The Novels of Will Shetterly
James Nicoll
had words with Shetterly in the past. With one or two exceptions I
try to decouple my views of books from my perception of the author
as a person (And when I don't, it just means I stop buying their
books) but I can't guarentee I have done so, so here's a disclaimer:
I think Shetterly is a well intended nit-wit. Strangely enough, it
does not seem to inhibit his ability to write.
Cats Have No Lord
This features a fantasy world where a god once divided itself,
creating the world. If it ever re-unites, this will mean the end of the
universe. Since many of the inhabitants of the universe have issues with
being snuffed out, they looked for and found a solution to this threat.
That's the backstory. The solution is subject to being interfered
with and that process is what this book is about.
It's been 17 years since I read this (I only had a borrowed copy
and for some reason I never ran across a new or used one) and most of the
details are hazy. I do recall liking it and I do recall a reference to
very famous scene in another fantasy novel. Heh.
Witchblood
Young man finds a community of witches, natural adepts who abused
their abilities before being forced out of power and turned into an oppressed
minority. The young man's backstory is more complex than he knows. Decent
enough page turner.
The Tangled Lands
In a way, a sequel to _Cats Have No Lord_. Didn't care for the
nature of the connection, didn't like the characters, didn't like the
book.
Elsewhere
This is a Bordertown novel (a setting where Fairie has returned,
a mixed blessing at best). I thought I read it if I did it fell out of
my memory. There's something about the whole Bordertown setting which sets
my teeth on edge. Not enough binding of Fairie with cold iron and forcing
the pests out of the world for my taste, I think.
Nevernever
A sequel to Elsewhere, equally unmemorable. I know I read it, I
checked my library and it is in the read-books section. I think I just
don't care for the setting, nothing to do with Shetterly.
Dogland
Gets good buzz but it is in the To Be Read Pile.
Chimera
Deep issues about oppression handled in a shallow manner, this
features various hi-tech props in an incoherent and incomplete setting.
Still quite readable in a mindless way, like Amistad might be if it had
been redone as a Very Special Episode of T.J. Hooker.
Double Feature (With Emma Bull)
I seem to have missed this one. I generally like Bull's work,
so have high expectations of this one.
Shetterly was also involved in the Liavek anthology series,
which I quite liked and I _think_ he was involved in _Captain Confederacy_
a comic book which I recall as readable but marred by hamfisted art.
Knowing what I do now about some of Shetterly's views on the War to
Preserve Slavery (He's a State's Rightser, although a left wing one, a
bit of a rarity) it'd be interesting to reread this with that information
in mind.
James Nicoll
--
"I think you mean 'Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by
SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge
for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'"
Alison Brooks (? - 2002)
Andrew Plotkin
> Double Feature (With Emma Bull)
> I seem to have missed this one. I generally like Bull's work,
> so have high expectations of this one.
A NESFA collection, not a novel. Mostly stuff I'd seen before.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Will Shetterly
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> here's a disclaimer:
> I think Shetterly is a well intended nit-wit. Strangely enough, it
> does not seem to inhibit his ability to write.
Thank you; sometimes I think that if you want to write, it helps to be a
well-intended nitwit. To say that all writers are arrogant is--I hope,
obviously--a great oversimplification, but I like to think that all
writers believe they have something worth saying.
> Cats Have No Lord
>
> <SNIP> I do recall liking it and I do recall a reference to
> very famous scene in another fantasy novel. Heh.
At the time, I thought it was homage, since the scene merged elements
from two Goldman duelling scenes (in THE PRINCESS BRIDE and BUTCH
CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) in what I thought was a clever way. Since
then, I try to avoid homage. It so often looks like plagiarism, and too
often is.
> The Tangled Lands
>
> In a way, a sequel to _Cats Have No Lord_. Didn't care for the
> nature of the connection, didn't like the characters, didn't like the
> book.
Ditto. It's my problem child. I confess, I'm always surprised and
pleased when I hear from readers who do like it.
> Dogland
>
> Gets good buzz but it is in the To Be Read Pile.
It gets the best reviews. I think it's my best work, but even if I
wasn't a well-intended nitwit, you should never trust the writer's
opinion of the work--Arthur Conan Doyle didn't think much of his
Sherlock Holmes stories.
> Double Feature (With Emma Bull)
>
> I seem to have missed this one. I generally like Bull's work,
> so have high expectations of this one.
It's a short story collection from Nesfa Press; it has all of our
earliest short pieces. I think my best short stories were written later,
but Emma's are swell.
> Shetterly was also involved in the Liavek anthology series,
> which I quite liked and I _think_ he was involved in _Captain Confederacy_
> a comic book which I recall as readable but marred by hamfisted art.
> Knowing what I do now about some of Shetterly's views on the War to
> Preserve Slavery (He's a State's Rightser, although a left wing one, a
> bit of a rarity) it'd be interesting to reread this with that information
> in mind.
Yep, Captain Confederacy was mine. My favorite part was the letter's
column.
Warning: this may be an off-topic clarification of your comment. Calling
me a States Rightser makes sense if you really believe that the American
Civil War was, from the South's point of view, a War to Preserve
Slavery. But to say that, you have to ignore such things as the fact
that the North's most famous general, Grant, kept his slaves until after
the war, while the South's most famous general, Lee, freed his slaves
much earlier. Lincoln waited to issue the Emancipation Proclamation
until 1863, two years after the war's beginning, and it only freed
slaves in states that had seceded. Slavery remained legal in loyal Union
slave states until after Lincoln's death and the war's end. Of course
slavery was a primary reason for abolitionists to fight, but for others,
the reasons went beyond slavery, and the consequences have affected far
more than race relations in the U.S. My favorite illustration of this is
that before the Civil War, it was the convention to refer to the United
States as a plural: "The United States are..." The Civil War changed
that to the singular: "The United States is...", moving the stress from
"States" to "United."
Will
Konrad Gaertner
>
> In article <a84sot$ih8$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
> jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
> > here's a disclaimer:
> > I think Shetterly is a well intended nit-wit. Strangely enough, it
> > does not seem to inhibit his ability to write.
>
> Thank you; sometimes I think that if you want to write, it helps to be a
> well-intended nitwit.
How many authors have claimed themselves to be well intended nit-wtis?
> To say that all writers are arrogant is--I hope,
> obviously--a great oversimplification, but I like to think that all
> writers believe they have something worth saying.
That should be obvious too; what's the point of reading something if
the *author* doesn't think it's worth saying? Arguably even the
Extruders think they have something worth saying.
> > Shetterly was also involved in the Liavek anthology series,
> > which I quite liked
I'm currently going through the Liavek stories, and I was wondering
if you knew of any stories that weren't published in the original
five volumes. I'm already getting (through interlibrary loan) Ford's
_Casting Fortune_ for "The Illusionist".
--KG
Michael S. Schiffer
<shetterly-CD7E7...@testnews.chatlink.com>:
>...
>Warning: this may be an off-topic clarification of your comment.
>Calling me a States Rightser makes sense if you really believe
>that the American Civil War was, from the South's point of view, a
>War to Preserve Slavery. But to say that, you have to ignore such
>things as the fact that the North's most famous general, Grant,
>kept his slaves until after the war, while the South's most famous
>general, Lee, freed his slaves much earlier. Lincoln waited to
>issue the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863, two years after
>the war's beginning, and it only freed slaves in states that had
>seceded. Slavery remained legal in loyal Union slave states until
>after Lincoln's death and the war's end.
>...
I deeply don't want to see another endless Civil War thread on rasfw.
But I have to note that everything you mention there (with the
exception of Lee's personal action) points to *Northern* motives for
the war, not "the South's point of view". It's a simplification, but
not a particularly inaccurate one, to say that the South seceded to
preserve slavery, and the North fought them to preserve the Union.
(It's easy enough to find the various documents of secession for the
Southern states, all of which mention slavery-- and some of which
don't mention anything else-- as their reason for secession.) The
Southern states had no interest in states' rights when it involved,
e.g., letting states choose whether to enforce slaveowners' property
rights in their slaves, or to determine who could be a legal resident
of that state (hence the Fugitive Slave Act and Dred Scott).
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Rachel Brown
>
> > here's a disclaimer:
> > I think Shetterly is a well intended nit-wit. Strangely enough, it
> > does not seem to inhibit his ability to write.
>
> Thank you; sometimes I think that if you want to write, it helps to be a
> well-intended nitwit.
Will, you crack me up. I saw your name (actually, I didn't notice the
thread till now) and was about to e-mail you and tell you to get back
on the usenet wagon, but I just had to publicly appreciate that
exchange. Now get back on the wagon. Aren't you supposed to be
writing a sequel to DOGLAND right now?
> > Dogland
> >
> > Gets good buzz but it is in the To Be Read Pile.
>
> It gets the best reviews. I think it's my best work, but even if I
> wasn't a well-intended nitwit, you should never trust the writer's
> opinion of the work--Arthur Conan Doyle didn't think much of his
> Sherlock Holmes stories.
In this case, I think Will's right. I wrote more about DOGLAND
recently in the thread on Tor's Starscape line, saying that it was a
fine novel but doubting that younger teenagers would enjoy it, and got
some argument on the latter point but none on the former.
> > Double Feature (With Emma Bull)
> >
> > I seem to have missed this one. I generally like Bull's work,
> > so have high expectations of this one.
>
> It's a short story collection from Nesfa Press; it has all of our
> earliest short pieces. I think my best short stories were written later,
> but Emma's are swell.
Isn't most of the stuff in DOUBLE FEATURE also available in various
BORDERLANDS anthologies, which may be easier to come by?
> > Shetterly was also involved in the Liavek anthology series,
> > which I quite liked
A wonderful series, with great work not only by Will and Emma Bull,
but with stories by John M. Ford and Pamela Dean that rank among their
best work. Steven Brust, Jane Yolen, Alan Moore, and Patricia Wrede
also have excellent stories. As a bonus, there are five volumes, and
the last one brings all the ongoing stories to satisfying conclusions.
Highly recommended. Try abebooks.com.
> Warning: this may be an off-topic clarification of your comment.
NOOOO! Please don't clarify your politics on rasfw! You'll be sorry
you did, trust me.
Rachel
Rachel Brown
> > jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> >
> > > here's a disclaimer:
> > > I think Shetterly is a well intended nit-wit. Strangely enough, it
> > > does not seem to inhibit his ability to write.
> >
> > Thank you; sometimes I think that if you want to write, it helps to be a
> > well-intended nitwit.
>
> How many authors have claimed themselves to be well intended nit-wtis?
If Will could impart half of that attitude to certain Baen
author/posters (NOT Lois Bujold), and they could give Will half their
collective sales figures, the world would be a happier, better, more
peaceful place. Well, it would make me happy, anyway.
> > To say that all writers are arrogant is--I hope,
> > obviously--a great oversimplification, but I like to think that all
> > writers believe they have something worth saying.
>
> That should be obvious too; what's the point of reading something if
> the *author* doesn't think it's worth saying? Arguably even the
> Extruders think they have something worth saying.
Terry Brooks apparently once said, "I write about elves because they
have so much to teach us." I haven't got a cite from the quote, but I
heard it from a reputable source.
Rachel
Will Shetterly
rpho...@mediaone.net (Rachel Brown) wrote:
> Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com> wrote
> > jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> >
> > > Double Feature (With Emma Bull)
> > >
> > > I seem to have missed this one. I generally like Bull's work,
> > > so have high expectations of this one.
> >
> > It's a short story collection from Nesfa Press; it has all of our
> > earliest short pieces. I think my best short stories were written later,
> > but Emma's are swell.
>
> Isn't most of the stuff in DOUBLE FEATURE also available in various
> BORDERLANDS anthologies, which may be easier to come by?
Hardly "most." If I remember correctly (god, it's proof you're lazy when
you don't bother to check your own book), there's only one Borderlands
story in it, and it's a slightly different version than the one in the
Borderlands anthology.
> > Warning: this may be an off-topic clarification of your comment.
>
> NOOOO! Please don't clarify your politics on rasfw! You'll be sorry
> you did, trust me.
I intend to be strong. Did you see the WEST WING episode with Josh
posting to a web site? I'll slip away into the ether shortly.
Will
Will Shetterly
I also don't want to see another endless Civil War thread on rasfw. But
I have to note that Lee's personal action is significant; why was he
fighting, if the cause was slavery? The man was hardly a fool. More
significantly, if the purpose was slavery, why did Davis's government
consider giving up slavery in the last days of the war in the hope of
succeeding? Yes, slavery was significant. Yes, it was an issue. But to
say it's the cause seems to me to be a great oversimplification.
And the South had a great interest in state's rights. Look at their
vice-president's remarkable lack of support for the country.
All the above is meant as further clarification, not debate, honest,
honest, honest.
Will
Will Shetterly
Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Will Shetterly wrote:
> >
> > In article <a84sot$ih8$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
> > jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> >
> > > here's a disclaimer:
> > > I think Shetterly is a well intended nit-wit. Strangely enough, it
> > > does not seem to inhibit his ability to write.
> >
> > Thank you; sometimes I think that if you want to write, it helps to be a
> > well-intended nitwit.
>
> How many authors have claimed themselves to be well intended nit-wtis?
Do you mean, other than by the evidence of their work?
>
> > To say that all writers are arrogant is--I hope,
> > obviously--a great oversimplification, but I like to think that all
> > writers believe they have something worth saying.
>
> That should be obvious too; what's the point of reading something if
> the *author* doesn't think it's worth saying? Arguably even the
> Extruders think they have something worth saying.
Alas, there are a number of writers who're simply in it for the money.
Their work usually has little in it to remember, and is rarely
reprinted. (Johnson had it wrong; only blockheads write for money.)
Who're the Extruders?
>
> > > Shetterly was also involved in the Liavek anthology series,
> > > which I quite liked
>
> I'm currently going through the Liavek stories, and I was wondering
> if you knew of any stories that weren't published in the original
> five volumes. I'm already getting (through interlibrary loan) Ford's
> _Casting Fortune_ for "The Illusionist".
To the best of my extremely imperfect memory, that's the only Liavek
story that wasn't in the five volumes. It was purely a problem of space.
I'd love to see the stories reprinted with Mike's included.
Will
Htn963
>Alas, there are a number of writers who're simply in it for the money.
>Their work usually has little in it to remember, and is rarely
>reprinted.
Or else it is reprinted too often. It's the writers who care who are are
often screwed.
> (Johnson had it wrong; only blockheads write for money.)
Lol. Good one.
>Who're the Extruders?
Writers who specialize in Extruded Fantasy Products (EFP) a termed often
employed in this newsgroup for uninspired and unoriginal fantasy works, often
retreading well-worn themes, characters, settings and situations that have
already been done by past masters, notably Tolkien.
(And out of curiosity, what happened between you and James Nicoll?)
--
Ht
|Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
--John Donne, "Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions"|
Richard Harter
wrote:
Coming soon at a theater near you: "Learns From Elves", starring
Kevin Costner.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net,
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, http://www.varinoma.com
I have been to every state in the union except for Alaska
and North Dakota. I must visit Alaska some day.
Mysterious Galaxy
>
> > > Warning: this may be an off-topic clarification of your comment.
> >
> > NOOOO! Please don't clarify your politics on rasfw! You'll be sorry
> > you did, trust me.
>
> I intend to be strong. Did you see the WEST WING episode with Josh
> posting to a web site? I'll slip away into the ether shortly.
>
> Will
and in an earlier message
>Alas, there are a number of writers who're simply in it for the
money.
>Their work usually has little in it to remember, and is rarely
>reprinted. (Johnson had it wrong; only blockheads write for money.)
I was not fond of that West Wing sub-plot (Why make Donna type his
responses? Stupid. grrr) . And whatever happened to the alleged
appearance on that episode of Peter Scolari <sp?> as a Bill Gates
type? Not to go looking for conspiracies, but I thought the Josh story
line reeked of quickly written replacement...
And I hope you mean there are a *smal* number of writers who're in it
for the money. 'Cause there just aren't that many folks making
significant change as writers that I'm aware of. I think there are far
more folks out there attempting (more or less successfully) to either
share their beliefs as noted earlier, or simply write the story that
they would like to read. IMO.
Maryelizabeth
http://www.mystgalaxy.com
David Dyer-Bennet
> I also don't want to see another endless Civil War thread on rasfw. But
> I have to note that Lee's personal action is significant; why was he
> fighting, if the cause was slavery? The man was hardly a fool. More
> significantly, if the purpose was slavery, why did Davis's government
> consider giving up slavery in the last days of the war in the hope of
> succeeding? Yes, slavery was significant. Yes, it was an issue. But to
> say it's the cause seems to me to be a great oversimplification.
Lee's personal action speaks to his personal beliefs more clearly than
to the general reason the South took certain positions, though. The
official statements adopted by the states when they seceded do indeed
look, to me, as if slavery was the preeminent issue in their minds at
the time.
Nothing the size of the Civil War is ever of the simplicity to have
*A* cause, of course.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / Ghugle: the Fannish Ghod of Queries
John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
Will Shetterly
publ...@mystgalaxy.com (Mysterious Galaxy) wrote:
> I was not fond of that West Wing sub-plot (Why make Donna type his
> responses? Stupid. grrr)
I think two things happened:
1. Hollywood has this obsession with making everything as visual as
possible.
2. There's a curiously misogynistic subtext to Sorkin's work.
> And I hope you mean there are a *smal* number of writers who're in it
> for the money.
Yep. And I think a lot of the writers who say they're in it for the
money are lying to themselves.
Will
Will Shetterly
htn...@cs.com (Htn963) wrote:
> (And out of curiosity, what happened between you and James Nicoll?)
I'm probably the wrong one to ask. I vaguely remember a surreal
discussion in which I said that if you have a monarch and you have to
pay money to that monarch through taxes, you're a subject of that
monarch, and he was maintaining that you could be a citizen of a country
with a monarch who takes money from you every year and yet not be a
subject. I'm sure my summary's unfair to him, and maybe to me as well.
And the discussion may not have been with James Nicoll. And it certainly
wasn't particularly important. It was just one of Those Internet Things
that's probably best forgotten, though it's out there to be dredged up
by anyone with Google access and nothing more rewarding to do.
Will
James Nicoll
Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <20020409080008...@mb-mi.news.cs.com>,
> htn...@cs.com (Htn963) wrote:
>
>
>> (And out of curiosity, what happened between you and James Nicoll?)
>
>I'm probably the wrong one to ask. I vaguely remember a surreal
>discussion in which I said that if you have a monarch and you have to
>pay money to that monarch through taxes, you're a subject of that
>monarch, and he was maintaining that you could be a citizen of a country
>with a monarch who takes money from you every year and yet not be a
>subject. I'm sure my summary's unfair to him, and maybe to me as well.
Indeed. Well, at least to me but see below.
>And the discussion may not have been with James Nicoll. And it certainly
>wasn't particularly important. It was just one of Those Internet Things
>that's probably best forgotten, though it's out there to be dredged up
>by anyone with Google access and nothing more rewarding to do.
Oddly enough, the monarchy comment is remarkably similar to
the ones you made in the 1995 thread "Are professionals welcome in
r.a.s.w?". That post, my helpful and educational reply to it plus many
more, many many more can be found on google starting somewhere around
message 122 in the thread.
There's also the 1995 'Socialist Fantasy (was Re: it's finally
over!) thread (1) which I recommend for background and to fill any spare
time one might have due to, for example, being trapped in a very deep mine
with a usenet feed strangely incapable of being used to ask for eg: a
backhoe.
I'd explain your errors to you, Will, but I did that for you six
years ago and you were not able to understand me then so it is not
like there'd be a point.
James Nicoll
1: "It's finally over" being in a 215 article thread's subject line is
just...wrong.
--
"I think you mean 'Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by
SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge
for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'"
Alison Brooks (1959-2002)
Richard Harter
You two are putting us on, right?
Genevieve Marie Ellerbee
: I was not fond of that West Wing sub-plot (Why make Donna type his
: responses? Stupid. grrr) . And whatever happened to the alleged
: appearance on that episode of Peter Scolari <sp?> as a Bill Gates
: type? Not to go looking for conspiracies, but I thought the Josh story
: line reeked of quickly written replacement...
Sorkin apparently hopped on the web site Television without Pity and
didn't find them as respectful as he would have liked. If you go read the
synopsis of that particular ep. there's more of an explanation for it.
--
*Genevieve Ellerbee*wgmu.gmu.edu/geni* "The last refuge and surest
*remedy...when no other means will take effect, is, to let them go
*together and enjoy one another...Aesculapius himself cannot invent a
*better remedy...than that a Lover have his desire." - Burton
*"It's love that's holding back the weather." - King's X
Will Shetterly
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> I'd explain your errors to you, Will, but I did that for you six
> years ago and you were not able to understand me then so it is not
> like there'd be a point.
>
> James Nicoll
>
> 1: "It's finally over" being in a 215 article thread's subject line is
> just...wrong.
Most of my errors have served me well. The greatest exception: I'm
always sorry when a bit of glibness causes pain.
I'm almost tempted to check to see what the "It's finally over" title
referred to, but, well, then it wouldn't be.
My apologies for mentioning the monarchy thread. It was just such an odd
conversation that I doubt I'll ever forget it. If it ever works its way
into a bit of fiction, I'll happily buy you a drink of your choice.
Will
Will Shetterly
c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
Oh, that's a tempting rope you're tossing. I'd happily seize it if the
conversation was funnier. But I'm afraid I must confess that James and I
are just being nitwits.
For the record, there's much about James's on-line style that I admire.
That, I fear, makes me explain myself at tedious length, which only
exacerbates what it intended to soothe.
Will
Ron Henry
> I was not fond of that West Wing sub-plot (Why make Donna type his
> responses? Stupid. grrr) .
There are many annoying aspects to the Josh-Donna relationship, I'll
grant, but remember that despite the actress's equal billing in the RL
tv show's credits, the fictional character is Josh's personal assistant
and not a fellow administration official of equal rank, so it's not
exactly inexplicable.
The plot itself seemed to be modeled on Sorkin's own experience posting
to the TV fan site "Mighty Big TV" (now called "Television Without Pity"
or something like that), which I understand got a little prickly at a
couple points. (Yeah, imagine that.) All through the series, I have
gotten the impression that Josh is the character in the show Sorkin
identifies most with, so it makes sense for Josh to have had a
net.fandom experience similar to the writer's.
And of course it's not the first show to exploit negative stereotypes of
their net fans for humor effect (read: Simpson's "Comic Book Guy"
character).
> And whatever happened to the alleged
> appearance on that episode of Peter Scolari <sp?> as a Bill Gates
> type? Not to go looking for conspiracies, but I thought the Josh story
> line reeked of quickly written replacement...
I imagine the aforementioned online fan forum could give you waaaaay
more information/speculation that you want/need on any such subject.
;-)
-- Ron Henry
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>> That should be obvious too; what's the point of reading something if
>> the *author* doesn't think it's worth saying? Arguably even the
>> Extruders think they have something worth saying.
>
>Alas, there are a number of writers who're simply in it for the money.
>Their work usually has little in it to remember, and is rarely
>reprinted. (Johnson had it wrong; only blockheads write for money.)
>Who're the Extruders?
Heinlein claimed that he wrote "for the money," and his work has been
rather heavily reprinted. There's always the possibility that he was
lying when he said that, but it does seem fairly clear that he wrote
in part because his health derailed his first career choice: becoming
an admiral.
--
Pete McCutchen
James Nicoll
Didn't he also have the essay where a writer friend pointed out
to him that writers tend to behave as though something other than money
was motivating them after RAH claimed in front of the writing to be strictly
money oriented?
--
"I think you mean 'Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by
SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge
for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'"
Alison Brooks (1959-2002)
Will Shetterly
> Heinlein claimed that he wrote "for the money," and his work has been
> rather heavily reprinted. There's always the possibility that he was
> lying when he said that, but it does seem fairly clear that he wrote
> in part because his health derailed his first career choice: becoming
> an admiral.
Oh, you can write for money while writing for other reasons, too. Some
writers who are uncomfortable discussing craft will say they're only
writing for money. I'm reminded of a conversation between Emma and Tim
Powers, which went very loosely like this:
Emma: "Do you worry much about the things you're trying to do under the
story?"
Tim: "I'm not trying to do anything under the story. I'm just trying to
entertain people."
Emma: "Liar, liar, pants on fire."
At which point, Tim broke up laughing.
Will
Will Shetterly
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> In article <nht6bu4a0nur7ilv8...@4ax.com>,
> Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Heinlein claimed that he wrote "for the money," and his work has been
> >rather heavily reprinted. There's always the possibility that he was
> >lying when he said that, but it does seem fairly clear that he wrote
> >in part because his health derailed his first career choice: becoming
> >an admiral.
>
> Didn't he also have the essay where a writer friend pointed out
> to him that writers tend to behave as though something other than money
> was motivating them after RAH claimed in front of the writing to be strictly
> money oriented?
If you happen to find that essay, please post its location. Sounds like
a fun thing to read.
Will
John Schilling
One might also mention William Shakespeare in this context, though of
course everyone knows he only fronted for some reclusive nobleman who
was in it for the Art :-)
--
*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 *
Michael S. Schiffer
<nht6bu4a0nur7ilv8...@4ax.com>:
>...
>>Alas, there are a number of writers who're simply in it for the
>>money. Their work usually has little in it to remember, and is
>>rarely reprinted. (Johnson had it wrong; only blockheads write
>>for money.) Who're the Extruders?
>Heinlein claimed that he wrote "for the money," and his work has
>been rather heavily reprinted.
On the other hand, he also claimed that writing was a "bug" that,
once caught, could never be truly gotten rid of. (He tried, early
on, having planned to stop writing the first time he was rejected,
and found himself drawn back in.) I know he had a bit about how "You
know retired schoolteachers, retired police officers, etc., but do
you know *any* retired writers?" though that may have been a
character talking.
There's always the possibility
>that he was lying when he said that, but it does seem fairly clear
>that he wrote in part because his health derailed his first career
>choice: becoming an admiral.
I doubt he was lying, and I'm sure he directed his writing to an
extent based on what he thought would sell. (He tried one hardboiled
detective story and a few stories for girls, but gave up on both
because they weren't paying all that well.) But he managed to
maintain both the "no man but a blockhead wrote except for money" and
the "writing bug" memes simultaneously. And for him, there was never
any real conflict, since AFAIK his sales only increased over the
course of his career. We can only speculate on what would have
happened if his writing career had parallelled that of the many
midlist writers who peaked at some point and then saw their sales
decline or disappear. Would he have stopped writing? I don't know.
James Nicoll
It's in _Expanded Universe_, published by Ace in 1980. It's
in the foreword to "Solution Unsatisfactory" and is details of a
conversation Robert Heinlein had with Anthony Boucher (William A. P.
White) on the topic. Page 92 in the copy of a book whose availability
in Canada is an example of why we should never drop our guard where
the US is concerned.
James Nicoll
Will Shetterly
msch...@condor.depaul.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) wrote:
> Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> <nht6bu4a0nur7ilv8...@4ax.com>:
> >Heinlein claimed that he wrote "for the money," and his work has
> >been rather heavily reprinted.
>
> On the other hand, he also claimed that writing was a "bug" that,
> once caught, could never be truly gotten rid of. (He tried, early
> on, having planned to stop writing the first time he was rejected,
> and found himself drawn back in.) I know he had a bit about how "You
> know retired schoolteachers, retired police officers, etc., but do
> you know *any* retired writers?" though that may have been a
> character talking.
Probably the most famous retired writers are Harper Lee and Margaret
Mitchell. Okay, and Salinger, too, but rumor has it he just quit
publishing, not writing.
For maybe six months, I was tempted to quit after DOGLAND, 'cause I
don't know if I'll ever do anything better. But then I decided to
embrace "buyer beware" and keep writing. It's just too much fun.
Will
--
Will Shetterly and Emma Bull's place:
http://homepage.mac.com/emmawill/
Richard Horton
wrote:
>In article <Xns91EC8C49F285...@130.133.1.4>,
> msch...@condor.depaul.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) wrote:
>
>> Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
>> <nht6bu4a0nur7ilv8...@4ax.com>:
>> >Heinlein claimed that he wrote "for the money," and his work has
>> >been rather heavily reprinted.
>>
>> On the other hand, he also claimed that writing was a "bug" that,
>> once caught, could never be truly gotten rid of. (He tried, early
>> on, having planned to stop writing the first time he was rejected,
>> and found himself drawn back in.) I know he had a bit about how "You
>> know retired schoolteachers, retired police officers, etc., but do
>> you know *any* retired writers?" though that may have been a
>> character talking.
>
>Probably the most famous retired writers are Harper Lee and Margaret
>Mitchell. Okay, and Salinger, too, but rumor has it he just quit
>publishing, not writing.
>
Well, if you want what rumor has, rumor has it Harper Lee didn't write
_To Kill a Mockingbird_, Truman Capote did. So Lee didn't have
anyting to "retire" from. (If you accept that rumor of course.)
To be sure, they'll all have a run for their fame is Stephen King
follows through on his threat.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Will Shetterly
Richard Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:33:52 -0700, Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com>
> wrote:
> >Probably the most famous retired writers are Harper Lee and Margaret
> >Mitchell. Okay, and Salinger, too, but rumor has it he just quit
> >publishing, not writing.
> >
>
> Well, if you want what rumor has, rumor has it Harper Lee didn't write
> _To Kill a Mockingbird_, Truman Capote did. So Lee didn't have
> anyting to "retire" from. (If you accept that rumor of course.)
Amazing rumor. What's the theory on why Capote wouldn't want credit for
the book?
Del Cotter
Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com> said:
>Oh, you can write for money while writing for other reasons, too. Some
>writers who are uncomfortable discussing craft will say they're only
>writing for money. I'm reminded of a conversation between Emma and Tim
>Powers, which went very loosely like this:
<snip dialogue>
I take it that "Emma" is Emma Bull?
--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead:lyForward:RobertRankinTheBrentfordChainstoreMassacre:TerryPratc
hettTheTruth:JeromeKJeromeThreeMenInABoat:WilliamGoldmanThePrincessBride
ToRead:AlastairReynoldsRevelationSpace:JohnCrowleyLittle,Big:RobertCharl
Will Shetterly
Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, in rec.arts.sf.written,
> Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com> said:
>
> >Oh, you can write for money while writing for other reasons, too. Some
> >writers who are uncomfortable discussing craft will say they're only
> >writing for money. I'm reminded of a conversation between Emma and Tim
> >Powers, which went very loosely like this:
>
> <snip dialogue>
>
> I take it that "Emma" is Emma Bull?
Yep. I suppose in public forums I should refer to her as my wife, the
astonishingly talented and uncommonly lovely author and musician, Emma
Bull, who has endured my many shortcomings for twenty wonderful years of
marriage. Maybe I should make a macro.
Will Shetterly
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
Be vigilant, Canada!
And thanks for the info. I'll watch for the book.
Richard Horton
wrote:
>Amazing rumor. What's the theory on why Capote wouldn't want credit for
>the book?
The rumor is probably not true, I hasten to add.
Capote was a friend of Lee's, and I think it's well established that
he helped her with the book, at the least as a first reader sort of
thing.
The theory on why he wouldn't want credit would go something like "He
was doing a big-hearted favor for a close friend", combined with some
notion that at least part of the credit for the idea and plot (if less
for the writing) should really go to Lee anyway.
(This is all based on dim memories of a newspaper article I read some
years ago.)
Will Shetterly
Richard Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:48:01 -0700, Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Amazing rumor. What's the theory on why Capote wouldn't want credit for
> >the book?
>
> The rumor is probably not true, I hasten to add.
>
> Capote was a friend of Lee's, and I think it's well established that
> he helped her with the book, at the least as a first reader sort of
> thing.
>
> The theory on why he wouldn't want credit would go something like "He
> was doing a big-hearted favor for a close friend", combined with some
> notion that at least part of the credit for the idea and plot (if less
> for the writing) should really go to Lee anyway.
>
> (This is all based on dim memories of a newspaper article I read some
> years ago.)
If he helped her, he gave her great advice. Things are always tricky
when there's a mentor relationship, or even the appearance of one. The
rumors flew for a while about William Goldman's role in the screenplay
for Affleck and Damon's movie a few years back. He ultimately made a
statement that he had little to do with it. Which doesn't necessarily
give us the facts on the situation, but does deadend the speculation.
Mysterious Galaxy
> "Mysterious Galaxy" <publ...@mystgalaxy.com> wrote
>
> > I was not fond of that West Wing sub-plot (Why make Donna type his
> > responses? Stupid. grrr) .
>
> There are many annoying aspects to the Josh-Donna relationship, I'll
> grant, but remember that despite the actress's equal billing in the RL
> tv show's credits, the fictional character is Josh's personal assistant
> and not a fellow administration official of equal rank, so it's not
> exactly inexplicable.
Thanks to Ron and the others who responded to this.
And to bring things back on RASFW topics, can anyone think of SF that
predicted the more interactive community between creators and
appreciators that the internet especially has brought about?
Maryelizabeth
Del Cotter
Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com> said:
> Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Oh, you can write for money while writing for other reasons, too. Some
>> >writers who are uncomfortable discussing craft will say they're only
>> >writing for money. I'm reminded of a conversation between Emma and Tim
>> >Powers, which went very loosely like this:
>> I take it that "Emma" is Emma Bull?
>
>Yep. I suppose in public forums I should refer to her as my wife, the
>astonishingly talented and uncommonly lovely author and musician, Emma
>Bull, who has endured my many shortcomings for twenty wonderful years of
>marriage. Maybe I should make a macro.
"Emma Bull" will be just fine. I thought for a moment you were speaking
of Emma Powers, Tim Powers' well-known spouse.
David Silberstein
Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, in rec.arts.sf.written,
>Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com> said:
>
>> Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >Oh, you can write for money while writing for other reasons, too. Some
>>> >writers who are uncomfortable discussing craft will say they're only
>>> >writing for money. I'm reminded of a conversation between Emma and Tim
>>> >Powers, which went very loosely like this:
>
>>> I take it that "Emma" is Emma Bull?
>>
>>Yep. I suppose in public forums I should refer to her as my wife, the
>>astonishingly talented and uncommonly lovely author and musician, Emma
>>Bull, who has endured my many shortcomings for twenty wonderful years of
>>marriage. Maybe I should make a macro.
>
>"Emma Bull" will be just fine. I thought for a moment you were speaking
>of Emma Powers, Tim Powers' well-known spouse.
>
Except that Tim Powers' well-known spouse is named Serena Powers.
(Have I been suckered here? Oh, well...)
I posted the exchange to the Tim Powers mailing list - Tim maintains
that no, really, he *doesn't* put anything in there besides
entertainment... :-)
Mike Schilling
>>Well, if you want what rumor has, rumor has it Harper Lee didn't write
>>_To Kill a Mockingbird_, Truman Capote did. So Lee didn't have
>>anyting to "retire" from. (If you accept that rumor of course.)
>>
>
> Amazing rumor. What's the theory on why Capote wouldn't want credit for
> the book?
I hadn't heard that one. He *was* a character in it: the neighbor boy,
(was his name Dill?).
Simon Slavin
publ...@mystgalaxy.com (Mysterious Galaxy) wrote:
> And to bring things back on RASFW topics, can anyone think of SF that
> predicted the more interactive community between creators and
> appreciators that the internet especially has brought about?
There's a short story about a Shakespeare class broadcast by
TV to a huge number of schools. The actors take questions from
the audience and adjust their performances to reflect the point
of view of the person asking the question.
Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | [One] thing that worries me about Bush and
No junk email please. | Blair's "war on terrorism" is: how will they
| know when they've won it ? -- Terry Jones
THE FRENCH WAS THERE
Nancy Lebovitz
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <nht6bu4a0nur7ilv8...@4ax.com>,
>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 01:05:32 -0700, Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>> That should be obvious too; what's the point of reading something if
>>>> the *author* doesn't think it's worth saying? Arguably even the
For entertainment?
>>>> Extruders think they have something worth saying.
>>>
>>>Alas, there are a number of writers who're simply in it for the money.
>>>Their work usually has little in it to remember, and is rarely
>>>reprinted. (Johnson had it wrong; only blockheads write for money.)
>>>Who're the Extruders?
>>
>>Heinlein claimed that he wrote "for the money," and his work has been
>>rather heavily reprinted. There's always the possibility that he was
>>lying when he said that, but it does seem fairly clear that he wrote
>>in part because his health derailed his first career choice: becoming
>>an admiral.
>
> Didn't he also have the essay where a writer friend pointed out
>to him that writers tend to behave as though something other than money
>was motivating them after RAH claimed in front of the writing to be strictly
>money oriented?
Didn't Heinlein also say that writing was an addiction, or was that
just one of his characters?
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com 100 new slogans
I want to move to theory. Everything works in theory.
Steven Brust
wrote:
>
>
>Warning: this may be an off-topic clarification of your comment. Calling
>me a States Rightser makes sense if you really believe that the American
>Civil War was, from the South's point of view, a War to Preserve
>Slavery. But to say that, you have to ignore such things as the fact
>that the North's most famous general, Grant, kept his slaves until after
>the war, while the South's most famous general, Lee, freed his slaves
>much earlier.
Uh...can you explain how what these facts have to do with the price
cabbage in Conniticut?
As Mike Shiffer said, the south seceeded to preserve slavery; the
north fought to preserve the union. More particularly, the south
seceeded to preserve *the right to expand* slavery, and the north
fought to break the power of the southern slavocracy. The personal
inclinations of any particular partisans of either side make no
difference, and the only people who thought they did were on the,
"Comittee for the conduct of the war." And you know how much good
*that* august body did.
Now...we're off. Where can we go to continue this argument?
Steven Brust
wrote:
>
>Yep. And I think a lot of the writers who say they're in it for the
>money are lying to themselves.
Yep. As someone said, anyone smart enough to make a living writing is
smart enough to make a better living doing something else.
Dan Goodman
news:3cc4b59e....@news.lvcm.com:
It keeps being discussed in the soc.history newsgroup devoted to the Civil
War. It also frequently comes up in soc.history.what-if (devoted to
alternate history).
I'm surprised not to have yet encountered anyone claiming that the South
was fighting to abolish slavery.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
Oh, I dunno -- if there are other restrictions on one's abilities
(like a congenital aversion to mornings), writing looks like a pretty
good choice.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 4/15/02
My latest novel is THE DRAGON SOCIETY, published by Tor.
Aaron Bergman
Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
> It keeps being discussed in the soc.history newsgroup devoted to the Civil
> War. It also frequently comes up in soc.history.what-if (devoted to
> alternate history).
Can't someone just post the link to the piece in the NYRoB called
"Southern Comfort" and we can all go home?
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
<http://www.princeton.edu/~abergman/>
Avram Grumer
Aaron Bergman <aber...@princeton.edu> wrote:
> In article <Xns91F8E30C384...@209.98.98.13>,
> Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> > It keeps being discussed in the soc.history newsgroup devoted to
> > the Civil War. It also frequently comes up in soc.history.what-if
> > (devoted to alternate history).
>
> Can't someone just post the link to the piece in the NYRoB called
> "Southern Comfort" and we can all go home?
Here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=1772
But that's just the first paragraph. The full text is only available to
subscribers. It looks like the relevent parts deal with Charles B.
Dew's book _Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and
the Causes of the Civil War_. Here are links to some more, publicly
available, reviews and summaries:
http://www.stratalum.org/apostles.html
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/commish.htm
http://www.civilwarnews.com/reviews/bookreviews.cfm?ID=155
http://www.cw-book-news.com/release%20info/01-03/apostles.html
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to
stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt
Louann Miller
>It keeps being discussed in the soc.history newsgroup devoted to the Civil
>War. It also frequently comes up in soc.history.what-if (devoted to
>alternate history).
>
>I'm surprised not to have yet encountered anyone claiming that the South
>was fighting to abolish slavery.
It's only Tuesday.
--
Over the last few weeks, Yahoo! has completely turned its
public image around from "respected net resource" to "hateful
money-grubbing spam merchants." Funny goal for a company to have.
Mike Schilling
news:ez5x8.3375$iM5.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Oh, I dunno -- if there are other restrictions on one's abilities
> (like a congenital aversion to mornings), writing looks like a pretty
> good choice.
I became a writer to attract sexy babes.
But sexy babes aren't attracted to writers.
I was misinformed.
Steven Brust
<lawr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 01:36:45 GMT, sk...@dreamcafe.com (Steven Brust)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 14:39:45 -0700, Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Yep. And I think a lot of the writers who say they're in it for the
>>>money are lying to themselves.
>>
>>Yep. As someone said, anyone smart enough to make a living writing is
>>smart enough to make a better living doing something else.
>
>Oh, I dunno -- if there are other restrictions on one's abilities
>(like a congenital aversion to mornings), writing looks like a pretty
>good choice.
>
A valid point, but I can't shake the feeling that there are other ways
to avoid mornings that are more lucrative. I think that to write for
a living you have to have something else wrong with you. Look at how
many of us were writing before we ever really believed we'd sell
anything.
Of course, if I weren't getting paid for it, I certainly wouldn't
write *as much*. :-)
Steven Brust
I know. Me, too. God, I hate that!
Mark Atwood
> But sexy babes aren't attracted to writers.
> I was misinformed.
"I wanted to uncover the mysteries of the universe and to better
the lot of my fellow man. So I became a scientist.
Too late, I discovered that this was like joining the priesthood
in order to meet girls."
--
Mark Atwood | Well done is better than well said.
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Htn963
>"I wanted to uncover the mysteries of the universe and to better
> the lot of my fellow man. So I became a scientist.
> Too late, I discovered that this was like joining the priesthood
> in order to meet girls."
Just join a church. I recommend the Mormons.
--
Ht
|Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
--John Donne, "Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions"|
J Greely
>A valid point, but I can't shake the feeling that there are other ways
>to avoid mornings that are more lucrative.
I rarely get up before noon, and only visit my office (seventy miles
away) twice a week, usually after 5pm. Silicon Valley offers a certain
flexibility, and the money is pretty good. I don't have fans, but then
again, I don't have fans.
-j
Carl Dershem
I hear you.
But... what kind of girls (if that's his bag) does Paarfi get?
(Patient ones, I'll bet.)
cd
--
Death to all Absolutists!
Mysterious Galaxy
>
> But sexy babes aren't attracted to writers.
>
> I was misinformed.
>
>
Maryelizabeth
http://www.mystgalaxy.com
Walter Bushell
> > I became a writer to attract sexy babes.
> > But sexy babes aren't attracted to writers.
> > I was misinformed.
>
> "I wanted to uncover the mysteries of the universe and to better
> the lot of my fellow man. So I became a scientist.
> Too late, I discovered that this was like joining the priesthood
> in order to meet girls."
Historically becoming a priest to meet girls hasn't been a bad choice,
unless you happen to run into a reform movement. I hear in Latin America
many priest have wife equivalents that the bishops even know about.
Will Shetterly
sk...@dreamcafe.com (Steven Brust) wrote:
Uh, your living room?
Okay, I can hear the topic vigilantes riding near, but I'll go this far:
There's a difference between a principle and its examples. The tragedy
of the Civil War is that the main example was so egregious. Lee saw
that, yet he freed his slaves and fought for the principle, the right of
a state to decide its own way. Grant may or may not have seen that; he
was content to keep his slaves while he fought for a strong central
government.
Oh, and I'll add this, too--more fool, me--saying that the "personal
inclinations of any partisan of either side make no difference" sounds
quite nice, but what does it mean in the real world? I think personal
inclinations of partisans have a great deal to do with why wars are
fought. You surely don't think that all the folks who fought in the
Civil War were just trying to get a paycheck at the end of the week? How
many capitalists fought for the Soviet Union in 1919? How many
monarchists fought with the French revolutionaries? Personal
inclinations count.
Will Shetterly
Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> wrote:
> In article <abergman-20C98C...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
> Aaron Bergman <aber...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns91F8E30C384...@209.98.98.13>,
> > Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It keeps being discussed in the soc.history newsgroup devoted to
> > > the Civil War. It also frequently comes up in soc.history.what-if
> > > (devoted to alternate history).
> >
> > Can't someone just post the link to the piece in the NYRoB called
> > "Southern Comfort" and we can all go home?
>
> Here:
>
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=1772
>
> But that's just the first paragraph. The full text is only available to
> subscribers. It looks like the relevent parts deal with Charles B.
> Dew's book _Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and
> the Causes of the Civil War_. Here are links to some more, publicly
> available, reviews and summaries:
>
> http://www.stratalum.org/apostles.html
> http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/commish.htm
> http://www.civilwarnews.com/reviews/bookreviews.cfm?ID=155
> http://www.cw-book-news.com/release%20info/01-03/apostles.html
Thanks for the links. The aol one seems to no longer work, but the
others do. I haven't read the book, but I think its selection makes its
conclusions limited. Of course there were pro-slavery people on the
southern side, and they were among the most vocal proponents of
secession. And there were anti-slavery people on the northern side who
were among the most vocal supporters of the war to preserve the union.
But the loudest people shouldn't get to define the subject.
For me, there remains the question of Lee. A smart man opposed to
slavery who fought for the south. Didn't he know why he was fighting?
And the question of Grant. A smart man who kept his slaves until slavery
was made illegal in the north two years after it was made illegal in the
south. Did he also not know why the war was fought?
Will Shetterly
Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com> wrote:
> For me, there remains the question of Lee. A smart man opposed to
> slavery who fought for the south. Didn't he know why he was fighting?
> And the question of Grant. A smart man who kept his slaves until slavery
> was made illegal in the north two years after it was made illegal in the
> south. Did he also not know why the war was fought?
Guy, if you really don't want to continue a discussion, don't respond.
And if you have to respond, dear God, don't end your response with a
rhetorical question! Sheesh. Some people.
I've got to add this, since this is a public forum: Please note that I'm
not trying to defend slave-owners. Or even people like Lee who freed
their slaves and fought for a state that sanctioned slavery. I just hate
seeing complex issues made simplistic. Often, there's an agenda behind
that; vowing I won't be drawn into a discussion on this, I'll just
mention Bush's claim that "they hate our freedom."
Will Shetterly
Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com> wrote:
Huh. There's something to be said for cutting out the middlemen and
simply having a conversation with yourself.
But not much.
So I'll stop now.
G'night, all!
Dan Goodman
2E139B.001...@testnews.chatlink.com:
> Okay, I can hear the topic vigilantes riding near, but I'll go this far:
> There's a difference between a principle and its examples. The tragedy
> of the Civil War is that the main example was so egregious. Lee saw
> that, yet he freed his slaves and fought for the principle, the right of
> a state to decide its own way. Grant may or may not have seen that; he
> was content to keep his slaves while he fought for a strong central
> government.
The Confederate constitution restricted states' rights more than the US
Constitution did in one area: the right of states to outlaw slavery.
I've read the documents by several of the southern state legislatures
giving their reasons for secession. They convinced me that secession _was_
about slavery.
Dan Goodman
> For me, there remains the question of Lee. A smart man opposed to
> slavery who fought for the south. Didn't he know why he was fighting?
Could easily have been "My country, right or wrong" -- his country being
Virginia.
> And the question of Grant. A smart man who kept his slaves until slavery
> was made illegal in the north two years after it was made illegal in the
> south. Did he also not know why the war was fought?
Same as above.
And I think Grant's Presidential record shows that he wasn't smart _all_
the time.
Dan Goodman
> Okay, I can hear the topic vigilantes riding near, but I'll go this far:
> There's a difference between a principle and its examples. The tragedy
> of the Civil War is that the main example was so egregious. Lee saw
> that, yet he freed his slaves and fought for the principle, the right of
> a state to decide its own way. Grant may or may not have seen that; he
> was content to keep his slaves while he fought for a strong central
> government.
I've read the documents voted on by several southern state legislatures.
They lead me to the conclusion that slavery _was_ what they seceded to
preserve.
And note that the Confederate constitution gave states _less_ sovereignty
in one area: it barred states from outlawing slavery.
Will Shetterly
Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
Hmm. Given the way Stephens (governor of Georgia) in particular
demonstrated his support of state's rights, I wonder if that would've
been one of the first big fights in the C.S.A., had it successfully
seceded. There's probably an interesting story there that I won't write.
David Dyer-Bennet
> Thanks for the links. The aol one seems to no longer work, but the
> others do. I haven't read the book, but I think its selection makes its
> conclusions limited. Of course there were pro-slavery people on the
> southern side, and they were among the most vocal proponents of
> secession. And there were anti-slavery people on the northern side who
> were among the most vocal supporters of the war to preserve the union.
> But the loudest people shouldn't get to define the subject.
I'd like to see some sort of response to the claim (which verifies to
the extent I've looked) that the official secession bills in various
state legislatures quite consistently seemed to say that slavery was
the main issue.
> For me, there remains the question of Lee. A smart man opposed to
> slavery who fought for the south. Didn't he know why he was fighting?
> And the question of Grant. A smart man who kept his slaves until slavery
> was made illegal in the north two years after it was made illegal in the
> south. Did he also not know why the war was fought?
Lee was fighting to protect Virginia, I thought?
And in either case, people caught up in it to that extent could very
easily not know why the war started, why most people supported it, or
whatever. Obviously they'd have at least some idea why they
themselves were involved.
Being top people on one side or the other doesn't give them special
insight into the motivations that I can see; they weren't *causative*
people. Neither of them had much to do with *starting* the war, they
just were the ones who fought a lot of it.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / Ghugle: the Fannish Ghod of Queries
John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
Steven Brust
wrote:
>
>For me, there remains the question of Lee. A smart man opposed to
>slavery who fought for the south. Didn't he know why he was fighting?
Yes, he did; very much. He said so often. He fought for Virginia.
Had Virginia not seceeded, he would not have fought for the south.
Whether he would eventually have been convinced to fightfor the north
must remain academic.
>And the question of Grant. A smart man who kept his slaves until slavery
>was made illegal in the north two years after it was made illegal in the
>south. Did he also not know why the war was fought?
Certainly. To preserve the union.
It is worth remembering that, had Maclellen not been so incompetant,
the war *might* have ended without the destruction of slavery. But it
would have asserted the control had now passed from the southern
oligarchs to the northern capitalists, and the power of the slavocracy
would have been broken.
You seem to have made the correct observation that those who say, "the
civil war was fought to end slavery" are making such a wretched
over-simplification that we can say, scientifically, that they are
full of caca.. You somehow seem to have jumped from there to the
conclusion that slavery, or more precisely the power of the southern
slavocracy, was not at the heart of the conflict. The conclusion is
not supported by the permise, nor by the preponderance of evidence.
Steven Brust
wrote:
>
>Oh, and I'll add this, too--more fool, me--saying that the "personal
>inclinations of any partisan of either side make no difference" sounds
>quite nice, but what does it mean in the real world? I think personal
>inclinations of partisans have a great deal to do with why wars are
>fought. You surely don't think that all the folks who fought in the
>Civil War were just trying to get a paycheck at the end of the week? How
>many capitalists fought for the Soviet Union in 1919? How many
>monarchists fought with the French revolutionaries? Personal
>inclinations count.
This is splendid. I love it when you make me think.
Okay, I oversimplified--I'm busted. Yes, personal inclinations count,
especially in those wars that can be considered revolutions (that is,
where masses of people are conscious of making history). But I think
to identify (and, moreover, judiciously edit) the personal opinions of
a couple of individuals is to oversimply at least as much as I did.
I mean, consider, Will: You are saying, "Lee freed his slaves, Lee
fought for the South, therefore the South could not have been fighting
to preserve slavery." No, I don't think it can be put that simply,
nor the reverse example with Grant.
What I fail to understand is this: how could you have studied the
Recent Unpleasantness Between the States as much as you have and yet
be unaware of the tremendous power of the slave-holders in determing
national policy up to 1860? And, if you are aware of it, how can you
ignore it, or under-value it's significance. Certainly many of the
nothern volunteers of '61 and '62 spoke of preserving the union; and
others spoke of freeing slaves. But many spoke of being tired of
having the whole country pushed around by the southern slave-owners.
Permit me to recommend, _For Cause and Comrades_ by James MacPherson.
God, this is fun.
Will Shetterly
sk...@dreamcafe.com (Steven Brust) wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 00:10:29 -0700, Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Oh, and I'll add this, too--more fool, me--saying that the "personal
> >inclinations of any partisan of either side make no difference" sounds
> >quite nice, but what does it mean in the real world? I think personal
> >inclinations of partisans have a great deal to do with why wars are
> >fought. You surely don't think that all the folks who fought in the
> >Civil War were just trying to get a paycheck at the end of the week? How
> >many capitalists fought for the Soviet Union in 1919? How many
> >monarchists fought with the French revolutionaries? Personal
> >inclinations count.
>
> This is splendid. I love it when you make me think.
Hey, I didn't think you didn't! But, okay, I do think a lot of people
have decided what the Civil War was about. And then they defend what
they decided. And maybe I do the same.
>
> I think
> to identify (and, moreover, judiciously edit) the personal opinions of
> a couple of individuals is to oversimply at least as much as I did.
Hmm. How did I edit Lee or Grant's opinions? I was trying to focus on
their actions: Lee fought for the south and freed his slaves. Grant
fought for the north and kept his. Actions speak louder than rhetoric, I
like to think. But I don't mean to discredit rhetoric.
>
> I mean, consider, Will: You are saying, "Lee freed his slaves, Lee
> fought for the South, therefore the South could not have been fighting
> to preserve slavery." No, I don't think it can be put that simply,
> nor the reverse example with Grant.
That's not what I meant to communicate. Some southerners were certainly
fighting to preserve slavery. But you should note that those southerners
were fighting despite Lincoln's promise not to end slavery, a promise
that he kept for two years into the war, and that he only broke in the
states that had seceded, not in the loyal slave-owning states. They were
fighting because they were afraid that the federal power would overrule
their state's power on the issue of slavery.
>
> What I fail to understand is this: how could you have studied the
> Recent Unpleasantness Between the States as much as you have and yet
> be unaware of the tremendous power of the slave-holders in determing
> national policy up to 1860? And, if you are aware of it, how can you
> ignore it, or under-value it's significance.
I'm not trying to ignore or under-value it. I'm trying to point out
that, well, the issue of consolidated power versus dispersed power was
the more important issue. Slavery would've failed in another ten or
twenty years whether or not the Civil War was fought--look at the
history of slavery in other countries and the economic forces at work.
But it took the Civil War to transform a country that was spoken of as a
plural entity into one that has become a singular entity.
And, mind you, I'm not necessarily opposed to centralism, though I think
it tends to reinforce the notion that might makes right, which always
has repercussions. I prefer education to legislation.
> Permit me to recommend, _For Cause and Comrades_ by James MacPherson.
I'll happily take a look at it. MacPherson's good.
Will Shetterly
sk...@dreamcafe.com (Steven Brust) wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 00:30:34 -0700, Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com>
> wrote:
>
> >For me, there remains the question of Lee. A smart man opposed to
> >slavery who fought for the south. Didn't he know why he was fighting?
>
> Yes, he did; very much. He said so often. He fought for Virginia.
> Had Virginia not seceeded, he would not have fought for the south.
> Whether he would eventually have been convinced to fightfor the north
> must remain academic.
In other words, Lee did not fight for his country, the USA, but for his
state, Virginia, despite his feelings about slavery. Isn't that a point
for my side?
> >And the question of Grant. A smart man who kept his slaves until slavery
> >was made illegal in the north two years after it was made illegal in the
> >south. Did he also not know why the war was fought?
>
> Certainly. To preserve the union.
Which is to say, to support federal rights over states' rights? Is that
two points for me?
> It is worth remembering that, had Maclellen not been so incompetant,
> the war *might* have ended without the destruction of slavery.
Dude, you rule! Another swell alternate Civil War story that I won't
write.
> But it
> would have asserted the control had now passed from the southern
> oligarchs to the northern capitalists, and the power of the slavocracy
> would have been broken.
True.
> You seem to have made the correct observation that those who say, "the
> civil war was fought to end slavery" are making such a wretched
> over-simplification that we can say, scientifically, that they are
> full of caca.. You somehow seem to have jumped from there to the
> conclusion that slavery, or more precisely the power of the southern
> slavocracy, was not at the heart of the conflict. The conclusion is
> not supported by the permise, nor by the preponderance of evidence.
Hey, you want to say that a lot of people involved in the attempt to
create the CSA were participants in an unjust system, I'm there. Slavery
was the trigger. But it wasn't the cause, or the battle would have been
neatly drawn between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces.
Dan Goodman
> n other words, Lee did not fight for his country, the USA, but for his
> state, Virginia,
No. He fought for his country, Virginia.
Dan Goodman
> Some southerners were certainly
> fighting to preserve slavery. But you should note that those southerners
> were fighting despite Lincoln's promise not to end slavery, a promise
> that he kept for two years into the war, and that he only broke in the
> states that had seceded, not in the loyal slave-owning states.
They didn't believe him. They would not have believed any Northerner.
Mike Schilling
news:Xns91FCF2F443A...@209.98.98.13...
Exactly. And after the Civil War, it was no longer possible to do so.
Mike Schilling
news:shetterly-37724...@testnews.chatlink.com...
> That's not what I meant to communicate. Some southerners were certainly
> fighting to preserve slavery. But you should note that those southerners
> were fighting despite Lincoln's promise not to end slavery, a promise
> that he kept for two years into the war, and that he only broke in the
> states that had seceded, not in the loyal slave-owning states. They were
> fighting because they were afraid that the federal power would overrule
> their state's power on the issue of slavery.
Lincoln had to make that promise because his inclination was so obviously to
oppose and, if possible, end slavery. Why did the secessions begin directly
after Lincoln's election? Not because of any immediate shift in the
relative power of the federal government vs. the states, but because Lincoln
was on record as opposing slavery.
Avram Grumer
Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <3cc9e794....@news.lvcm.com>,
> sk...@dreamcafe.com (Steven Brust) wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 00:30:34 -0700, Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >For me, there remains the question of Lee. A smart man opposed to
> > >slavery who fought for the south. Didn't he know why he was
> > >fighting?
> >
> > Yes, he did; very much. He said so often. He fought for Virginia.
> > Had Virginia not seceeded, he would not have fought for the south.
> > Whether he would eventually have been convinced to fightfor the
> > north must remain academic.
>
> In other words, Lee did not fight for his country, the USA, but for
> his state, Virginia, despite his feelings about slavery. Isn't that a
> point for my side?
Only if you can show that Virginia didn't secede over slavery.
> > >And the question of Grant. A smart man who kept his slaves until
> > >slavery was made illegal in the north two years after it was made
> > >illegal in the south. Did he also not know why the war was fought?
> >
> > Certainly. To preserve the union.
>
> Which is to say, to support federal rights over states' rights? Is
> that two points for me?
Only if you can show that the south really supported states' rights over
federal power. If they really had, wouldn't Dred Scott have gone
differently?
> > It is worth remembering that, had Maclellen not been so
> > incompetant, the war *might* have ended without the destruction of
> > slavery.
>
> Dude, you rule! Another swell alternate Civil War story that I won't
> write.
Harry Turtledove will write them all, eventually.
> Hey, you want to say that a lot of people involved in the attempt to
> create the CSA were participants in an unjust system, I'm there.
> Slavery was the trigger. But it wasn't the cause, or the battle would
> have been neatly drawn between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces.
It would?
Let's test this. Are there any wars about which we can say, without
serious fear of dispute, that they have definitely been "about" or
"caused by" one particular thing? And if so, can we then draw a neat
and sharp line putting the pro forces all on one side of the ear and the
anti on the other? (Obviously, this works better if our cause isn't a
tautology -- Side A believed that Side A should win, for example.)
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to
stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt
Lee Ann Rucker
<jgr...@corp.webtv.net> wrote:
I have fans.
OK, they're Mac Java Swing programmers, but they're still fans.
Mark Atwood
>
> I have fans.
>
> OK, they're Mac Java Swing programmers, but they're still fans.
Do you still give them free Swing tech support?
Steven Brust
wrote:
>In article <3cc9e794....@news.lvcm.com>,
> sk...@dreamcafe.com (Steven Brust) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 00:30:34 -0700, Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >For me, there remains the question of Lee. A smart man opposed to
>> >slavery who fought for the south. Didn't he know why he was fighting?
>>
>> Yes, he did; very much. He said so often. He fought for Virginia.
>> Had Virginia not seceeded, he would not have fought for the south.
>> Whether he would eventually have been convinced to fightfor the north
>> must remain academic.
>
>In other words, Lee did not fight for his country, the USA, but for his
>state, Virginia, despite his feelings about slavery. Isn't that a point
>for my side?
>
If your point is, "the war was not about slavery," then no. If your
point is something else,then I Am Sparticus.
>Which is to say, to support federal rights over states' rights? Is that
>two points for me?
>
See above.
>> You seem to have made the correct observation that those who say, "the
>> civil war was fought to end slavery" are making such a wretched
>> over-simplification that we can say, scientifically, that they are
>> full of caca.. You somehow seem to have jumped from there to the
>> conclusion that slavery, or more precisely the power of the southern
>> slavocracy, was not at the heart of the conflict. The conclusion is
>> not supported by the permise, nor by the preponderance of evidence.
>
>Hey, you want to say that a lot of people involved in the attempt to
>create the CSA were participants in an unjust system, I'm there. Slavery
>was the trigger. But it wasn't the cause, or the battle would have been
>neatly drawn between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces.
>
If your only point is to insist on the distinction between "the cause"
and "a cause" I might concede the point after a bit of thought. But I
suspect you are saying more. I contend that had, somehow (posit a
miricle) the USA been set up, from the Revolution, as free-soil
country, there would have been no Civil War.
I kind of suspect that what is behind this is a religious belief on
your part that any time human beings kill each other, under any
circumstances, someone is making a terrible mistake. This leads you
to search for what the "terrible mistake" in the Civil War must have
been, and your conclusions follow. It is hard to argue with religious
beliefs, but I can at least express respectful disagreement.
Steven Brust
wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, he did; very much. He said so often. He fought for Virginia.
>> > Had Virginia not seceeded, he would not have fought for the south.
>> > Whether he would eventually have been convinced to fightfor the
>> > north must remain academic.
>>
>> In other words, Lee did not fight for his country, the USA, but for
>> his state, Virginia, despite his feelings about slavery. Isn't that a
>> point for my side?
>
>Only if you can show that Virginia didn't secede over slavery.
>
Oooooo. Score one for Avram.
>Only if you can show that the south really supported states' rights over
>federal power. If they really had, wouldn't Dred Scott have gone
>differently?
>
Oooooo. Score two for Avram.
Avram Grumer
sk...@dreamcafe.com (Steven Brust) wrote:
How many points to win? And does the victor have to upload an ASCII-art
endzone dance?
Richard Harter
wrote:
>I kind of suspect that what is behind this is a religious belief on
>your part that ... This leads you to ...
This is one of those usenet debate maneuvers that is ever so tempting
and usually unproductive, to wit: Replacing arguing the point by
speculating as to what in the psychology of the other person leads
them to take such a wrong headed view.
In its own right this is quite natural; a good part of gossip concerns
itself not only with what other people do but also what they were up
to - and, after all, gossip is one of the great human activities and,
according to some, language was invented so as to makegossiping more
convenient.
In usenet discussions the maneuver runs up against at least stoppers.
The first is that the target of the analysis is there to read it and
almost certainly will disagree with it. The second is that the
analysis, being based on paucity of information about the target
(i.e, some postings in a highly artificial environment), is likely to
be wildly inaccurate. The third is that the missing information is
usually extracted from persons of straw maintained by the analyst.
OTOH speculating on the motives of your opponent is an ancient and
venerable tradition. I am not one to argue against ancient and
venerable traditions.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net,
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, http://www.varinoma.com
It is necessary that virtue be its own reward;
It is not otherwise rewarded in this world.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 02:05:53 GMT, sk...@dreamcafe.com (Steven Brust)
>wrote:
>
>>I kind of suspect that what is behind this is a religious belief on
>>your part that ... This leads you to ...
>
>In usenet discussions the maneuver runs up against at least stoppers.
>The first is that the target of the analysis is there to read it and
>almost certainly will disagree with it. The second is that the
>analysis, being based on paucity of information about the target
>(i.e, some postings in a highly artificial environment), is likely to
>be wildly inaccurate. The third is that the missing information is
>usually extracted from persons of straw maintained by the analyst.
Actually, in this case, Steve and Will know each other well offline,
so your second stopper emphatically doesn't apply. I don't think the
third does, either, though that's less certain.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 4/15/02
My latest novel is THE DRAGON SOCIETY, published by Tor.
Richard Harter
<lawr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 04:26:03 GMT, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 02:05:53 GMT, sk...@dreamcafe.com (Steven Brust)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I kind of suspect that what is behind this is a religious belief on
>>>your part that ... This leads you to ...
>>
>>In usenet discussions the maneuver runs up against at least stoppers.
>>The first is that the target of the analysis is there to read it and
>>almost certainly will disagree with it. The second is that the
>>analysis, being based on paucity of information about the target
>>(i.e, some postings in a highly artificial environment), is likely to
>>be wildly inaccurate. The third is that the missing information is
>>usually extracted from persons of straw maintained by the analyst.
>
>Actually, in this case, Steve and Will know each other well offline,
>so your second stopper emphatically doesn't apply. I don't think the
>third does, either, though that's less certain.
If they now each other well offline then the second stopper as stated
doesn't apply. Still the principle applies even with people that know
each other reasonably well. Our knowledge of others is direct
observation (what we have seen and heard ourselves), indirect
observation (what others report), and explanatory models we have
created of their thought and behaviour. The latter are useful because
of their generality. All that is needed of these models is that there
predictions usually be somewhat correct - being tentative they are
always subject to revision. The utility of these models does not mean
that they are terribly correct - they can be wildly incorrect and
still be useful. It happens often enough that close intimates
discover that there are really important things about the other person
that they were never aware of.
Be all of that as it may, the "I suspect the reason you say that is
because you are ..." gambit is not usually applied to people you know
well.
David Eppstein
c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> If they now each other well offline then the second stopper as stated
> doesn't apply. Still the principle applies even with people that know
> each other reasonably well. Our knowledge of others is direct
> observation (what we have seen and heard ourselves), indirect
> observation (what others report), and explanatory models we have
> created of their thought and behaviour. The latter are useful because
> of their generality. All that is needed of these models is that there
> predictions usually be somewhat correct - being tentative they are
> always subject to revision. The utility of these models does not mean
> that they are terribly correct - they can be wildly incorrect and
> still be useful. It happens often enough that close intimates
> discover that there are really important things about the other person
> that they were never aware of.
>
> Be all of that as it may, the "I suspect the reason you say that is
> because you are ..." gambit is not usually applied to people you know
> well.
"Oh, Richard, on re-reading your letter I find it so energetic, so
sensible and to the point when compared with this one! You want to
untangle this mystery, to pick up one clear end of the string and follow
it to its end. You want to act, to solve, to resolve."
To quote an example of this gambit perpetrated previously in fictional
correspondence by one of the participants in this recent discussion (or
by his then correspondent, I forget).
Your comment about being unaware of facets of close intimates applies
well in that case, too...
--
David Eppstein UC Irvine Dept. of Information & Computer Science
epps...@ics.uci.edu http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Mark Atwood
>
> In other words, Lee did not fight for his country, the USA, but for his
> state, Virginia, despite his feelings about slavery. Isn't that a point
> for my side?
At the time, the concept of dual sovrignity was more real than it is
now, and the State of Virginia was just as much Lee's "country" as the
United States was.
The Federal Government was then considered more like, say, the UN is,
or the EC was, by many people. Not "really" a country. As has been
pointed out by others, one of the issues the US Civil War settled was
if the term "The United States" was a singular or a plural.
Lee Ann Rucker
<m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Lee Ann Rucker <lru...@mac.com> writes:
> >
> > I have fans.
> >
> > OK, they're Mac Java Swing programmers, but they're still fans.
>
> Do you still give them free Swing tech support?
Yes, and they wrote in asking Apple to hire me after Sun laid me off -
I've got an interview tomorrow. Keeping the fans happy pays off :-)
Steven Brust
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 02:05:53 GMT, sk...@dreamcafe.com (Steven Brust)
>wrote:
>
>
>>I kind of suspect that what is behind this is a religious belief on
>>your part that ... This leads you to ...
>
>This is one of those usenet debate maneuvers that is ever so tempting
>and usually unproductive, to wit: Replacing arguing the point by
>speculating as to what in the psychology of the other person leads
>them to take such a wrong headed view.
Mea culpa. You're right. Sorry, Will.
Will Shetterly
sk...@dreamcafe.com (Steven Brust) wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 21:12:52 -0700, Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <3cc9e794....@news.lvcm.com>,
> > sk...@dreamcafe.com (Steven Brust) wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 00:30:34 -0700, Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >For me, there remains the question of Lee. A smart man opposed to
> >> >slavery who fought for the south. Didn't he know why he was fighting?
> >>
> >> Yes, he did; very much. He said so often. He fought for Virginia.
> >> Had Virginia not seceeded, he would not have fought for the south.
> >> Whether he would eventually have been convinced to fightfor the north
> >> must remain academic.
> >
> >In other words, Lee did not fight for his country, the USA, but for his
> >state, Virginia, despite his feelings about slavery. Isn't that a point
> >for my side?
> >
> If your point is, "the war was not about slavery," then no. If your
> point is something else,then I Am Sparticus.
I looked at my original post, and I see how people might have thought I
was ignoring slavery as a factor. I'm really not. I just think it's
simplistic to say that the Civil War was fought over a single thing.
It'd rather be like saying that World War II was fought over the Jews.
(Let me be the first to admit that this is an extremely imperfect
analogy. If there were perfect analogies, this would be much easier to
discuss.) (Damn. I guess I'm discussing it. Well, I retain the right to
abandon the discussion at any moment without warning. Now let's see if I
have enough sense to make use of the right.)
One of the issues that the Civil War resolved was whether or not states
have the right to secede. It's not in the Constitution. But now we all
know the answer.
As for my point about Lee, I think it's simplistic to say that Lee
fought for Virginia out of "patriotism." He knew that Virginia was his
state and the U.S. was his country. He also knew that slavery was wrong.
But when the crisis came, he supported his state's right to make its own
laws and go its own way.
There was no secret that Lee had freed his slaves. He was not despised
by other southerners for freeing his slaves. It was recognized that Lee
disagreed with the CSA's position on slavery, but supported the CSA's
right to exist. In regard to the war, slavery was irrelevant to Lee; he
was there to defend his state's rights.
I'm not as sure whether people knew about Grant's slaves. His wife, a
Kentuckian, owned them until 1865, when slavery was made illegal in the
slave-owning states that had remained loyal to the Union. But I'm also
sure that Grant did not hide the fact that his wife owned slaves. In
regard to the war, slavery was irrelevant to Grant; he was there to
impose federal power.
> >> You seem to have made the correct observation that those who say, "the
> >> civil war was fought to end slavery" are making such a wretched
> >> over-simplification that we can say, scientifically, that they are
> >> full of caca.. You somehow seem to have jumped from there to the
> >> conclusion that slavery, or more precisely the power of the southern
> >> slavocracy, was not at the heart of the conflict. The conclusion is
> >> not supported by the permise, nor by the preponderance of evidence.
> >
> >Hey, you want to say that a lot of people involved in the attempt to
> >create the CSA were participants in an unjust system, I'm there. Slavery
> >was the trigger. But it wasn't the cause, or the battle would have been
> >neatly drawn between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces.
> >
>
> If your only point is to insist on the distinction between "the cause"
> and "a cause" I might concede the point after a bit of thought.
Cool.
> But I
> suspect you are saying more. I contend that had, somehow (posit a
> miricle) the USA been set up, from the Revolution, as free-soil
> country, there would have been no Civil War.
I think that's likely. But we would've had a very different Union then,
a much less centralized one. I doubt, for example, that there would be
such a monolithic drug war in a Union like that.
> I kind of suspect that what is behind this is a religious belief on
> your part that any time human beings kill each other, under any
> circumstances, someone is making a terrible mistake. This leads you
> to search for what the "terrible mistake" in the Civil War must have
> been, and your conclusions follow. It is hard to argue with religious
> beliefs, but I can at least express respectful disagreement.
Hmm. It's true that I'm a pacifist. But I'm not especially religious, at
least, I'm not a pacifist because I think God cares whether or not Will
Shetterly is a pacifist. I'm a pacifist because I think it's the most
sensible position, that violence begets violence, and that slow peaceful
solutions are better in the long term than fast violent ones. Yes, you
can sow your enemies' fields with salt. But when you do, what else do
you lose in the potential for art, science, military alliances, or
friendships?
And, okay, since you bring it up, I think there's a kind of religious
belief on your part that violent revolution is sometimes the only
solution. I look at Canada and the U.S. today, and I don't think
Canadians are worse off for not joining the American Revolution. For all
the shortcomings of Canadian treatment of the native peoples, Canada
still treated them better than the U.S. Part of that, I suspect, is
because Canada is not quite as committed to violent solutions as the
U.S. is.
But, hey, I'm always content with respectful disagreement, you gorgeous
hunk of a man, you.
hugs and kisses,
Will Shetterly
Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> wrote:
> In article <shetterly-00184...@testnews.chatlink.com>,
> Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <3cc9e794....@news.lvcm.com>,
> > sk...@dreamcafe.com (Steven Brust) wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 00:30:34 -0700, Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >For me, there remains the question of Lee. A smart man opposed to
> > > >slavery who fought for the south. Didn't he know why he was
> > > >fighting?
> > >
> > > Yes, he did; very much. He said so often. He fought for Virginia.
> > > Had Virginia not seceeded, he would not have fought for the south.
> > > Whether he would eventually have been convinced to fightfor the
> > > north must remain academic.
> >
> > In other words, Lee did not fight for his country, the USA, but for
> > his state, Virginia, despite his feelings about slavery. Isn't that a
> > point for my side?
>
> Only if you can show that Virginia didn't secede over slavery.
Hmm. I think you then have to claim that the Union invaded Virginia in
order to abolish slavery. Yet Lincoln didn't do that for two more years,
and then he only abolished slavery in the slave-owning states that had
seceded.
I'm also more comfortable talking about why people did things, not why
governments did them. That some or many or all of Virginia's politicians
chose to secede over slavery is not pertinent to the question of whether
the Civil War was fought over slavery.
>
> > > >And the question of Grant. A smart man who kept his slaves until
> > > >slavery was made illegal in the north two years after it was made
> > > >illegal in the south. Did he also not know why the war was fought?
> > >
> > > Certainly. To preserve the union.
> >
> > Which is to say, to support federal rights over states' rights? Is
> > that two points for me?
>
> Only if you can show that the south really supported states' rights over
> federal power. If they really had, wouldn't Dred Scott have gone
> differently?
It would've been fascinating to see the Dred Scott decision played out
in the Confederacy; another story idea for Harry Turtledove. But it was
played out in the Union, so I'm not sure how it's pertinent.
>
> > > It is worth remembering that, had Maclellen not been so
> > > incompetant, the war *might* have ended without the destruction of
> > > slavery.
> >
> > Dude, you rule! Another swell alternate Civil War story that I won't
> > write.
>
> Harry Turtledove will write them all, eventually.
I mentioned that scenario to Harry today. (He, Emma, and I did a signing
at the Mysterious Galaxy booth at the Los Angeles Festival of the Book.)
Maybe he'll get to it soon!
>
> > Hey, you want to say that a lot of people involved in the attempt to
> > create the CSA were participants in an unjust system, I'm there.
> > Slavery was the trigger. But it wasn't the cause, or the battle would
> > have been neatly drawn between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces.
>
> It would?
>
> Let's test this. Are there any wars about which we can say, without
> serious fear of dispute, that they have definitely been "about" or
> "caused by" one particular thing? And if so, can we then draw a neat
> and sharp line putting the pro forces all on one side of the ear and the
> anti on the other? (Obviously, this works better if our cause isn't a
> tautology -- Side A believed that Side A should win, for example.)
How complicated was the French Revolution? The Soviet Revolution? The
Cuban Revolution? The American Revolution? Sure, nothing's completely
simple, But, uh, isn't that a point for my side, too?
Will Shetterly
I haven't answered. I've read them with interest (if my ISP didn't screw
up). But as we wander further and further from the subject of written
SF, I become more and more concerned that the topicops will pull us over
and we'll be lucky to get away with only a warning.
David T. Bilek
>I mentioned that scenario to Harry today. (He, Emma, and I did a signing
>at the Mysterious Galaxy booth at the Los Angeles Festival of the Book.)
>Maybe he'll get to it soon!
>
Oh bleeping bleeping bleep mother bleeping bleep.
That was this weekend?!? I live 10 minutes away.
Bleep.
-David
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
wrote:
>But as we wander further and further from the subject of written
>SF, I become more and more concerned that the topicops will pull us over
>and we'll be lucky to get away with only a warning.
Just continue, and you'll have to send a copy of _Dogland_ to all of
us who object to off topic posts. :-)
vlatko
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>One of the issues that the Civil War resolved was whether or not states
>have the right to secede. It's not in the Constitution. But now we all
>know the answer.
Technically, maybe we do, and maybe we just *think* we do. After the
war, the US held Jefferson Davis in prison for quite a while,
intending to try him for treason -- which, in the end, never happened;
they just let him go. Davis wanted a trial; he intended to argue that
states had a legal right to secede. Supposedly, what axed the trial
was that one of the Supreme Court justices pointed out privately to
the Feds that if they went ahead, SCOTUS would eventually be forced to
decide this issue, and the consequences if it ruled that the Union had
acted illegally would be somewhat mind-boggling.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
J.B. Moreno
> Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> wrote:
>
> > Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com> wrote:
-snip-
> > > In other words, Lee did not fight for his country, the USA, but for
> > > his state, Virginia, despite his feelings about slavery. Isn't that a
> > > point for my side?
> >
> > Only if you can show that Virginia didn't secede over slavery.
>
> Hmm. I think you then have to claim that the Union invaded Virginia in
> order to abolish slavery. Yet Lincoln didn't do that for two more years,
> and then he only abolished slavery in the slave-owning states that had
> seceded.
Not at all, different sides have different motivations -- i.e. if I
attempt to kick the crap out of some twerp in order to impress a girl,
and the twerp attempts to thwart that, he's not necessarily doing it
either to (a) impress the girl himself or (b) keep me from impressing
the girl, most likely he is (c) doing it because he doesn't want to end
up in the hospital.
(Also, you are ignoring the possibility that Lincoln's plan for
abolishing slavery required that it continue to exist for a period of
time, which since he wasn't a total idiot, is certainly the case. If I
was tossed back into the pre-civil war era with an funding and force
equal to the that of the Federal government of the time, *I* would not
attempt to abolish it immediately, but would rather do so over a period
of time, recognizing [perhaps simply because of hindsight] that
adjusting to a gradual change would be both easier and quicker in the
long run).
> I'm also more comfortable talking about why people did things, not why
> governments did them. That some or many or all of Virginia's politicians
> chose to secede over slavery is not pertinent to the question of whether
> the Civil War was fought over slavery.
You may not be comfortable with it, but that's the only logical
approach. For instance, the southern plan to free slaves if the fought
for the Confederacy -- would you then say that the /South/ was fighting
in order to free slaves?
In Lee's case, perhaps a better way of putting it would be "Lee fought
ought of loyalty to his neighbors, who fought to keep slaves".
I believe Grant's reasons are even less relevant to the conflict -- he
seemed to have fought mainly because that was the job he'd signed up to
do, and would have been just as happy invading Canada or Mexico if that
had been his orders.
--
JBM
"Your depression will be added to my own" -- Marvin of Borg
J.B. Moreno
> As for my point about Lee, I think it's simplistic to say that Lee
> fought for Virginia out of "patriotism." He knew that Virginia was his
> state and the U.S. was his country. He also knew that slavery was wrong.
> But when the crisis came, he supported his state's right to make its own
> laws and go its own way.
I don't believe that Lee considered the US his country -- he considered
/Virginia/ his country, while the US was an organization of which his
country was a part.
I think that he considered that Virginia and the US were in basically
the same relationship as the US and the UN, with a stronger UN trying to
get even stronger.
Will Shetterly
<2433F3030E66C7E6.64054636...@lp.airnews.net>,
Bill Snyder <bsn...@iadfw.net> wrote:
Another great alternate history story! Maybe I will have to write one of
these someday, if no one else gets to them first.
Will Shetterly
Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:18:26 -0700, Will Shetterly <shet...@mac.com>
> wrote:
>
> >But as we wander further and further from the subject of written
> >SF, I become more and more concerned that the topicops will pull us over
> >and we'll be lucky to get away with only a warning.
>
> Just continue, and you'll have to send a copy of _Dogland_ to all of
> us who object to off topic posts. :-)
Ah, would that I could. To connect this briefly to another thread
running currently, I can't get too upset about Amazon selling used books
because I like having people reading my books, however they get them. I
kind of wish Amazon didn't make it so very easy for people to choose
used instead of new, but that's a very tentative quibble. I've gone
through plenty of periods in my life when I've bought used books because
money was tight. I'm glad that used book sellers make it easy to find
out of print books. And I think any satisfied reader is a potential
future customer.
So, you get a digression instead of a DOGLAND. Sorry 'bout that!
Will Shetterly
sk...@dreamcafe.com (Steven Brust) wrote:
Instantly accepted, and sorry 'bout speculating in kind.