
I'm looking forward to it. I like the Metropolitan novels a lot.
Whenever the subject comes up online, there always seems to be a chorus
of "we want a third Metropolitan book!". Have you mentioned this to
any publishers?
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com 100 new slogans
I want to move to theory. Everything works in theory.
Nancy Lebovitz
MJ Stoddard
<Xns92AEA461CC509...@198.59.136.3>:
Regarding _Hardwire_ republication in ebook:
>I re-read that one just recently, editing the e-book version (from
>Scorpiusdigital.com), and was pleased to discover that it was a
>pretty good book, and that it pretty much held up. (Unless there's
>some reason, I never re-read my own work.) At one point, though, I
>muttered to myself, "Too bad these guys never heard of cell phones."
> You can't get them all.
Alas! I was all set to get Hardwire, but found that Scorpiusdigital.com
supports only Pocket PCs. Dear, kind Mr. Williams -- Please
(pleasepleasepleaseplease!) go back to Fictionwise.com for your ebooks
(I've bought three so far and really wanted this one.....)
As you say above "You can't get them all" -- but you can get many more
with a multi-format publisher!
Thank you for reading this lament :-(
MJ
Walter Jon Williams
news:3DB553D4...@sandm.co.uk:
Everything I write is practice for something else. I suspect that's true
for most writers.
Andrew Wheeler
>
> In article <Xns92ACA68CD1E1C...@198.59.136.3>,
> Walter Jon Williams <wal...@thuntek.net> wrote:
> >
> >Yes, there will be a third Metropolitan book, but my UK publisher left
> >me in a very bad situation by buying the first book and not the second,
> >and my US editor got fired and his whole line cancelled. So it will be > >some time before I'm in a position to write Metropolitan III, probably
> >a couple years at least. But I'm committed to the series, even if no
> >one else is, so the book will get written eventually.
>
> I'm looking forward to it. I like the Metropolitan novels a lot.
>
> Whenever the subject comes up online, there always seems to be a chorus
> of "we want a third Metropolitan book!". Have you mentioned this to
> any publishers?
Not to dampen anybody's parade, but a "chorus" here adds up to about
five people -- maybe ten if it's a heavenly chorus. That's not going to
set anybody's marketing department on fire.
Don't get me wrong -- I greatly liked the two "Metropolitan" books,
bought them for the SFBC, and tried to push them as hard as I could. But
I know how they sold for me, and I suspect I know how they sold in the
trade. (It's really annoying when books I love do badly, but it seems to
happen more often than not -- my personal tastes, and the similar
generalized tastes of rasfw regulars, are greatly different from the SF
market in general.)
All that said, I really want to read the projected third book, so I hope
it happens. But if _The Praxis_ (which sounds like it has a lot of
commercial stuff in it) first sucks in a bunch of other readers who
haven't tried WJW yet, I'd be even happier.
--
Andrew Wheeler
--
Pack my box with five dozen liquor jugs.
(J.Q. Vandz struck my big fox whelp.)
JoatSimeon
>Perhaps he's a gloatsimeon.
-- as long as "g" doesn't get switched with "b"... 8-).
Michael Grosberg
> But if _The Praxis_ (which sounds like it has a lot of
> commercial stuff in it) first sucks in a bunch of other readers who
> haven't tried WJW yet, I'd be even happier.
>
> Andrew Wheeler
Hopefully the Star Wars Novel WJW wrote will do that.
Does success in a media tie-in really helps boost the sales of a
writer's original works?
Did this work for Terry Bison and Greg Bear?
Captain Button
na...@unix1.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>In article <Xns92AEA2F5AA6A0...@198.59.136.3>,
>Walter Jon Williams <wal...@thuntek.net> wrote:
>>joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote in
>>news:20021019233215...@mb-fp.aol.com:
>>
>>> And I get to read the second volume chapter by chapter as it's
>>written...
>>> gloat, gloat.
>>>
>>
>>Now now, Steve. It is unseemly to gloat . . .
>
>Perhaps he's a gloatsimeon.
Ouch.
--
American Express says I'm deceased. Boo! Consider yourself haunted.
Captain Button - but...@io.com
Andrew Wheeler
Not to any noticeable degree. Writing books that people (think they)
want to read increases sales. (Of course, having those books effectively
marketed is also necessary, but writers usually can't control that.)
> Did this work for Terry Bison and Greg Bear?
Terry Bisson wrote a tie-in novel? (Or are you referring to his work on
the _Leibowitz_ sequel?)
Greg Bear's new books for Del Rey seem to be doing well, but I think
that's due to a) good marketing and b) the fact that he's writing good
novels that are also get-under-your-skin near-future biological
thrillers (which a big audience already knows they like, due to writers
like Crichton and Robin Cook). I don't think _Rogue Planet_ had much to
do with that (except to maybe make the publisher more willing to give
him that push, maybe). But I am a known cynic, and could easily be wrong.
Jo'Asia
<Xns92AEA461CC509...@198.59.136.3>:
> j...@concentric.net (John S. Novak, III) wrote in
> news:aovfee$ptvaq$1...@ID-100778.news.dfncis.de:
>> Perhaps we could just all mail the proper editor and/or publishing
>> company en masse.
> If only we knew who that would be . . . it seems to me that the proper
> editor should be contacting =me.=
How about the UK editor? It would be a start... :)
Jo'Asia
--
__.-=-. Joanna Slupek http://bujold.fantastyka.net/ .-=-.__
--<()> (Add one 'l' to 'hel' when replying by e-mail) <()>--
.__.'| ..................................................... |'.__.
Keep smiling......they'll think you're up to something
Walter Jon Williams
>
>
> Don't get me wrong -- I greatly liked the two "Metropolitan" books,
> bought them for the SFBC, and tried to push them as hard as I could. But
> I know how they sold for me, and I suspect I know how they sold in the
> trade. (It's really annoying when books I love do badly, but it seems to
> happen more often than not -- my personal tastes, and the similar
> generalized tastes of rasfw regulars, are greatly different from the SF
> market in general.)
>
The editor was impressed by how well they held out against the collapse of
the mass-market paperback that was going on at the time. But the editor
got fired, and now editors are much more interested in seeing a new
series, which they think will sell better, than publishing a sequel to
another editor's project.
That's the story I'm told on the backlist, too. "We want =new= books."
Sigh.
ColinM
wrote:
>Speaking of which, has anyone seen Barry Unsworth's take on the Trojan War?
>
>Worth the overseas fare?
>
>LT
>
Yes, I thought it was very good.
ColinM
Nix
> If I had to provide a quick summary of The Praxis, I'd call it "Dark
> Divertimenti"...
That sounds about right to me :)
There's a nice astrophysical error in the paragraph at the bottom of
page 352 / top of 353, too... (think about the numbers for a moment; how
big's that supernova remnant got to be?)
It's a very well-done error, too; it has no impact whatever on the plot
but gives pedants like me something to point at and feel all gratified
by ;)
The book's not an earth-shaking work of literature (I doubt it was
intended to be one), but I'm looking forward to book 2 in any case.
--
`The tooth fairy teaches children that they can sell body parts for money.'
--- David Richerby
Walter Jon Williams
news:87fzut2...@amaterasu.srvr.nix:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Simon Bisson muttered drunkenly:
>> If I had to provide a quick summary of The Praxis, I'd call it "Dark
>> Divertimenti"...
>
> That sounds about right to me :)
>
> There's a nice astrophysical error in the paragraph at the bottom of
> page 352 / top of 353, too... (think about the numbers for a moment; how
> big's that supernova remnant got to be?)
>
> It's a very well-done error, too; it has no impact whatever on the plot
> but gives pedants like me something to point at and feel all gratified
> by ;)
I'm happy to have provided satisfaction. <g>
I figure the supernova remnant isn't big, it's just =close=, but I'll
look. The advantage of the current publishing scheme is that I can
correct the American printings for anything wonky in the UK editions.
Urban Fredriksson
Walter Jon Williams <wal...@thuntek.net> wrote:
>I figure the supernova remnant isn't big, it's just =close=, but I'll
>look. The advantage of the current publishing scheme is that I can
>correct the American printings for anything wonky in the UK editions.
So UK editions aren't necessarily just American -> British
translations? Usually that, and translations the other
way, is enough reason for me to stay away from certain
editions, this means I now have to figure in the possible
degree of updateness too. Good thing it doesn't change
anything in this case. (I can wait, even if I don't really
want to, for your books.)
--
Urban Fredriksson
Recent and featured photos: http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/diverse/pix/recent/
Charlie Stross
as <gri...@canit.se> declared:
>>I figure the supernova remnant isn't big, it's just =close=, but I'll
>>look. The advantage of the current publishing scheme is that I can
>>correct the American printings for anything wonky in the UK editions.
>
> So UK editions aren't necessarily just American -> British
> translations?
Indeed not. It depends who's publishing it, and how it's been sold. In
*some* cases a UK publisher just buys US rights as part of a bulk deal
with a US publisher, but it can also happen that the author sells rights
separately on both sides of the Atlantic. In that case, it's quite
possible that the book will be edited twice or there'll otherwise be
room for corrections to go in. In extreme cases, it'll be a different
draft of the book that gets published on one side or the other.
(Example: I have a novel coming out in the UK next February-March
called "Festival of Fools". And I have a novel coming out in the USA
next August called "Singularity Sky". They're the same book -- except
that the UK edition runs to 110,000 words, while the US edition runs to
118,000 words. Confused? I am!)
-- Charlie
Andrew Plotkin
> (Example: I have a novel coming out in the UK next February-March
> called "Festival of Fools". And I have a novel coming out in the USA
> next August called "Singularity Sky". They're the same book -- except
> that the UK edition runs to 110,000 words, while the US edition runs to
> 118,000 words. Confused? I am!)
Are the extra 8000 words good, tasty, nice little words, or bad,
unpleasant, disobedient words?
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Michael Kube-McDowell
<cha...@antipope.org> wrote:
>Indeed not. It depends who's publishing it, and how it's been sold. In
>*some* cases a UK publisher just buys US rights as part of a bulk deal
>with a US publisher, but it can also happen that the author sells rights
>separately on both sides of the Atlantic. In that case, it's quite
>possible that the book will be edited twice or there'll otherwise be
>room for corrections to go in. In extreme cases, it'll be a different
>draft of the book that gets published on one side or the other.
This happened with Sir Arthur Clarke's and my novel THE TRIGGER, which
was sold separately to Bantam Spectra and HarperCollins UK. The
manuscript was edited separately by both houses, and although we tried
to keep them synchronized, the final change suggested by the UK
editor--to break up a few of the longest chapters--came too late for
the US production schedule to accommodate it.
So the UK edition has 33 chapters (which means a small amount of
additional 'extract' material) and the US edition has 26. In
paperback, the US edition runs 626 pages, the UK edition only 550. But
the latter is actually a skootch longer, and is arguably the
definitive edition.
--
Michael Kube-McDowell - author of VECTORS, coming October 29
Charlie Stross
>> They're the same book -- except
>> that the UK edition runs to 110,000 words, while the US edition runs to
>> 118,000 words. Confused? I am!)
>
> Are the extra 8000 words good, tasty, nice little words, or bad,
> unpleasant, disobedient words?
They're what happens when editor (a) says "I like the book, but there's
too much about topic <x> in it -- can you cut those scenes a bit?", then
editor (b) says "I like the book, but there's not enough about topic <x>
in it -- can you add something?"
(What happens is the author figures that editor (a) sniffed a rat in
those scenes and wanted them out, so rather than simply undoing the cuts for
editor (b) the author does a full re-write of the relevant bits.)
Your mileage may vary, but just to make life harder for the future critics
I use RCS.
-- Charlie
Walter Jon Williams
>> So UK editions aren't necessarily just American -> British
>> translations?
>
> Indeed not. It depends who's publishing it, and how it's been sold. In
> *some* cases a UK publisher just buys US rights as part of a bulk deal
> with a US publisher, but it can also happen that the author sells rights
> separately on both sides of the Atlantic.
That's what happened here. The US edition is being published a year after
the UK edition. I haven't seen the US copy-edit yet, or the US page
proofs, so I have the opportunity of making some (relatively small)
changes in the US edition.
But since both editors got me their requests for changes at more or less
the same time, I was able to do both sets of changes at once, and there
will be no substantial differences between the two editions other than
variations in spelling, punctuation, etc.
Nix
> I figure the supernova remnant isn't big, it's just =close=, but I'll
> look. The advantage of the current publishing scheme is that I can
> correct the American printings for anything wonky in the UK editions.
Alas, you ruled closeness out :( the remnant is expanding at `... half
the speed of light...' yet is `... scheduled to arrive in another eighty
thousand years'; hence it's about 40000 ly away[1]; it's halfway across
the galaxy, and to fill a third of the sky that's a *big* supernova;
more like a hypernova...
The impressiveness of the imagery will probably distract most people
from such pedantry, though. And that's what matters. ;}
[1] ok, so that's a bit out since we're working from light emitted
from the supernova and it'll have moved in the interim, but that's
a fairly small thing by comparison.
--
`The library at my secondary school was there for punishment, I think. I
did liberate a number of books because I felt sorry for them.'
--- Marna Gilligan
Walter Jon Williams
news:87u1j5t...@amaterasu.srvr.nix:
>
> Alas, you ruled closeness out :( the remnant is expanding at `... half
> the speed of light...' yet is `... scheduled to arrive in another eighty
> thousand years'; hence it's about 40000 ly away[1]; it's halfway across
> the galaxy, and to fill a third of the sky that's a *big* supernova;
> more like a hypernova...
Ahhhh, right. <makes note to self. Will also try to fix British
paperback>
John F. Carr
Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 28 Oct 2002, Walter Jon Williams stated:
>> I figure the supernova remnant isn't big, it's just =close=, but I'll
>> look. The advantage of the current publishing scheme is that I can
>> correct the American printings for anything wonky in the UK editions.
>
>Alas, you ruled closeness out :( the remnant is expanding at `... half
>the speed of light...' yet is `... scheduled to arrive in another eighty
>thousand years'; hence it's about 40000 ly away[1]; it's halfway across
>the galaxy, and to fill a third of the sky that's a *big* supernova;
>more like a hypernova...
(I haven't read the book. The following comments are based on
my knowledge of astrophysics and the quoted text.)
Half the speed of light is too fast for a supernova. As I recall,
typical expansion speed is .1c or less.
The expansion rate slows down with time so a .5c initial expansion
rate would not imply that the supernova remnant expands to 40,000 ly
in 80,000 years. Google for supernova snowplow. An SNR will not
expand to 40,000 ly (astronomers would say 12 kpc) in any amount of
time.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
William December Starr
cha...@antipope.org said:
> They're what happens when editor (a) says "I like the book, but
> there's too much about topic <x> in it -- can you cut those scenes
> a bit?", then editor (b) says "I like the book, but there's not
> enough about topic <x> in it -- can you add something?"
>
> (What happens is the author figures that editor (a) sniffed a rat
> in those scenes and wanted them out, so rather than simply undoing
> the cuts for editor (b) the author does a full re-write of the
> relevant bits.)
>
> Your mileage may vary, but just to make life harder for the future
> critics I use RCS.
RCS?
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Nix
> Half the speed of light is too fast for a supernova. As I recall,
> typical expansion speed is .1c or less.
Well, you can get energetic particle bombardment of gas clouds emitted
by the dying star before it went supernova, and the illuminated
region will expand at near-c because the particles are moving at
near-c.
But of course such illumination will only cover a few cubic light years
in any case, and it fades fairly fast (because the particle flood
from the supernova passes by).
Charlie Stross
>> Your mileage may vary, but just to make life harder for the future
>> critics I use RCS.
>
> RCS?
Revision Control System.
(Yes, I edit novels with vi and build them using make. Haven't figured
out how to use gdb on a space opera yet, though.)
-- Charlie
Rob Friefeld
Nix <nix-ra...@esperi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> There's a nice astrophysical error in the paragraph at the bottom of
> page 352 / top of 353, too... (think about the numbers for a moment; how
> big's that supernova remnant got to be?)
>
> It's a very well-done error, too; it has no impact whatever on the plot
> but gives pedants like me something to point at and feel all gratified
> by ;)
Mr. Pedant, maybe you can explain something else to me. Why do the
fleets prepare themselves for defensive battle by building up high
velocities? There seems to be a notion here that you can maintain your
high velocity as you circulate around the system, like cruising around a
race track or something. As far as I can see, all this tactic does is to
vastly increase the need to undergo constant brutal acceleration as you
try to change your vector: you can't just slingshot around a planet and
keep going at the same speed.
The velocity is probably useful for buying more time to avoid missles.
Even so, with apparently extremely efficient drives, I would expect the
missles to be able to accelerate at hundreds of G's. Actually outrunning
them doesn't sound possible.
--
Rob Friefeld
Long Beach, California
Walter Jon Williams
Rob Friefeld <som...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:KGWw9.6440$7W2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
> Mr. Pedant, maybe you can explain something else to me. Why do the
> fleets prepare themselves for defensive battle by building up high
> velocities?
You don't need Mr. Pedant for that one. The answer is that velocity =
options. A slow-moving fleet fighting a fast-moving attacker has no
options at all--- they're effectively standing still while hundreds of
missiles burn down on them at significant fractions of the speed of light.
Whereas the fast-moving fleet has the option to maneuver against any
counterattack.
Walter Jon Williams
> Mr. Pedant, maybe you can explain something else to me. Why do the
> fleets prepare themselves for defensive battle by building up high
> velocities?
You don't need Mr. Pedant for that one. The answer is that velocity =
options. A slow-moving fleet fighting a fast-moving attacker has no
options at all--- they're effectively standing still while hundreds of
missiles burn down on them at significant fractions of the speed of light.
Whereas the fast-moving fleet has the option to maneuver against any
counterattack.
> Even so, with apparently extremely efficient drives, I would expect the
> missles to be able to accelerate at hundreds of G's. Actually outrunning
> them doesn't sound possible.
Outrunning them generally isn't possible, but it's possible to evade long
enough for defensive systems to have a better chance of shooting the
attacking missiles down.
Rob Friefeld
> Rob Friefeld <som...@verizon.net> wrote in
>
> > Mr. Pedant, maybe you can explain something else to me. Why do the
> > fleets prepare themselves for defensive battle by building up high
> > velocities?
>
>
> You don't need Mr. Pedant for that one. The answer is that velocity =
> options. A slow-moving fleet fighting a fast-moving attacker has no
> options at all--- they're effectively standing still while hundreds of
> missiles burn down on them at significant fractions of the speed of light.
> Whereas the fast-moving fleet has the option to maneuver against any
> counterattack.
>
No, if you are around, I sure don't need Mr. Pedant. :-) I'm really
enjoying your decision not to throw too much miracle technology, like
anti-acceleration devices, into The Praxis. The ship maneuvers are
really exciting, very physical.
The velocity = options idea feels right, just as a battleship needs
headway to maneuver. But does this work in space? I'm picturing a Star
Wars battle, where all the spaceship movements are modeled on aircraft
dogfights. But you don't make a high speed swoop in space to turn
around. You rotate on your gyros and apply thrust in a new direction. If
your squadron is moving at .5c and you reach the limit of the area of
operations, you have a hell of a lot of acceleration coming before you
are going back the way you came, or even 90 degrees to the way you came.
Doing a "slingshot" doesn't reduce the acceleration required, it only
uses less fuel. To whip around Jupiter at .5c...must take thousands of
G's. In other words, just because you are moving at .5c, doesn't mean
you can jerk out the the way at .5c.
As for having more time to defend at high speed, that seems like a 50-50
proposition. You need to be getting farther away from the attacker to
get any benefit from that.
Urban Fredriksson
Walter Jon Williams <wal...@thuntek.net> wrote:
> The answer is that velocity =
>options.
That should be: Acceleration = options.
> A slow-moving fleet fighting a fast-moving attacker has no
>options at all--- they're effectively standing still while hundreds of
>missiles burn down on them at significant fractions of the speed of light.
Problem is that in space, how do you know which one's
standing still and which one's moving? If they've got the
same acceleration capability they've got just the same
options regarding where they can be at time T+X.
To make your scenario make sense, there has to be some
kind of aether which the ships' drives can "grab" sort of
like hydro- and aerodynamic surfaces, thereby trading
"aether-relative velocity" for lateral acceleration. In
order not to let it create friction all the time, let's have it
only exist in hyperspace [or something] so you only interact
with it when the engines are running. This is needed so it
doesn't slow down planetary orbits and such and would also
answer the question about how you are able to reach those
velocities in the first place.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
I have made mistakes, but have never made the mistake
of claiming I never made one.
-- James G. Bennet
Walter Jon Williams
> The velocity = options idea feels right, just as a battleship needs
> headway to maneuver. But does this work in space? I'm picturing a Star
> Wars battle, where all the spaceship movements are modeled on aircraft
> dogfights. But you don't make a high speed swoop in space to turn
> around. You rotate on your gyros and apply thrust in a new direction.
That's true as far as it goes, but if one force is moving faster than the
other, the faster force still has more options. They have the option to
force an engagement or avoid one, to attack one target and leave another
alone, to attack multiple targets sequentially and to their advantage
(assuming the separated enemy targets are out of supporting distance of
one another). Und so weiter.
Doing a "slingshot" doesn't reduce the acceleration required, it
> only uses less fuel.
Not quite. It does add a new gravitational vector, so there's a course
alteration involved as well.
To whip around Jupiter at .5c...must take
> thousands of G's.
Shh! We don't talk about that around here! <g>
Actually this is one area where I decided to fudge a bit. I =could= have
described battles in which the fleets took swipes at each other, then
spent weeks maneuvering back into position for another round, but I
decided that the dramatic possibilities of the novel would not be enhanced
by such a choice, so I made the laws of orbital dynamics a bit, uh,
elastic.
FWIW, I don't have anyone whipping clean around a planet at speed, I just
allow gravity to bend the trajectory a little more than it might
otherwise. (Or on the other hand, some of these gas giants might just be
=really really really big.=)
Nix
> To make your scenario make sense, there has to be some
> kind of aether which the ships' drives can "grab" sort of
> like hydro- and aerodynamic surfaces, thereby trading
> "aether-relative velocity" for lateral acceleration. In
Hm, well, there's drag because of interplanetary dust, which at
substantial fractions of c would be very detectable.
--
`Beware the man who has only read one book.' --- David Iain Greig
Paul F. Dietz
> Hm, well, there's drag because of interplanetary dust, which at
> substantial fractions of c would be very detectable.
Detectable? Perhaps, but not significant if the vehicle is to survive.
Remember the faster you go, the more power is dissipated as heat per unit
of drag force. At relativistic speeds we're talking hundreds of megawatts
of heat production per newton of drag (just like a photon rocket,
actually.)
Paul
Rob Friefeld
Walter Jon Williams <wal...@thuntek.net> wrote:
> Rob Friefeld <som...@verizon.net> wrote in
> To whip around Jupiter at .5c...must take
> > thousands of G's.
>
> Shh! We don't talk about that around here! <g>
Good idea! I got out my old physics book and calculated that a course
bend around Jupiter would require 10,000,000 G's at that speed (if it
could happen). I'm sure a novel about organic paste wouldn't hold a
reader's interest.
>
> Actually this is one area where I decided to fudge a bit. I =could= have
> described battles in which the fleets took swipes at each other, then
> spent weeks maneuvering back into position for another round, but I
> decided that the dramatic possibilities of the novel would not be enhanced
> by such a choice, so I made the laws of orbital dynamics a bit, uh,
> elastic.
Well now, _that_ is fascinating. Obviously, you are quite right. The
nerds will never be happy anyway. ;-)
John Schilling
>Rob Friefeld <som...@verizon.net> wrote in
>news:ByZw9.5038$t1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
>> The velocity = options idea feels right, just as a battleship needs
>> headway to maneuver. But does this work in space? I'm picturing a Star
>> Wars battle, where all the spaceship movements are modeled on aircraft
>> dogfights. But you don't make a high speed swoop in space to turn
>> around. You rotate on your gyros and apply thrust in a new direction.
>That's true as far as it goes, but if one force is moving faster than the
>other, the faster force still has more options. They have the option to
>force an engagement or avoid one, to attack one target and leave another
>alone, to attack multiple targets sequentially and to their advantage
>(assuming the separated enemy targets are out of supporting distance of
>one another). Und so weiter.
Unless you are invoking some sort of ether, there is no "faster" force.
All velocities are relative - even Newton mostly got that right - and
whatever force you are imagining is "faster", I can point to and say
that it is standing absolutely still, and I am just as right as you are.
The spiffy ultra-maneuverable space cruiser heading at relativistic speed
towards a planet and its hulking orbital defense fortresses? Sorry, the
cruiser is sitting dead in space while an entire planet ringed with
dreadnaughts bears down on it at 0.95c or whatever. No options, utter
tactical disadvantage.
Or not. What matters is that the cruiser has engines and can maneuver,
can accelerate. It is the acceleration that gives the options and the
advantage, not the velocity. That's a bit of intuition that you, David
Weber, and countless others get wrong. There is not any sort of absolute
velocity advantage because there is not any sort of absolute velocity.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Paul F. Dietz
> Or not. What matters is that the cruiser has engines and can maneuver,
> can accelerate. It is the acceleration that gives the options and the
> advantage, not the velocity. That's a bit of intuition that you, David
> Weber, and countless others get wrong. There is not any sort of absolute
> velocity advantage because there is not any sort of absolute velocity.
They're confused because they are used to vehicles that operate in a medium
against which they react. In that setting, higher velocity gives a larger
ability to accelerate.
Paul
Charlie Stross
> The spiffy ultra-maneuverable space cruiser heading at relativistic speed
> towards a planet and its hulking orbital defense fortresses? Sorry, the
> cruiser is sitting dead in space while an entire planet ringed with
> dreadnaughts bears down on it at 0.95c or whatever. No options, utter
> tactical disadvantage.
>
> Or not. What matters is that the cruiser has engines and can maneuver,
> can accelerate. It is the acceleration that gives the options and the
> advantage, not the velocity.
Here's another advantage: the jolt the cruiser can sustain (loosely, the
rate of increase of acceleration). Not much use without some form of
magical inertia reduction or gravity shielding, but in a dogfight where
both sides have speed-of-light weapons such as lasers it would probably
mean the difference between life and death. Hmm.
(Suggestions about space operatic hardware involving high-pressure tanks
full of fluorocarbon solvents in which the pilots are dissolv^Wcushioned
against 50g/500msec jolts welcome. Along with loving descriptions of the
gruesome bruising and bone fractures the crews sustain in battle. Or you
could just wimp out, use the Drexler nanotech route, vitrify everybody
and upload their minds prior to combat. Which sort of begs the question of
why you're sending spam in a can into battle in the first place, though ...)
-- Charlie
Walter Jon Williams
>
> Unless you are invoking some sort of ether, there is no "faster" force.
> All velocities are relative - even Newton mostly got that right - and
> whatever force you are imagining is "faster", I can point to and say
> that it is standing absolutely still, and I am just as right as you are.
It is true that I used "faster force" as shorthand for "the force with
greater velocity relative to all other objects in the system," but
honestly, it just seemed easier that way. My bad.
>
>> The spiffy ultra-maneuverable space cruiser heading at relativistic
>> speed towards a planet and its hulking orbital defense fortresses?
>> Sorry, the cruiser is sitting dead in space while an entire planet
>> ringed with dreadnaughts bears down on it at 0.95c or whatever. No
>> options, utter tactical disadvantage.
Except of course that the spiffy cruiser has the option to change course
and not to attack at all, whereas the planet and its dreadnoughts are just
stuck in their orbits. The spiffy cruiser can whomp on ships outside of
the dreadnoughts' range and blow up whole other planets and leave the
system and blow up planets somewhere else.
Of course you can say that from the point of view of the planet with its
orbital fortresses, the planet is maneuvering away from the cruiser and
not the other way around, but that doesn't change whose planets are
getting blown up.
>>
>> Or not. What matters is that the cruiser has engines and can
>> maneuver, can accelerate. It is the acceleration that gives the
>> options and the advantage, not the velocity. That's a bit of
intuition that you, David
> Weber, and countless others get wrong. There is not any sort of
absolute
> velocity advantage because there is not any sort of absolute velocity.
>
Actually I didn't get that wrong. I just used some imprecise language.
My bad again.
>
> (Suggestions about space operatic hardware involving high-pressure
> tanks full of fluorocarbon solvents in which the pilots are
> dissolv^Wcushioned against 50g/500msec jolts welcome. Along with loving
> descriptions of the gruesome bruising and bone fractures the crews
> sustain in battle.
I thought about that approach, but I wanted something more tactile.
Besides, it would be tough to beat Haldeman's description of a similar
environment in "Forever War."
Apropos Haldeman, one of the things I've noticed is that books about war,
written by people who have never been in one, are about tactics, combat,
and glory. Whereas books about war written by actual veterans tend to be
about waste, inefficiency, and blind stupidity.
I've had some remarks about how brainless the military leaders in the
Praxis are, but I think they're actually pretty bright compared to many of
their real-life counterparts.
lal_truckee
CLIP
>
> Except of course that the spiffy cruiser has the option to change course
> and not to attack at all, whereas the planet and its dreadnoughts are just
> stuck in their orbits. The spiffy cruiser can whomp on ships outside of
> the dreadnoughts' range and blow up whole other planets and leave the
> system and blow up planets somewhere else.
>
> Of course you can say that from the point of view of the planet with its
> orbital fortresses, the planet is maneuvering away from the cruiser and
> not the other way around, but that doesn't change whose planets are
> getting blown up.
>
Insert maneuverable Vegan Orbital Fortress here. I always wndered about
Blish's use of "Orbital" in that context.
--
lal_truckee
Michael S. Schiffer
news:aq9n4l$81cnh$1...@ID-90251.news.dfncis.de:
>...
> Insert maneuverable Vegan Orbital Fortress here. I always
> wndered about Blish's use of "Orbital" in that context.
IIRC, it *was* a straightforward orbital fort till the end of the
war, when it became evident that the Vegans were losing. At which
point it turned out to have spindizzies, and flew off into legend.
It's possible-- even likely-- that the spindizzies were a late add-on
to what was originally intended as a stationary base. (Much like the
cities themselves in that respect, actually.)
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Walter Jon Williams
news:Xns92BDBD908216...@130.133.1.4:
>> Insert maneuverable Vegan Orbital Fortress here. I always wndered
>> about Blish's use of "Orbital" in that context.
Vegetarian Orbital Fortresses?
I'd heard about militant vegetarians, but never this . . .
Michael S. Schiffer
news:Xns92BE9B34C98FD...@198.59.136.3:
>>> about Blish's use of "Orbital" in that context.
> Vegetarian Orbital Fortresses?
Well, they're actually Ovo-Lacto Orbital Fortresses, but it didn't
fit on the nameplate.
Mike
(who remembers when "vegan" was a newish term, and the joke went the
other way, with people likening strict vegetarians to aliens)
Karl M. Syring
Did you never read the Vegan FAQ? One of the most funny texts ever written,
especially the section about oral gender.
Karl M. Syring
Richard Shewmaker
Now, see, I'd assume that the orbital itself was the vegan, and so safe
to use for non-plant species....
Nix
> Good idea! I got out my old physics book and calculated that a course
> bend around Jupiter would require 10,000,000 G's at that speed (if it
> could happen). I'm sure a novel about organic paste wouldn't hold a
> reader's interest.
Bah, what a paltry drive. Landis has a much better one in _Approaching
Perimelasma_.
Forty billion gees. Now *that*'s a drive.
Nix
> FWIW, I don't have anyone whipping clean around a planet at speed, I just
> allow gravity to bend the trajectory a little more than it might
> otherwise. (Or on the other hand, some of these gas giants might just be
> =really really really big.=)
Stick a neutron star in such a system, and bingo. (Squash... ;} )
Prediction: the empire will fall permanently apart due to wormhole
disruption (leaving its consitituent components scattered across
spacetime, never to be reunited).
*evil laughter*
Rob Friefeld
Nix <nix-ra...@esperi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Nov 2002, Rob Friefeld stated:
> > Good idea! I got out my old physics book and calculated that a course
> > bend around Jupiter would require 10,000,000 G's at that speed (if it
> > could happen). I'm sure a novel about organic paste wouldn't hold a
> > reader's interest.
>
> Bah, what a paltry drive. Landis has a much better one in _Approaching
> Perimelasma_.
>
> Forty billion gees. Now *that*'s a drive.
Fah! If you souped it up with titanium connecting rods, you could get
fifty billion gees out of it easy. Snaps the head back pretty good.
Michael Grosberg
>
> Or not. What matters is that the cruiser has engines and can maneuver,
> can accelerate. It is the acceleration that gives the options and the
> advantage, not the velocity. That's a bit of intuition that you, David
> Weber, and countless others get wrong. There is not any sort of absolute
> velocity advantage because there is not any sort of absolute velocity.
A nice way of getting the feel of space battles is to use a space
simulator.
While most of them (esp. the star wars ones) are of the "WW2 fighters
in space" sort, there's a small number of simulators that use
newtonian flight models.
Of these, the best I found is an old (1997) game called "Independence
War".
It allows you to fly at speeds up to .3C, although battle is
impossible at those speeds in IW. But it does give you a feel for
space combat - and speed really doesn't help. If you're running away
speed does help, but if you are attacking an enemy head-on, and the
enemy shoots a missile at you, a higher speed will only give you less
reaction time.
Acceleration is indeed the key here, as it makes you more
unpredictable and harder to hit.
There's one thing that high speed is good for, and that's using
kinetic weapons.
At .2C, you don't need torpedoes. Just chuck some pebbles out the door
in the direction of your target and start a course change. They'll do
enough damage and if small enough they'll be virtually undetectable.
Obviously it also goes both ways.
Nyrath the nearly wise
> A nice way of getting the feel of space battles is to use a space
> simulator.
> While most of them (esp. the star wars ones) are of the "WW2 fighters
> in space" sort, there's a small number of simulators that use
> newtonian flight models.
> Of these, the best I found is an old (1997) game called "Independence
> War".
Roger that. Play that game for a while and you'll
really get a feel for newtonian flight.
And the opening sequence movie is worth the price
of the game all by itself. Orbital beanstalk and all!
There is a sequel to the game, who's name escapes
me at the moment.
Michael Grosberg
I-War 2: Edge Of Chaos.
Same newtonian mechanics but the feel is all wrong.
Nix
Titanium? Pah, primitive ;}
(Actually, rereading the story, it gets a bit higher than I said it
would...
`Eighty billion gravities is full throttle' --- and its problem isn't
acceleration, it's that there's not enough fuel.)
--
`I keep hearing about SF writers dying, but I never hear about SF
writers being born. So I guess eventually there'll be none left.'
-- Keith F. Lynch
Lisa Nelson
> (Yes, I edit novels with vi and build them using make. Haven't figured
> out how to use gdb on a space opera yet, though.)
Adding Charlie Stross to "must read" list...
Nix
The writing's enjoyable even to XEmacs users like me.
Given that Charlie's references to topics first brought up by Vinge are
frequent, and Vinge writes his stuff in Emacs, I think we can say that
these are editor-agnostic stories. :)
(--- but if you use pico you'll still BURN in HELL.)
Charlie Stross
>> Adding Charlie Stross to "must read" list...
>
> The writing's enjoyable even to XEmacs users like me.
>
> Given that Charlie's references to topics first brought up by Vinge are
> frequent, and Vinge writes his stuff in Emacs, I think we can say that
> these are editor-agnostic stories. :)
No, you forget: to a writer, the Editor Is Always Right.
(That's when m-X-psychoanalyse comes in handy :)
> (--- but if you use pico you'll still BURN in HELL.)
What about TECO? Enquiring minds, and all that.
-- Charlie
Out now: "Toast, and other rusted futures" -- Cosmos books
Jan 2003: "Festival of Fools" -- Big Engine (UK edition of "Singularity Sky")
Aug 2003: "Singularity Sky" -- Ace Books (US edition of "Festival of Fools")
Dec 2003: "The Atrocity Archive" -- Golden Gryphon (US)
Nix
>> frequent, and Vinge writes his stuff in Emacs, I think we can say that
>> these are editor-agnostic stories. :)
>
> No, you forget: to a writer, the Editor Is Always Right.
Oh yes, of course. How could I forget.
(These days, I presume, the dartboard with editor's face on it has been
replaced by the Doom or Quake WAD done up to look like the publishers'
offices, complete, of course, with editor...)
> (That's when m-X-psychoanalyse comes in handy :)
M-x psychoanalyze-editor
I see a great need. (Unfortunately I'm too busy writing neural net code
in elisp right now --- eventually my Emacs shall turn into a real editor
and discard 90% of what I write in Usenet posts with cries of `much too
clumsy and disjointed, and your characters' motivations are not clear,
particuarly not the `e' over there on the fourth line'.
>> (--- but if you use pico you'll still BURN in HELL.)
>
> What about TECO? Enquiring minds, and all that.
If you use TECO then Hell would have no effect on you anyway. You've
surpassed it.
> Dec 2003: "The Atrocity Archive" -- Golden Gryphon (US)
Waiting in much annoyance for the latest Spectrum to turn up in any of
the specialist SF bookstore in London. Eight months between parts 1
and 2 of that was too much, dammit, and now to find the second half
had been split into two, argh.
Warrick M. Locke
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Charlie Stross stated:
>
> > What about TECO? Enquiring minds, and all that.
>
> If you use TECO then Hell would have no effect on you anyway. You've
> surpassed it.
ROFLOL!
Heard at a DECUS meeting ca. 1978: "Don't worry about [the new text
editor]. It's just DEC's latest attempt to stamp out TECO."
Regards,
Ric
Charlie Stross
as <nix-ra...@esperi.demon.co.uk> declared:
>> Dec 2003: "The Atrocity Archive" -- Golden Gryphon (US)
>
> Waiting in much annoyance for the latest Spectrum to turn up in any of
> the specialist SF bookstore in London. Eight months between parts 1
> and 2 of that was too much, dammit, and now to find the second half
> had been split into two, argh.
You might be pleased (or not) to know that the hardback -- once the
bloody contract is sorted out -- should also include a companion
novella half as long as the novel, plus various other bits and pieces ...
-- Charlie
Nancy Lebovitz
Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Lisa Nelson spake:
>> "Charlie Stross" <cha...@antipope.org> wrote in message >
>>> (Yes, I edit novels with vi and build them using make. Haven't figured
>>> out how to use gdb on a space opera yet, though.)
>>
>> Adding Charlie Stross to "must read" list...
>
>The writing's enjoyable even to XEmacs users like me.
>
>Given that Charlie's references to topics first brought up by Vinge are
>frequent, and Vinge writes his stuff in Emacs, I think we can say that
>these are editor-agnostic stories. :)
>
>
> (--- but if you use pico you'll still BURN in HELL.)
If you use pico, you're already in hell.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com 100 new slogans
I want to move to theory. Everything works in theory.
Lisa Nelson
"Nancy Lebovitz" <na...@unix1.netaxs.com> wrote in message
news:k7CC9.326$az.3...@monger.newsread.com...
> In article <87wunh5...@amaterasu.srvr.nix>,
> Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Lisa Nelson spake:
> >> "Charlie Stross" <cha...@antipope.org> wrote in message >
> >>> (Yes, I edit novels with vi and build them using make. Haven't
figured
> >>> out how to use gdb on a space opera yet, though.)
> >>
> >> Adding Charlie Stross to "must read" list...
> >
> >The writing's enjoyable even to XEmacs users like me.
> >
> >Given that Charlie's references to topics first brought up by Vinge are
> >frequent, and Vinge writes his stuff in Emacs, I think we can say that
> >these are editor-agnostic stories. :)
> >
> >
> > (--- but if you use pico you'll still BURN in HELL.)
>
> If you use pico, you're already in hell.
Ah, but what would pico do to the story? I've got to assume that an
author's choice of editor would have some impact...
vi has this "every word ripped painfully from the hand" flavor to it that
would bring what, crankiness? very short stories that make every letter
count? How would Tad Williams write if he used vi?
Get an emacs geek going, and imagine the extrusion rate once the architypes
were automated.
--
Lisa
(who doesn't get along well with modal editors)
Nix
Yes, but that's *years* away --- it'll be 2004 at the earliest, won't
it? I might be dead of old age --- or frustration --- before then!
(Exaggerate? Moi? Surely you jest.)
... and I *still* can't find _The Other Wind_ anywhere, even though
other le Guin books are now being printed with `by the author of _The
Other Wind_' on the cover. Yeah, it's at Amazon, but without a credit
card that's not all that much use :(
Nix
> vi has this "every word ripped painfully from the hand" flavor to it that
> would bring what, crankiness? very short stories that make every letter
> count? How would Tad Williams write if he used vi?
Someone, please, take Peter F. Hamilton's wordprocessor away from him
and give him vi. (Setting an automated system up that applies pain
whenever he uses a comma splice is something we can leave for later.)
--- I'm sorry, I have to go now, the Church of Emacs's Enlithpment
Thquad[1] is taking me to the place of evaluation. (We don't have places
of execution in the Church, but this serves the same purpose.)
[1] others would call it an Enforcement Squad, but when lisped that sounds
like support for a lesser language than the Great Elisp.
> Get an emacs geek going, and imagine the extrusion rate once the architypes
> were automated.
The result would be called Emacsified Fantasy Product, I take it...
... but can text editors be paid royalties?
Nancy Lebovitz
>other le Guin books are now being printed with `by the author of _The
>Other Wind_' on the cover. Yeah, it's at Amazon, but without a credit
>card that's not all that much use :(
Is a debit card a possibility?