REVIEW _Bones of the Earth_ Swanwick
David Kennedy
Michael Swanwick
Harper Torch Fiction
ISBN 0380812894 (paperback)
I think I just read a classic.
No, really. I think I just read something that I'm going to
remember, want to re-read, and recommend for some time to
come.
Michael Swanwick is well known for his fiction. This
is his 7th novel, and people's expectations are high as his
backlist has such well regarded novels as _Stations of the
Tide_, _Vacuum Flowers_, _Jack Faust, and _The Iron Dragon's
Daughter_.
So what do you do when you've got a big SF novel to write?
You get out the ideas dice and roll it. Apparently the
popular "Spaceships" (these are slightly weighted dice)
didn't come up for once, but the old classic "Dinosaurs"
did. Still, better to safe than sorry, so apparently our
author rolled again and got another hoary old idea,
"Time Travel".
Well, I mean, dinosaurs!, how else can you work them into
a novel but to use time travel? Besides, it lets you
riff off Bradbury's classic short. (Except that in this
novel you're free to stomp on any butterflies with impunity
as you already stood on the fluttering menaces before you
came back to stand on them. Of course.)
At the beginning of the novel, Richard Leyster is a
young paleontologist. One day, a man called Griffin
arrives with a job offer and the head of a Stegosaurus.
A fresh head. In the hands of a lesser writer this would
be the script for a TV special, but in Swanwick's hands
this is material worthy of attention. For Swanwick has
done something else you see, he has written a novel which
looks like it's about Dinosaurs and Time-Travel, but
which is actually about something much rarer and harder
for most people to understand - he's writing about Scientists.
The thing about scientists, both those in the novel, and
those who share their world-view and are reading this novel,
is that they're not, well, very comfortable with the whole
idea of time-travel. In fact, just a few pages into the
novel, Leyster also dismisses time-travel.
The problem with time-travel as a story device is that it's
capricious - the very thing that makes it useful, the generation
of paradoxes, is the thing that makes it difficult to carry
off well. Either the fictional world quickly becomes riddled
with paradoxes, or the plot can be solved AT ANY POINT by
a character re-appearing to change things armed with foresight.
So, how does Swanwick handle this business? He revels in it.
He gleefully gets stuck into paradoxes, and the whole problems
with time travel. As soon as Leyster is inducted into the secret
by Griffin he's whisked away to a conference of time-travelling
paleontologists - people gleefully run up to get signatures
on papers not written yet, and much is made of keeping details
from Ahead away from those Behind. Very amusing stuff to read,
and very thought-provoking once the initial enjoyment wears
off as of course, there must be a way to resolve the paradoxical
nature and ensure that the time-lines aren't destroyed. Alas,
how that is managed is a spoiler, but I think the author
pulls it off with the ending. It might not be to everyone's
taste, but it satisfied me. (I'll need a reread to make sure I
don't find a flaw with it, but I think it's the only solution
which is open.) And no, it's not a _Darwinia_ style cheap stunt.
It does however, involve extra-terrestrials, big conspiracies
and sinister controlling overlords. Which is all good.
Going back a step, much is made of the ability to have issues
resolved by having a character appear from the future and
change things. This happens a lot, and isn't restricted to
just those crisis points where one is used to seeing TV and
film scripts turn to this device. Nope, in this novel, you
almost need to take notes at certain points to keep everything
straight. That said, I think the 3rd 1/4 of the book suffers
a little from an inconsistency - again, on re-read I might
disagree. Without spoiling, I think you'll know the section I
mean - the characters thus affected discuss the issue and
decide they are stuck with their predicament, as if they
weren't and rescue was on the way, IT'D ALREADY BE THERE...
Much as I enjoy time travel novels, I prefer dinosaurs.
Doesn't everyone? And boy, oh boy, did Swanwick do his homework
well. He shows a decent grasp of the various sciences involved
and doesn't shy away from talking about the process of science,
not only the high points, but also the years of depressingly
detailed work involved in getting even the slightest hint
of how these ancient beasts lived. The squabbles of funding,
and the achingly careful business of writing and publishing
papers is also discussed. As I said before, it's the scientists
that this novel is really about. There's a lovely little parable
on the last page or two (not a spoiler) about their worldview:
A man is locked in prison for the rest of his life. He has a
small window, a bit of sky. One day a bird comes to window with
a bit of straw and starts to nest in the window. Griffin is
asked what he'd do: would he capture the birds to train?
Steal their eggs to eat? Kill them in envy of their freedom?
Griffin elects to study them, just to observe them and wonder
about how and why they do what they do. He's asked why he
should bother if he's never going to leave the cell, and
if it's enough to justify living. (Knowing who asks him
that question makes it even more poignant.)
This question pops up in a few places in the book, and it's
an interesting one. To me anyway. There's a hell of a lot
of accomplished info-dumping, the good kind, in evidence
here too; much is made of the various periods/epochs/ages
and the differences in the critters therein. There's some
speculation too, including a nice theory about the predator-
prey relationships and the KT event. There's even some humour
- Cthuluraptor Imperator, Jabberwokias, and my favourite,
the Fubarodon. (No doubt, someone will now tell me that one
or more of these is a real organism). But the stuff I really
got a kick out of was the sense of of a real working scientific
life - the effort required to put together a T.Rex skeleton,
the anatomy that can be implied from a few bones, and the
amazing amount that can be derived from a few scratches in mud.
This is something not often encountered in fiction, and to
be honest, while pop science books are often excellently written
now and convey the excitement of discovery, even they shy
away from describing some of the more tedious exercises
underlying the Big Discoveries. And they almost never discuss
why the heck people devote their lives to such seemingly
pointless work...
I was less taken by some of the human relationships in the novel,
although they are perfectly decent pieces of writing certain
character's motivations were opaque to me occasionaly. The
laughable creationist terrorists, their worldview being laughable
and not the actions sadly, exist only as objects of authorial
derison, but at least one major plot thread depends on the life
choices of a willful female scientist, and while that plot thread
explores the nature of paradox and leads to the climax of
the book I still don't really understand why the character acted
in that way... Still, it's another reason to re-read, and
to be honest, I'm being rather picky. The plotting overall is
very tightly written considering the nature of the central
device, and most of the characters are fully fleshed people
adequate to their roles. A striking achievement.
In short, this reviewer (living in the Cenozoic era, Quaternary
period, Holocene epoch, Modern age) suggests that this novel is
a significant addition to the SF literature on time travel,
and recommends it very highly.
(Especially to grown adults who're still little boys having
a Conversion Moment in front of a dinosaur skeleton in a
museum...)
PS
A Google has just showed that there are no hits for Cthuluraptor
but that this novel is based on a short. I've not seen it, but
it seems _Scherzo with Tyrannosaur_ may be well known.
--
David Kennedy
Joel Baxter
> Bones of the Earth
> Michael Swanwick
> Harper Torch Fiction
> ISBN 0380812894 (paperback)
>
> I think I just read a classic.
A unique book, and I _think_ a very good one, although I'll have to read
it again to be sure. :-) Certainly one that sticks with you.
I've got a few comments below.
> At the beginning of the novel, Richard Leyster is a
> young paleontologist. One day, a man called Griffin
> arrives with a job offer and the head of a Stegosaurus.
> A fresh head.
A marvelous opening, it (along with my standing opinion of Swanwick's
work) sold me on the book pretty quickly.
It was a little disconcerting to experience the sudden shift that
happened directly after the opening passage. This is something that I
mentioned in a previous post about _BotE_; it was spoiler-protected Back
Then, but I think it's on par with the general level of spoilers in this
review, so I'll just lay it out here:
I really expected Swanwick to show us the protagonist being introduced
to the time travelling and the dinosaurs. It seemed like some great fun
was in store there. Instead we skip all that and go straight into petty
and sordid bureaucracy, with the characters all blase about the stuff
that I was still wanting to be excited about. D'oh.
> In the hands of a lesser writer this would
> be the script for a TV special, but in Swanwick's hands
> this is material worthy of attention. For Swanwick has
> done something else you see, he has written a novel which
> looks like it's about Dinosaurs and Time-Travel, but
> which is actually about something much rarer and harder
> for most people to understand - he's writing about Scientists.
And doing a pretty good job, as you say. There are nits to pick, but I
think that in this book Swanwick does writing-about-scientists more
entertainingly than (recent) Bear, and more accurately than Willis, to
pick on a couple of other authors who often take a whack at this task.
As mentioned above, I got whiplash from the speed at which Swanwick
subverted the reader's expectations about a "Dinosaurs And Time Travel
Oh My!" story ... but once the twinges from that experience faded,
things rolled along nicely.
> Going back a step, much is made of the ability to have issues
> resolved by having a character appear from the future and
> change things. This happens a lot, and isn't restricted to
> just those crisis points where one is used to seeing TV and
> film scripts turn to this device. Nope, in this novel, you
> almost need to take notes at certain points to keep everything
> straight. That said, I think the 3rd 1/4 of the book suffers
> a little from an inconsistency - again, on re-read I might
> disagree. Without spoiling, I think you'll know the section I
> mean - the characters thus affected discuss the issue and
> decide they are stuck with their predicament, as if they
> weren't and rescue was on the way, IT'D ALREADY BE THERE...
IIRC, at the time I read that scene, I thought that was an accurate
realization (and one that characters in a clunkier time-travelling story
would overlook); did you see a problem with it?
Something I don't specifically remember from the book is the way that
time travel was restricted; I vaguely recall that either the source or
destination needed a marker of some sort. Probably that has a bearing
on the situation.
> There's a lovely little parable
> on the last page or two (not a spoiler) about their worldview:
> A man is locked in prison for the rest of his life. He has a
> small window, a bit of sky. One day a bird comes to window with
> a bit of straw and starts to nest in the window. Griffin is
> asked what he'd do: would he capture the birds to train?
> Steal their eggs to eat? Kill them in envy of their freedom?
> Griffin elects to study them, just to observe them and wonder
> about how and why they do what they do. He's asked why he
> should bother if he's never going to leave the cell, and
> if it's enough to justify living. (Knowing who asks him
> that question makes it even more poignant.)
It's relevant to the big question that people are likely to have about
this book, after finishing it; I'll postpone my small contribution about
this to a Massive Spoilers Footnote.
> I was less taken by some of the human relationships in the novel,
> although they are perfectly decent pieces of writing certain
> character's motivations were opaque to me occasionaly. The
> laughable creationist terrorists, their worldview being laughable
> and not the actions sadly, exist only as objects of authorial
> derision,
Yeah... not as wincingly strident (again IIRC) as many authors would be
with such characters in their hands, but could have been better. On the
plus side, while the actions of the terrorists had a big influence on
the course of events in the book, we didn't have to spend a _lot_ of
time in their company; they weren't continuously on-stage villains.
> The plotting overall is
> very tightly written considering the nature of the central
> device, and most of the characters are fully fleshed people
> adequate to their roles. A striking achievement.
>
> In short, this reviewer (living in the Cenozoic era, Quaternary
> period, Holocene epoch, Modern age) suggests that this novel is
> a significant addition to the SF literature on time travel,
> and recommends it very highly.
No argument here!
OK, on to the Massive Spoilers Footnote:
The aforemention big question being: "what's the point?"
The entire contents of _BotE_ are in a temporal loop that gets squeezed
out of existence. I.e. as far as the universe is concerned (after the
end of the novel), _BotE_ didn't happen. I think a lot of readers will
instantly have a negative reaction to this; I did, anyway. However
(again, if my experience is typical) this reaction soon brings on a
realization which not only redeems _BotE_ but also provides other food
for thought.
Any piece of fiction is something that never happened. And even for any
sequence of non-fictional events, given enough time it will be as if
they had never happened. If there are any reasons that we can take any
pleasure (or lessons) from any tale, there's no reason why we can't do
the same for _BotE_.
In fact, the way it disappears into itself is rather tidy. To raid my
previous post one last time: "A strangely satisfying book."
David Kennedy
> David Kennedy wrote:
>> Bones of the Earth
>> Michael Swanwick
>
> work) sold me on the book pretty quickly.
What sold me wasn't the plonking down of the dino-head; it
was the section just prior to that where Leyster explains
why he's so excited by some muddy footprints, and how much
information can be squeezed from them. The fact that the
author knew enough to realise the import of footprints
and had a section on it BEFORE THE STORY started was the
thing that sold me. Of course, it also added the unbearable
contrast between the information Leystar has to work with and
the information he could have.
>> Without spoiling, I think you'll know the section I
>> mean - the characters thus affected discuss the issue and
>> decide they are stuck with their predicament, as if they
>> weren't and rescue was on the way, IT'D ALREADY BE THERE...
>
> IIRC, at the time I read that scene, I thought that was an accurate
> realization (and one that characters in a clunkier time-travelling story
> would overlook); did you see a problem with it?
Erm, in the end it was resolved, and if it was resolved, then
they could have been spared all the problems - find them,
now go back and find them in the same place, but earlier.
Like I said, it's a long section and I'll need to re-read
to see if the author explained that one away.
> OK, on to the Massive Spoilers Footnote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The aforemention big question being: "what's the point?"
>
> The entire contents of _BotE_ are in a temporal loop that gets squeezed
> out of existence. I.e. as far as the universe is concerned (after the
> end of the novel), _BotE_ didn't happen. I think a lot of readers will
> instantly have a negative reaction to this; I did, anyway.
I didn't, mainly because I couldn't see any other way it could be
allowed to happen at all. (Okay, so I'm a physicist by training,
and time travel always makes me nervous) I can see how it's a disappointing
end from a human point of view, but from the point of view of the
scientific hand-waving it works, and from the point of view of
the Story, it works, and from the point of view of the question; "Would
you want to know even if no-one else would ever learn from your
observations?", I think it worked.
> Any piece of fiction is something that never happened. And even for any
> sequence of non-fictional events, given enough time it will be as if
> they had never happened. If there are any reasons that we can take any
> pleasure (or lessons) from any tale, there's no reason why we can't do
> the same for _BotE_.
Hadn't thought of that; I think I like that idea too.
> In fact, the way it disappears into itself is rather tidy. To raid my
> previous post one last time: "A strangely satisfying book."
Yep, the ending doesn't just unravel, it does make a certain sense.
But mainly I enjoyed the dinosaurs...
--
David Kennedy
Laila Wolf
I'll admit that your review sure does make the book sound interesting, but
after recently haven become acquainted with Mr. Swanwick's pro-terrorism
stance, I find it very difficult to justify purchasing his book. There are
plenty of other authors that I haven't tried yet who prefer to keep their
anti-life standards to themselves. I'll try one of those instead.
It is actually pretty queer that he is a member of SWFA since he is clearly
an anti-American belgian waffle, and not an American.
Andrew Wheeler
>
> Isn't this the same guy who is distributing that pro-Hussein crap?
>
I'm sorry, but you need to read the statement again. I'm sure, given a
little time, you'll be able to come up with a better -- and possibly
even *accurate* -- insult.
--
Andrew Wheeler
--
"It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on
a kite over Central Park." -Jim Moran
Karl M Syring
> Laila Wolf wrote:
>>
>> Isn't this the same guy who is distributing that pro-Hussein crap?
>>
> <several more lines of ill-informed babble deleted>
>
> I'm sorry, but you need to read the statement again. I'm sure, given a
> little time, you'll be able to come up with a better -- and possibly
> even *accurate* -- insult.
<deleting rant from brain>
That one seems to be a deliberate troll, as both addresses
are from _@sexmagnet.com. Makes it easier write an entry in
the kill-file.
Karl M. Syring
James Nicoll
Laila Wolf <la...@sexmagnet.com> wrote:
>
>I'll admit that your review sure does make the book sound interesting, but
>after recently haven become acquainted with Mr. Swanwick's pro-terrorism
>stance, I find it very difficult to justify purchasing his book. There are
>plenty of other authors that I haven't tried yet who prefer to keep their
>anti-life standards to themselves. I'll try one of those instead.
You seem to have confused Mr. Swanwick with Darkseid.
Swanwick is the one *without* Omega Beams coming out of
his eyes.
--
"About this time, I started getting depressed. Probably the late
hour and the silence. I decided to put on some music.
Boy, that Billie Holiday can sing."
_Why I Hate Saturn_, Kyle Baker
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
Actually, the sender is in Israel. (Which makes it a little bit easier
to understand, but not a little bit easier to accept obvious lies.)
Has cable access.
Sender's abuse address: use...@netvision.net.il
So, anybody wants to make a complaint to Netvision about hir
behaviour? Be sure to forward all the headers.
vlatko
dem outlook express users. You can't run. You can't hide, especially
not by changing the address in the From field.
--
http://www.niribanimeso.org/eng/
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
Karl M Syring
> Actually, the sender is in Israel. (Which makes it a little bit easier
> to understand, but not a little bit easier to accept obvious lies.)
> Has cable access.
>
> Sender's abuse address: use...@netvision.net.il
>
> So, anybody wants to make a complaint to Netvision about hir
> behaviour? Be sure to forward all the headers.
I just look for simple ways to kill off the stuff, otherwise
the storm approaching will be just to annoying. Guess,
how many years it will last?
Karl M. Syring
Del Cotter
Andrew Wheeler <acwh...@optonline.com> said:
>Laila Wolf wrote:
><several more lines of ill-informed babble deleted>
*Not* ill-informed... trolling. You don't think that's a real person
posting as la...@sexmagnet.com?
It just wants to start a fight. Don't be the poster who rises to it.
--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead::NeilGaimanAmericanGods:GwynethJonesBoldAsLove:KenMacLeodDarkLi
ght:DamonKnightWhyDoBirds:JRRTolkienTheTwoTowers:RobertCharlesWilsonBios
ToRead:GuyGavrielKaySailingToSarantium:ChinaMievilleTheScar:ChristopherP
Laila Wolf
news:pQeMzcCo...@branta.demon.co.uk...
>
> *Not* ill-informed... trolling. You don't think that's a real person
> posting as la...@sexmagnet.com?
>
I am a very real person. The fact that I use an email alias to preserve the
sanity of my personal and professional mail accounts has nothing to do with
it. I am very consistent in using the real email account la...@sexmagnet.com
for any public listings. My other accounts are very strictly filtered. If
Locke and Demonsthes can do it, why can't I?
I'm not a troll either. I expressed an opinion. You can either agree with
it, disagree with it, or ignore me entirely because you don't like the email
alias that I have chosen. These are all very reasonable choices. But to
accuse me of trolling is irresponsible. The opinion that I expressed was
entirely candid and supported by my reasoning.
I will not buy any books from this author because he has sponsored a
pro-Iraqi protest. I defend his right to speak out when he feels it is
necessary, and I'm sure that Mr. Swanwick would defend my right to boycott
his products. Today I was at a store, and I noticed that a set of bowls that
I had intended to purchase were from France. At the last minute, I
remembered to check the country of production, and returned them to the
shelves in favor of a set of Spanish bowls. Why should I act any differently
with books?
Mr. Swanwick is like France. He isn't satisified with objecting, he goes
around and urges others to object as well. At his urging, I too object. I
object to using his "fame" as a writer to try to influence the decisions
made by the freely elected leaders of a republic. Perhaps Mr. Swanwick and
company would feel more comfortable living in an Iraqesque republic rather
than a real republic, where the elected represenatives face free elections
every few years.
Perhaps Mr. Swanwick prefers the Iraqi styled elitist regime. After all, Mr.
Swanwick must think himself worthy of being in the elite few capable of
making decisions for the stupid masses uncapable of thinking for themselves.
Why else would he start that petition?
Rebecca Ore
> Perhaps Mr. Swanwick prefers the Iraqi styled elitist regime. After all, Mr.
> Swanwick must think himself worthy of being in the elite few capable of
> making decisions for the stupid masses uncapable of thinking for themselves.
> Why else would he start that petition?
Yer nuts.
--
Rebecca Ore
Randy Money
Okay, so now I have to go buy a book by Michael Swanwick, one by Rebecca
Ore, a CD by the Dixie Chicks and crockery from France to offset all the
things Laila won't be buying any longer.
I can do this, but will you other authors please not issue anymore
anti-Bush statements. I can't afford anything or anyone more going on
Laila's s--t list.
Randy M.
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
Nah. Nuts have more taste.
vlatko
Nomad
"Randy Money" <rbm...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> wrote in message
news:3E775464...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu...
Of course I will be boycotting those products as well, so we are still one
up on you.
Karl M Syring
>
> I can do this, but will you other authors please not issue anymore
> anti-Bush statements. I can't afford anything or anyone more going on
> Laila's s--t list.
Hmmh, we are quite relaxed, yet.
Karl M. Syring,
now with kill-file containing 101 enties,
because the Magenty Sky was falling.
Karl M Syring
>
> Of course I will be boycotting those products as well, so we are still one
> up on you.
Dang, how did this little ignorant stinker escape from my fill-file?
Karl M. Syring
Randy Money
DANG!
Now I have to recruit others!
Randy M.
David Kennedy
> I'm not a troll [snip] I will not buy any books from [Michael
> Swanwick] because he has sponsored a pro-Iraqi protest.
Okay. Taking you at face value; could you be specific about
what you are complaining about? I am genuinely ignorant of
any such statement and would like a reference to go to.
(Google didn't get anything sensible for once; lots of book
talk but nothing related to Iraq.)
However, I'm remaining silent as to whether I would agree
or disagree with Swanwick, whether I agree or disagree
that the author's opinions have any impact on my
enjoyment of his work, and on whether it is correct or
effective to boycott.
--
David Kennedy
Rebecca Ore
The idea of calling Michael an elitist is what was nuts.
Swanwick tends to do things like point out that we writers in a good
year are really about socio-economically at a level with plumbers and
cops.
I doubt he'd think they should shut up either.
--
Rebecca Ore
Rebecca Ore
Hah, and you will miss the secret plans for taking over the world
embedded in these acts of art and we will win.
--
Rebecca Ore
Dan Goodman
$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com:
> Laila Wolf <la...@sexmagnet.com> wrote:
>> I'm not a troll [snip] I will not buy any books from [Michael
>> Swanwick] because he has sponsored a pro-Iraqi protest.
>
> Okay. Taking you at face value; could you be specific about
> what you are complaining about?
> I am genuinely ignorant of
> any such statement and would like a reference to go to.
> (Google didn't get anything sensible for once; lots of book
> talk but nothing related to Iraq.)
There wasn't any such statement. Swanwick opposes going to war with Iraq,
and wants other sf/fantasy writers to join him in protest. This isn't the
same thing as "pro-Iraqi protest" -- but apparently, Laila Wolf lacks the
clarity of mind to discern the difference.
JoatSimeon
>This isn't the same thing as "pro-Iraqi protest" --
-- it would be more accurate to call it an anti-Iraqi protest; that is, to use
the old Marxist terminology, it's "objectively pro-Saddam".
Not that Michael actually _wants_ to protect Saddam; he's muddle-headed on the
issue, not wicked.
I'm going to continue buying his books, although I had a sharp exchange with
him on this, before he (very courteously) removed the word "SFWA" from his
petition.
It's a free country; he has a right to his position and to make it plain with
others of like (deluded and wrong) mind.
Dan Goodman
news:20030319013851...@mb-mo.aol.com:
I think a high percentage of people on both sides are deluded.
And it's quite likely that both sides are wrong.
That aside -- there's one writer whose books I've stopped reading because
of the political content. As a percentage of the novel, the last one I
tried exceeded my limit. (For comparison, _Atlas Shrugged_ didn't.) And my
tolerance for conspiracy theories has been dwindling.
And there's a pair of frequent collaborators whose joint work I've mostly
been skipping lately, for much the same reasons. When they write as
individuals, I don't have that problem.
Laila Wolf
"David Kennedy" <da...@dkennedy.org> wrote in message
news:3e779f09$0$22004$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> Okay. Taking you at face value; could you be specific about
> what you are complaining about? I am genuinely ignorant of
> any such statement and would like a reference to go to.
Nomad
news:Xns9343C596BAB...@209.98.13.60...
> >
> I think a high percentage of people on both sides are deluded.
>
> And it's quite likely that both sides are wrong.
Actually no, it's very clear which side is deluded and wrong.
Doug
I really don't see anything specific there. I'm anti-war myself, for
the reasons stated on Swanwick's page as well as some others. Being
anti-war isn't the same as being pro-Saddam, however, a distinction
many hawks seem unable to appreciate.
Doug
Mark
That's hardly a "pro-Iraqi" statement. It's antiwar. There are
always more than two positions in something this complex--although in
the scream of rhetoric it can be difficult to tell how many other,
quite valid, positions there may be--and assuming that because someone
opposes one position he/she is automatically for the opposite position
is simpleminded. That's hardly something to be expected of SF
readers.
It amazes me how quickly this country can get itself polarized into a
view wherein opposition to war--which, when there isn't one looming or
being fought, almost everyone opposes in principle and on moral
grounds--is instantly characterized as anti-American by those who
think the only solution is to thump the shit out of someone.
Mark
author of:
COMPASS REACH
METAL OF NIGHT
PEACE & MEMORY (forthcoming)
www.marktiedemann.com
how...@brazee.net
On 19-Mar-2003, "Nomad" <desert....@verizon.net> wrote:
> > I think a high percentage of people on both sides are deluded.
> >
> > And it's quite likely that both sides are wrong.
>
>
> Actually no, it's very clear which side is deluded and wrong.
And both sides are very clear that the other side is deluded and wrong.
Actually, more than two sides are clear that the other sides are deluded and
wrong.
Bruce Hollebone
>>From: Dan Goodman dsg...@visi.com
>
>>This isn't the same thing as "pro-Iraqi protest" --
>
> -- it would be more accurate to call it an anti-Iraqi
> protest; that is, to use the old Marxist terminology, it's
> "objectively pro-Saddam".
You're exluding the middle. That was the primamry error of Marx.
That's also Bush's real error. Good, evil, nothing else.
Swanwick's petition is one of an loyal American Republican, but
emphatically not that of an American Imperialist. The
Imperialist, Bush-Cheney doctrine is that of exporting the
american revolution (call it intervention, pre-emption or
liberation). The Republican argument is that of Adams: "We are
the friends of liberty everywhere but the guardians only of our
own".
The biggest falacy in the current American world view is "us or
them". The reality is us, them and about 5.5 billion other
sides.
--
Kind Regards,
Bruce.
Rebecca Ore
The one with the harshest rhetoric is normally the one.
Who gets called pedophiles on Usenet and who is called a pedophile on
Usenet should be the clue.
--
Rebecca Ore
Rebecca Ore
> The biggest falacy in the current American world view is "us or
> them". The reality is us, them and about 5.5 billion other
> sides.
A sane statement. You must be right.
--
Rebecca Ore
Rebecca Ore
OOo, cool, it's not just for SWFA members, so I've emailed Michael
asking him to add me to his petition.
--
Rebecca Ore
Nomad
"Rebecca Ore" <ogoen...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:m3vfyfi...@pyrophore.ogoense.local...
I've neither called nor been called either one.
Given that the "peace" protestors routinely call the President everything
under the sun, up to and including Nazi, I would say that the side with the
harshest rhetoric is most definitely the anti-war crowd.
Rebecca Ore
When I was an anti-war protestor at Columbia, my roommate, who was not
an activist, was the one who called Nixon a Nazi and had both me and a
Swedish woman jump all over her for that.
--
Rebecca Ore
Nomad
If only the current crop of protestors had your class.
Rebecca Ore
I suspect that all those who signed Swanwick's anti-war petition have
as much or more. It's pretty much a list of the people I respect the
most in the field, from Fred Pohl (despite arguments over the
Membership Committee) to some of the best new writers in the field.
And I don't have to spend $50 to do it, thanks to the SFWA folks who
protested Michael's limiting the signers to just members of the
organization (probably *not* what the people who hassled him over
mentioning SFWA intended, but there are always unintended
consequences).
--
Rebecca Ore
David Kennedy
How did I miss that? (Maybe I googled for a mispelling...)
I apologise for thinking you were mindlessly trolling for
a reaction.
--
David Kennedy
Ron Henry
news:zy2ea.35613$Ad6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> "Rebecca Ore" <ogoen...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:m3vfyfi...@pyrophore.ogoense.local...
> > "Nomad" <desert....@verizon.net> writes:
> >
> > > "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@visi.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Xns9343C596BAB...@209.98.13.60...
> > > > >
> > > > I think a high percentage of people on both sides are deluded.
> > > >
> > > > And it's quite likely that both sides are wrong.
> > >
> > > Actually no, it's very clear which side is deluded and wrong.
> > >
> > The one with the harshest rhetoric is normally the one.
> >>
> Given that the "peace" protestors routinely call the President
everything
> under the sun, up to and including Nazi, I would say that the side
with the
> harshest rhetoric is most definitely the anti-war crowd.
You apparently don't read Ann Coulter or listen to AM radio talk shows.
I suggest more research before you draw conclusions.
Ron Henry
Craig Richardson
wrote:
[piggybacking]
>"Rebecca Ore" <ogoen...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:m3vfyfi...@pyrophore.ogoense.local...
>> "Nomad" <desert....@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>> > "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@visi.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns9343C596BAB...@209.98.13.60...
>> > > >
>> > > I think a high percentage of people on both sides are deluded.
>> > >
>> > > And it's quite likely that both sides are wrong.
>> >
>> > Actually no, it's very clear which side is deluded and wrong.
>> >
>> The one with the harshest rhetoric is normally the one.
In other words, you agree that it's both sides.
Both sides have a core to which the issues are irrelevant, whose
allegiance was determined before any of this even got started - a pox
on all of these, as even if they're right, it's only by accident.
Both sides also have people who have looked at the available
information and made a choice. It's possible that one of these groups
is right. It's possible that, due to flaws in the information,
neither of them is right. It's even possible that *there is no right
answer*.
I'd like to believe, so we can learn from it next time round, that
someone out there is right. But I'm not going to put money on it.
--Craig
--
Managing the Devil Rays is something like competing on "Iron Chef",
and having Chairman Kaga reveal a huge ziggurat of lint.
Gary Huckabay, Baseball Prospectus Online, August 21, 2002
Nomad
news:b5alq9$g1f$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> You apparently don't read Ann Coulter or listen to AM radio talk shows.
> I suggest more research before you draw conclusions.
>
No, I don't read Coulter, but I do listen to a couple AM talk shows. The
ones I listen to don't call anyone a Nazi.
Rebecca Ore
>
> Both sides have a core to which the issues are irrelevant, whose
> allegiance was determined before any of this even got started - a pox
> on all of these, as even if they're right, it's only by accident.
Yeah, but I wasn't upset about going after the Taliban in Afganistan.
Neither side should be judged by their loonies -- loonies are
attracted to anything that will get them out of themselves.
> Both sides also have people who have looked at the available
> information and made a choice. It's possible that one of these groups
> is right. It's possible that, due to flaws in the information,
> neither of them is right. It's even possible that *there is no right
> answer*.
It's also possible that different people see success in different
ways. Kipling saw the British as educators, not as permanently
superior to the people in India -- but that was not the way every
British colonial administrator saw things. A number of them really
did see the Hindus as inferior in a quite racist sort of way, along
the same lines as bigotry toward the Japanese.
If the point of the exercise is to bring democracy to the region, one
serious barrier to our kind of democracy is that many people see
themselves as members of a family/tribe first and in economic and
political competition in sometimes deadly terms with other families.
If the point of th exercise is to keep the region under American
influence and to make Iraq an object lesson to the Saudis, then that's
yet again another yardstick.
> I'd like to believe, so we can learn from it next time round, that
> someone out there is right. But I'm not going to put money on it.
>
Right by what set of criteria?
If the alternatives are being very poor and not necessarily getting
enough to eat or being able to protect one's family, killing for power
makes sense. That's been the human condition through most of history.
If the alternative is losing power today, having a reasonably okay
life, and getting elected back in office, as happened in one of the
Baltic states to a former Communist ruler, then not holding on to
power at all costs makes sense.
--
Rebecca Ore
Nancy Lebovitz
Bruce Hollebone <bone...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>The biggest falacy in the current American world view is "us or
>them". The reality is us, them and about 5.5 billion other
>sides.
If the rest of the world is 5.5 billion sides, then the US probably
doesn't count as one unified "us", either.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Now, with bumper stickers
Using your turn signal is not "giving information to the enemy"
Bruce Hollebone
> In article
> <Xns934368B0F7764bo...@129.250.170.97>,
> Bruce Hollebone <bone...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>The biggest falacy in the current American world view is
>>"us or them". The reality is us, them and about 5.5 billion
>>other sides.
>
> If the rest of the world is 5.5 billion sides, then the US
> probably doesn't count as one unified "us", either.
That's my point. The current debate has been cast that way.
Whenever a pundit says "It's our side or the enemy's", they are
excluding the middle, and are either wrong or dishonest.
--
Kind Regards,
Bruce.
@hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
wrote:
>Isn't this the same guy who is distributing that pro-Hussein crap?
Kook.
Plonk.