Sexist in a hairy-chest, gold-chain kind of way

[Don Kuenz]

An oldie but goodie recently came to my attention during a
surf started by Ryk's _Double Star_ critique.

The Zombie Robert Heinlein Rises From the Grave Yet Again to
Annoy the Politically Correct

Oh, look, another newspaper writer is digging a deep hole
to shove Robert Heinlein's reputation into, mostly by
intimating that no one takes Heinlein seriously anymore
anyway [1], trotting out a bookseller to intone about
Heinlein being a fascist, and even hauling up the New
York Times assessment of moi last year to wonder if
being sized-up for the "New Heinlein" mantle is actually
a compliment. ...

So to answer the question: Yes, it's a compliment. It's
a nice big fat career-making compliment. Thanks for asking.

That disposed of, the question is how on earth can Heinlein
possibly still be useful or popular when everyone knows he's
fascist, sexist relic of a primitive age. One answer is that
he's not (or, at least, isn't in enough of his books to work
with), but the problem with that answer is that even if it's
true, it's not actually a fun answer. So for chuckles and
grins, let's assume for the sake of argument that, indeed,
Robert Heinlein is a facist, sexist relic of a primitive
age. How, then, does he persist?

First answer: most book buyers don't give a crap. This is an
entirely reasonable answer, since, in fact, quite a few
authors persist in having popular books even when the author,
their books, or both, are widely deemed politically or
socially shaky in one way or another by the literary
taste-making class, whomever they may be. Please see Ayn
Rand, Tom Clancy, Orson Scott Card, Michael Crichton and
roughly 75% of the author lineup of Baen Books as evidence
of this.

(excerpt)

http://tinyurl.com/n2h6oyy

It's probably safe to add _Mulon Labe_, _Hunger Games_, and prepper
stories to the Scalzi shaky list. ;)

Note:

[1] "His rabid fan base is graying," said Annalee Newitz, who writes
about science fiction for Wired and Gawker. "To literary readers,
the books look cheesy, sexist in a hairy-chest, gold-chain kind
of way. His stuff hasn't stood the test of time," because of
characters' windy speechifying and their frontier optimism.

--

( \_/ )
(='-'=) Don Kuenz
(")_(")

[Cryptoengineer]

Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> wrote in news:m6kh7h$rae$1...@dont-email.me:

>
> Note:
>
> [1] "His rabid fan base is graying," said Annalee Newitz, who writes
> about science fiction for Wired and Gawker. "To literary readers,

^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
Really? Both of them?

[A.G.McDowell]

On 14/12/2014 17:26, Don Kuenz wrote:
(trimmed)

> It's probably safe to add _Mulon Labe_, _Hunger Games_, and prepper
> stories to the Scalzi shaky list. ;)
>
> Note:
>
> [1] "His rabid fan base is graying," said Annalee Newitz, who writes
> about science fiction for Wired and Gawker. "To literary readers,
> the books look cheesy, sexist in a hairy-chest, gold-chain kind
> of way. His stuff hasn't stood the test of time," because of
> characters' windy speechifying and their frontier optimism.
>
> --
>
> ( \_/ )
> (='-'=) Don Kuenz
> (")_(")

This is delicious! Should I be accused of sexism, can I refute the
allegation, or at least reduce the charges, by demonstrating that I do
not have a hairy chest?

[lal_truckee]

On 12/14/14 9:26 AM, Don Kuenz wrote:
> An oldie but goodie recently came to my attention during a
> surf started by Ryk's_Double Star_ critique.

If he wasn't still important, they wouldn't be writing disparaging
comments. Critics of Heinlein act as if his continued sales is a
personal affront to their dignity.

[JRStern]

+1

[JRStern]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2014 12:19:17 -0600, Cryptoengineer
<pete...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> wrote in news:m6kh7h$rae$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>
>>
>> Note:
>>
>> [1] "His rabid fan base is graying," said Annalee Newitz, who writes
>> about science fiction for Wired and Gawker. "To literary readers,
> ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
> Really? Both of them?

Exactamundo. It's scifi, and the literary readers probably have never
heard of Heinlein outside of this article, never read him or anything
like him. Too bad for them, it might cure them of being "literary
readers".

J.

[Cryptoengineer]

JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote in
news:kn9s8atva05ndgvah...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 14 Dec 2014 12:19:17 -0600, Cryptoengineer
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> wrote in
>>news:m6kh7h$rae$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Note:
>>>
>>> [1] "His rabid fan base is graying," said Annalee Newitz, who writes
>>> about science fiction for Wired and Gawker. "To literary
>>> readers,
>> ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>> Really? Both of
>> them?

Just to clarify a possible font related issue. I applied 'both of them'
to 'literary readers', not 'Wired and Gawker'.

pt

> Exactamundo. It's scifi, and the literary readers probably have never
> heard of Heinlein outside of this article, never read him or anything
> like him. Too bad for them, it might cure them of being "literary
> readers".

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <XnsA403878327...@216.166.97.131>,

Hm. The parentheses with which trn indicates a previous post in
a thread are empty on my screen. Did you perhaps reply to an
email by a post by mistake? Or to a post old enough that it has
aged off my server? Just curious, since your post seems to lack
context.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 02:12:26 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in <news:nGLq4...@kithrup.com>
in alt.fan.heinlein,rec.arts.sf.written:

> In article <XnsA403878327...@216.166.97.131>,
> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> wrote in news:m6kh7h$rae$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Note:
>>>
>>> [1] "His rabid fan base is graying," said Annalee Newitz, who writes
>>> about science fiction for Wired and Gawker. "To literary readers,
>> ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>> Really? Both of them?
>>> the books look cheesy, sexist in a hairy-chest, gold-chain kind
>>> of way.
>
> Hm. The parentheses with which trn indicates a previous post in
> a thread are empty on my screen. Did you perhaps reply to an
> email by a post by mistake? Or to a post old enough that it has
> aged off my server? Just curious, since your post seems to lack
> context.

No, both previous posts are from today (Sunday, 14 December
2014), and Peter’s has the appropriate References header.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[Don Kuenz]

In rec.arts.sf.written Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> In article <XnsA403878327...@216.166.97.131>,
> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> wrote in news:m6kh7h$rae$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Note:
>>>
>>> [1] "His rabid fan base is graying," said Annalee Newitz, who writes
>>> about science fiction for Wired and Gawker. "To literary readers,
>> ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>> Really? Both of them?
>>> the books look cheesy, sexist in a hairy-chest, gold-chain kind
>>> of way.
>
> Hm. The parentheses with which trn indicates a previous post in
> a thread are empty on my screen. Did you perhaps reply to an
> email by a post by mistake? Or to a post old enough that it has
> aged off my server? Just curious, since your post seems to lack
> context.

Me too. My own original post never fed back into my personal usenet
server. FWIW, here is my original post yet again. (I truly do not know
what will come of this followup.)

An oldie but goodie recently came to my attention during a Ryk
_Double Star_ critique inspired surf.

Note:

[1] "His rabid fan base is graying," said Annalee Newitz, who writes
about science fiction for Wired and Gawker. "To literary readers,

the books look cheesy, sexist in a hairy-chest, gold-chain kind

[Greg Goss]

Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> wrote:

>In rec.arts.sf.written Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

>> Hm. The parentheses with which trn indicates a previous post in
>> a thread are empty on my screen. Did you perhaps reply to an
>> email by a post by mistake? Or to a post old enough that it has
>> aged off my server? Just curious, since your post seems to lack
>> context.
>
>Me too. My own original post never fed back into my personal usenet
>server. FWIW, here is my original post yet again. (I truly do not know
>what will come of this followup.)

The original post came out OK here, threaded correctly in Agent 1.x
and fetched from individual.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Cryptoengineer]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:nGLq4...@kithrup.com:

> In article <XnsA403878327...@216.166.97.131>,
> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> wrote in
>>news:m6kh7h$rae$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Note:
>>>
>>> [1] "His rabid fan base is graying," said Annalee Newitz, who writes
>>> about science fiction for Wired and Gawker. "To literary
>>> readers,
>> ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>> Really? Both of
>> them?
>>> the books look cheesy, sexist in a hairy-chest, gold-chain kind
>>> of way.
>
> Hm. The parentheses with which trn indicates a previous post in
> a thread are empty on my screen. Did you perhaps reply to an
> email by a post by mistake? Or to a post old enough that it has
> aged off my server? Just curious, since your post seems to lack
> context.
>

Dorothy:

I applied 'Really? Both of them?' to 'literary readers'.

Why you're having issues, I have no idea.

pt

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <taxjyb6ni284$.qrq8puph...@40tude.net>,

Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 02:12:26 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt
><djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in <news:nGLq4...@kithrup.com>
>in alt.fan.heinlein,rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> In article <XnsA403878327...@216.166.97.131>,
>> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> wrote in news:m6kh7h$rae$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note:
>>>>
>>>> [1] "His rabid fan base is graying," said Annalee Newitz, who writes
>>>> about science fiction for Wired and Gawker. "To literary readers,
>>> ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>>> Really? Both of them?
>>>> the books look cheesy, sexist in a hairy-chest, gold-chain kind
>>>> of way.
>>
>> Hm. The parentheses with which trn indicates a previous post in
>> a thread are empty on my screen. Did you perhaps reply to an
>> email by a post by mistake? Or to a post old enough that it has
>> aged off my server? Just curious, since your post seems to lack
>> context.
>
>No, both previous posts are from today (Sunday, 14 December
>2014), and Peter’s has the appropriate References header.

Interesting. I am still seeing nothing but a pair of empty
parentheses.

/shrug

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Thank you. I gathered from further downthread that the context
was something about Heinlein, but now I know.

My personal take, oversimplified to exclude a couple of
exceptions, is still early Heinlein good, late Heinlein bad.
I am certainly grey-haired, but I own no gold chains (yellow is
my least favorite color) and I have no hair on my chest.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <XnsA403E5A4E6...@216.166.97.131>,

Me neither. I did figure out what your "both" referred to, but
what I saw in the first post visible to me was nothing but an
edited quote and your comment.

[Michael Black]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2014, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> In article <XnsA403878327...@216.166.97.131>,
> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> wrote in news:m6kh7h$rae$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Note:
>>>
>>> [1] "His rabid fan base is graying," said Annalee Newitz, who writes
>>> about science fiction for Wired and Gawker. "To literary readers,
>> ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>> Really? Both of them?
>>> the books look cheesy, sexist in a hairy-chest, gold-chain kind
>>> of way.
>
> Hm. The parentheses with which trn indicates a previous post in
> a thread are empty on my screen. Did you perhaps reply to an
> email by a post by mistake? Or to a post old enough that it has
> aged off my server? Just curious, since your post seems to lack
> context.
>

My guess was that the original was posted to rec.arts.sf.written amd then
later someone added alt.fan.heinlein.

I sure haven't seen the original either.

But checking google, the first post was cross-posted, so I don't know what
happened. It's been a long time since messages routinely never made it to
some servers. I am surprised that both of us didn't see the first post.

Michael

[Lynn McGuire]

+1

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

Scalzi does write very complimentary articles once in a while.

And good books always. And yes, very Heinleinesqe. A very high
compliment and a definitely a mark of goodness for any author to get
noticed by me.

Lynn

[William December Starr]

In article <m6li0c$nd4$1...@dont-email.me>,

Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> said:

> An oldie but goodie recently came to my attention during a Ryk
> _Double Star_ critique inspired surf.
>
> The Zombie Robert Heinlein Rises From the Grave Yet Again to
> Annoy the Politically Correct

And that's about where I probably would have stopped reading the
column if it wasn't by somebody like Scalzi, because as a first-pass
heuristic "People who yawp about 'political correctness' aren't
worth the effort of listening to" works pretty darned well.

-- wds

[David DeLaney]

On 2014-12-15, Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 02:12:26 GMT, Dorothy J Heydt

>>> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> wrote in news:m6kh7h$rae$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>>> Note:
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] "His rabid fan base is graying," said Annalee Newitz, who writes
>>>>> about science fiction for Wired and Gawker. "To literary readers,
>>>> ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>>>> Really? Both of them?
>>>>> the books look cheesy, sexist in a hairy-chest, gold-chain kind
>>>>> of way.
>>>
>>> Hm. The parentheses with which trn indicates a previous post in
>>> a thread are empty on my screen. Did you perhaps reply to an
>>> email by a post by mistake? Or to a post old enough that it has
>>> aged off my server? Just curious, since your post seems to lack
>>> context.
>>
>>No, both previous posts are from today (Sunday, 14 December

>>2014), and Peter???s has the appropriate References header.

>
> Interesting. I am still seeing nothing but a pair of empty
> parentheses.
>
> /shrug

It's possible, because of the rampant causality violations inherent in
hexapodia as a key concept, that the parent article(s) have not yet gotten
TO Dorothy's server, and that once they do, the empty set will acquire one
or more members, like magic!

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

On 2014-12-14, A.G.McDowell <andrew-...@o2.co.uk> wrote:
> On 14/12/2014 17:26, Don Kuenz wrote:
>> [1] "His rabid fan base is graying," said Annalee Newitz, who writes
>> about science fiction for Wired and Gawker. "To literary readers,
>> the books look cheesy, sexist in a hairy-chest, gold-chain kind
>> of way. His stuff hasn't stood the test of time," because of
>> characters' windy speechifying and their frontier optimism.
>

> This is delicious! Should I be accused of sexism, can I refute the
> allegation, or at least reduce the charges, by demonstrating that I do
> not have a hairy chest?

Well, if you are a mammal, and I remind you that nobody knows here if you're
a dog but that's still a mammal, you DO, it just may be fine, not-visible-
except-to-a-very-close-look hairs that are involved. Ditto Dorothy, actually.

Dave, "wait, you're inspecting my chest WHY again? ... that's a new one!"

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2014 17:26:51 +0000 (UTC), Don Kuenz
<gar...@crcomp.net> wrote:

[snip]

> First answer: most book buyers don't give a crap. This is an
> entirely reasonable answer, since, in fact, quite a few
> authors persist in having popular books even when the author,
> their books, or both, are widely deemed politically or
> socially shaky in one way or another by the literary
> taste-making class, whomever they may be. Please see Ayn
> Rand, Tom Clancy, Orson Scott Card, Michael Crichton and
> roughly 75% of the author lineup of Baen Books as evidence
> of this.

Well, actually, thanks to the controversy about Card, I picked up
several of his books. I do not like all of his work, but for the ones
I do like, man, he writes a great story.

Thanks, haters!

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[David Johnston]

On 12/14/2014 10:26 AM, Don Kuenz wrote:
> An oldie but goodie recently came to my attention during a
> surf started by Ryk's _Double Star_ critique.
>
> The Zombie Robert Heinlein Rises From the Grave Yet Again to
> Annoy the Politically Correct
>
> Oh, look, another newspaper writer is digging a deep hole
> to shove Robert Heinlein's reputation into, mostly by
> intimating that no one takes Heinlein seriously anymore
> anyway [1], trotting out a bookseller to intone about
> Heinlein being a fascist, and even hauling up the New
> York Times assessment of moi last year to wonder if
> being sized-up for the "New Heinlein" mantle is actually
> a compliment. ...
>
> So to answer the question: Yes, it's a compliment. It's
> a nice big fat career-making compliment. Thanks for asking.
>
> That disposed of, the question is how on earth can Heinlein
> possibly still be useful or popular when everyone knows he's
> fascist, sexist relic of a primitive age.

Wow. Talk about knee-jerk rants.

[A.G.McDowell]

On 15/12/2014 06:41, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2014-12-14, A.G.McDowell<andrew-...@o2.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 14/12/2014 17:26, Don Kuenz wrote:
>>> [1] "His rabid fan base is graying," said Annalee Newitz, who writes
>>> about science fiction for Wired and Gawker. "To literary readers,
>>> the books look cheesy, sexist in a hairy-chest, gold-chain kind
>>> of way. His stuff hasn't stood the test of time," because of
>>> characters' windy speechifying and their frontier optimism.
>>
>> This is delicious! Should I be accused of sexism, can I refute the
>> allegation, or at least reduce the charges, by demonstrating that I do
>> not have a hairy chest?
>
> Well, if you are a mammal, and I remind you that nobody knows here if you're
> a dog but that's still a mammal, you DO, it just may be fine, not-visible-
> except-to-a-very-close-look hairs that are involved. Ditto Dorothy, actually.
>
> Dave, "wait, you're inspecting my chest WHY again? ... that's a new one!"

Since tests such as http://www.understandingprejudice.org/iat/ are
sufficiently sensitive to claim to detect some sort of hidden bias in
everybody, I guess that is at last consistent - "This test has been
taken more than one million times, and the results usually reveal some
degree of bias"

(The last time the hairiness of my chest was relevant, I was removing
ECG leads from it :-)).

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <y6ednTNRQ8e7HxPJ...@earthlink.com>,

Maybe. As I type they're still empty, but if something suddenly
appears in them, and it isn't something four-dimensional that
drives me into an abyss of Lovecraftian madness, I'll report.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <y6ednTJRQ8c6HxPJ...@earthlink.com>,

David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>On 2014-12-14, A.G.McDowell <andrew-...@o2.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 14/12/2014 17:26, Don Kuenz wrote:
>>> [1] "His rabid fan base is graying," said Annalee Newitz, who writes
>>> about science fiction for Wired and Gawker. "To literary readers,
>>> the books look cheesy, sexist in a hairy-chest, gold-chain kind
>>> of way. His stuff hasn't stood the test of time," because of
>>> characters' windy speechifying and their frontier optimism.
>>
>> This is delicious! Should I be accused of sexism, can I refute the
>> allegation, or at least reduce the charges, by demonstrating that I do
>> not have a hairy chest?
>
>Well, if you are a mammal, and I remind you that nobody knows here if you're
>a dog but that's still a mammal, you DO, it just may be fine, not-visible-
>except-to-a-very-close-look hairs that are involved. Ditto Dorothy, actually.

Well, in theory, yes. In practice, as I age the miscellaneous
fine hairs on my skin have mostly disappeared. I can't perceive
any hairs whatever on my chest, and (unlike Mr. Prufrock's
girlfriend) I no longer have any light brown downy hairs on my
arms, whereas I used to.

[Don Kuenz]

There's a lot more lulz available at the above link to Scalzi's blog.
Scalzi also includes apropos links, including the "hairy chest" bit
that's featured in the Subject line.

The hairy chest crew speculates that PKD's more accepted these days
because more movies were made from PKD stories. Scalzi retorts that
nobody really cares when Hollywood butchers a PKD story.

Here's a stocking stuffer.

Heinlein fans are a harsh mistress - The S&L Podcast #039
http://tinyurl.com/ks8mrq3 13:20

Heinlein is a weak minded adolescent authoritarian ...
naive solipsistic libertarian drivel ...

Our Heinlein critic displays a bit of cognitive dissonance. Libertarian
authoritarian is an oxymoron. Authoritarian powers-that-be hate
libertarianism.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <m6m11e$3n1$1...@dont-email.me>,

David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>On 12/14/2014 10:26 AM, Don Kuenz wrote:

[rant elided, since even I have now seen it on repeat]

>Wow. Talk about knee-jerk rants.

Yes, almost sounds as if the writer were envious. (Was it
actually Scalzi who produced the rant, or am I seen
misattributions again?)

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <m6mug3$i0e$1...@dont-email.me>, Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> wrote:
>
>Here's a stocking stuffer.
>
> Heinlein fans are a harsh mistress - The S&L Podcast #039
> http://tinyurl.com/ks8mrq3 13:20
>
> Heinlein is a weak minded adolescent authoritarian ...
> naive solipsistic libertarian drivel ...
>
>Our Heinlein critic displays a bit of cognitive dissonance. Libertarian
>authoritarian is an oxymoron. Authoritarian powers-that-be hate
>libertarianism.

And vice versa, a?

[David DeLaney]

On 2014-12-15, Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

> David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>>It's possible, because of the rampant causality violations inherent in
>>hexapodia as a key concept, that the parent article(s) have not yet gotten
>>TO Dorothy's server, and that once they do, the empty set will acquire one
>>or more members, like magic!
>
> Maybe. As I type they're still empty, but if something suddenly
> appears in them, and it isn't something four-dimensional that
> drives me into an abyss of Lovecraftian madness, I'll report.

... ... if it is - could you report anyway? FOR SCIENCE!!1!

[David DeLaney]

On 2014-12-15, Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:

>>Well, if you are a mammal, and I remind you that nobody knows here if you're
>>a dog but that's still a mammal, you DO, it just may be fine, not-visible-
>>except-to-a-very-close-look hairs that are involved. Ditto Dorothy, actually.
>
> Well, in theory, yes. In practice, as I age the miscellaneous
> fine hairs on my skin have mostly disappeared. I can't perceive
> any hairs whatever on my chest, and (unlike Mr. Prufrock's
> girlfriend) I no longer have any light brown downy hairs on my
> arms, whereas I used to.

Fair enough; I myself appear to have lost all hairs wherever the edema /
neuropathy has transformed the natural dandruffiness of my skin into scaliness
(purely from dead skin deciding it will Hold On Forever Liek Callus Thanks, it
seems).

Dave, when the transformation is complete I MAY ALREADY BE DEAD please do not
poke the subject

[NoneSuch]

On 2014-12-15 19:16:37 +0000, David DeLaney said:

> Dave, when the transformation is complete I MAY ALREADY BE DEAD please do not
> poke the subject

I'm reminded of an old story that I read as a child called (IIRC) The
Chrysalis...

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <mIqdneDKes6UrhLJ...@earthlink.com>,

David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>On 2014-12-15, Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>>>It's possible, because of the rampant causality violations inherent in
>>>hexapodia as a key concept, that the parent article(s) have not yet gotten
>>>TO Dorothy's server, and that once they do, the empty set will acquire one
>>>or more members, like magic!
>>
>> Maybe. As I type they're still empty, but if something suddenly
>> appears in them, and it isn't something four-dimensional that
>> drives me into an abyss of Lovecraftian madness, I'll report.
>
>... ... if it is - could you report anyway? FOR SCIENCE!!1!
>

Still empty.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <mIqdnePKes4IrhLJ...@earthlink.com>,

David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>On 2014-12-15, Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>>>Well, if you are a mammal, and I remind you that nobody knows here if you're
>>>a dog but that's still a mammal, you DO, it just may be fine, not-visible-
>>>except-to-a-very-close-look hairs that are involved. Ditto Dorothy, actually.
>>
>> Well, in theory, yes. In practice, as I age the miscellaneous
>> fine hairs on my skin have mostly disappeared. I can't perceive
>> any hairs whatever on my chest, and (unlike Mr. Prufrock's
>> girlfriend) I no longer have any light brown downy hairs on my
>> arms, whereas I used to.
>
>Fair enough; I myself appear to have lost all hairs wherever the edema /
>neuropathy has transformed the natural dandruffiness of my skin into scaliness
>(purely from dead skin deciding it will Hold On Forever Liek Callus Thanks, it
>seems).
>
>Dave, when the transformation is complete I MAY ALREADY BE DEAD please do not
> poke the subject

There was an article on _Slate_ recently stating that the best
way to explain strange occurrences in movies (the author was
citing _Interstellar_ in particular) was:

Everybody's Already Dead.

A theme Connie Willis has used, and Sayers touched on it in _The
Unpleantness at the Bellona Club._

So do continue posting, dead or not. You enliven the group
considerably.

[Joseph Nebus]

In <m6mug3$i0e$1...@dont-email.me> Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> writes:

> Heinlein is a weak minded adolescent authoritarian ...
> naive solipsistic libertarian drivel ...

>Our Heinlein critic displays a bit of cognitive dissonance. Libertarian
>authoritarian is an oxymoron. Authoritarian powers-that-be hate
>libertarianism.

Cause if there's one thing nobody talking about Heinlein the
man ever says, it's that he was an authoritarian personality. And even
Heinlein the writer never stacks the deck in favor of characters who
proclaim This Is The Way Things Simply Must Be Done, who turn out to be
right, as opposed to those people who want to do things other ways and
who are proven by The Universe to be fatuous chuckleheads.


--
Joseph Nebus
Math: Reading the Comics: Pictures Gone Again? http://wp.me/p1RYhY-FN
Humor: A State Of Constant Change http://wp.me/p37lb5-FT
--------------------------------------------------------+---------------------

[David Johnston]

Or Heinlein does.

[Will in New Haven]

On Monday, December 15, 2014 5:28:39 PM UTC-5, Joseph Nebus wrote:
> In <m6mug3$i0e$1...@dont-email.me> Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> writes:
>
> > Heinlein is a weak minded adolescent authoritarian ...
> > naive solipsistic libertarian drivel ...
>
> >Our Heinlein critic displays a bit of cognitive dissonance. Libertarian
> >authoritarian is an oxymoron. Authoritarian powers-that-be hate
> >libertarianism.
>
> Cause if there's one thing nobody talking about Heinlein the
> man ever says, it's that he was an authoritarian personality. And even
> Heinlein the writer never stacks the deck in favor of characters who
> proclaim This Is The Way Things Simply Must Be Done, who turn out to be
> right, as opposed to those people who want to do things other ways and
> who are proven by The Universe to be fatuous chuckleheads.

Obviously it is possible to have libertarian leanings and still have a forceful personality that tends to overwhelm the people around you. There are more extreme examples than Heinlein.

--
Will in New Haven

[William December Starr]

In article <nGn8u...@kithrup.com>,

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:

> There was an article on _Slate_ recently stating that the
> best way to explain strange occurrences in movies (the
> author was citing _Interstellar_ in particular) was:
>
> Everybody's Already Dead.

While tv shows can always fall back on Dwayne McDuffie's Tommy
Westphal Universe Hypothesis:

The Fifth Column:
Six Degrees of St. Elsewhere
By Dwayne McDuffie
01.29.02

http://www.slushfactory.com/content/EpupypyZAZTDOLwdfz.php

...which holds that "The last five minutes of 'St. Elsewhere' is
the only television show, ever. Everything else is a[n autistic
child's] daydream."

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <m6mug3$i0e$1...@dont-email.me>,

Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> said:

> The hairy chest crew speculates that PKD's more accepted these
> days because more movies were made from PKD stories. Scalzi
> retorts that nobody really cares when Hollywood butchers a PKD
> story.

And why should they? Nobody cared when Philip K. Dick did it.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <m6mug3$i0e$1...@dont-email.me>,
Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> said:

> Our Heinlein critic displays a bit of cognitive
> dissonance. Libertarian authoritarian is an
> oxymoron. Authoritarian powers-that-be hate libertarianism.

I think there are a while lot of libertarians for whom the core of
libertarianism is the freedom to do, without interference from
lesser mortals, whatever one wants with the power that one's money
and/or authoritarian status blesses one with.

-- wds

[Will in New Haven]

Well, that's not a _unique_ excuse for being a statist would-be tyrant and enabler of tyrants but it is succinctly stated.

[David DeLaney]

On 2014-12-15, Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> David DeLaney <d...@vic.com> wrote:
>>Dave, when the transformation is complete I MAY ALREADY BE DEAD please do not
>> poke the subject
>
> There was an article on _Slate_ recently stating that the best
> way to explain strange occurrences in movies (the author was
> citing _Interstellar_ in particular) was:
>
> Everybody's Already Dead.
>
> A theme Connie Willis has used, and Sayers touched on it in _The
> Unpleantness at the Bellona Club._
>
> So do continue posting, dead or not. You enliven the group
> considerably.

Why thank you kindly ma'am!

I do intend to keep posting, on and off, as long as a) I can and b) I find
things to say or reply to!

Dave, imminent death of Usenet predicted, holodeck re-enactment at 11

[Vance Frickey]

On Sunday, December 14, 2014 11:27:11 AM UTC-6, Don Kuenz wrote:
> An oldie but goodie recently came to my attention during a
> surf started by Ryk's _Double Star_ critique.
>

"His rabid fan base is graying," said Annalee Newitz, who writes
> about science fiction for Wired and Gawker. "To literary readers,
> the books look cheesy, sexist in a hairy-chest, gold-chain kind
> of way. His stuff hasn't stood the test of time," because of
> characters' windy speechifying and their frontier optimism.
>

> ( \_/ )
> (='-'=) Don Kuenz
> (")_(")

Which, of course, is why they still sell so well, and why several movie adaptations have been made of his work, the latest such screenplay done by Buffy/Firefly's Tim Minear (of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress).

And now that cyberterrorists have shown they can play major movie studios like a violin, escapist literature may be all the rage....

Vance Frickey

[Dan Tilque]

William December Starr wrote:
>
> I think there are a while lot of libertarians for whom the core of
> libertarianism is the freedom to do, without interference from
> lesser mortals, whatever one wants with the power that one's money
> and/or authoritarian status blesses one with.

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection
from their slaves.”
― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

--
Dan Tilque

[Puppet_Sock]

On Sunday, December 14, 2014 12:27:11 PM UTC-5, Don Kuenz wrote:
[snip clips from John Scalzi]

Well, I don't know what other people think when they see an author compared favorably with RAH. But this post just got Mr. Scalzi four more book sales. I've just ordered _Lock In_, _Last Colony_, _Ghost Brigade_, and _Old Man's War_ from Amazon.

If he's even passingly similar to RAH I'm going to be quite pleased. If he's a good story teller I'm going to be pretty happy.

[MajorOz]

Yer gonna love his stuff.....just read it in order.

[Kevin D. Marsh]

"Puppet_Sock" wrote in message
news:609aa3f3-3d77-4a12...@googlegroups.com...

I grew up on Heinlein and instantly felt right at home with Scalzi's Old
Man's War, and the follow up stories. He doesn't imitate Heinlein, but I
think they were cut from similar cloth.