E.E. "Doc" Smith
Eric Ammadon
away with 2 of Doc Smith's books, _First_Lensman_ (1950) and
_Second_Stage_Lensmen_ (1953).
His writing isn't exactly comparable with modern SF since it's fairly
prototypical. As I told my wife, it's sort of like reading the
memoirs of the caveman who invented the first wheel.
In a couple places he talks about psychological surgery to modify
peoples' memories. In that context he talks about breaks in memory
chains.
I found that interesting, because those memory-chain breaks are what
L.Ron Hubbard calls "engrams" in his _Dianetics_ which was also
published in 1950. Hubbard goes on, as I recall, about dianetics
being a "science of mind", which is a phrase used by "Doc" Smith when
referring to the Arisians.
Looking around I also came across references to A.E. van Vogt having
worked with Hubbard on developing dianetics in the 1950s.
What a strange brew!
--
arggh, is it priate day again?
Ric Locke
I'm sorry, but I don't at all see why you would think that remarkable.
The notion that human beings are behaviorally plastic, and that various
procedures can result in fundamental changes in human behavior, is
fundamental to (what was then regarded as) the emerging science of
psychology. Outbreaks using different terminology are all over the first
half of the Twentieth Century, from New Soviet Man through the founding
psychologists to the notion of "brainwashing", and survive today as
"deprogramming", psychological "therapy", and the like.
The notion looks quaint today, in a world of psychoactive drugs and
awareness that much mental illness is the result of chemical imbalances
and disorders in the physical basis of "thinking". At the time, though,
the notion was pervasive, and pops up all over the place. Consider "The
Manchurian Candidate", for instance.
I wouldn't even put Hubbard as the main offender in that particular
chain; he's just the one who put it all together to make money off it,
and van Vogt had his version (non-Aristotelianism) worked out in much
more detail at the time. S. Freud is another example of the same thing.
Regards,
Ric
Peter Knutsen
[...]
> I wouldn't even put Hubbard as the main offender in that particular
> chain; he's just the one who put it all together to make money off it,
> and van Vogt had his version (non-Aristotelianism) worked out in much
> more detail at the time. S. Freud is another example of the same thing.
How much was John W. Campbell into it?
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Eric Ammadon
>On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:52:21 -0700, Eric Ammadon wrote:
>
>> A couple weeks ago I took some books to the used book store and came
>> away with 2 of Doc Smith's books, _First_Lensman_ (1950) and
>> _Second_Stage_Lensmen_ (1953).
>>
>> His writing isn't exactly comparable with modern SF since it's fairly
>> prototypical. As I told my wife, it's sort of like reading the
>> memoirs of the caveman who invented the first wheel.
>>
>> In a couple places he talks about psychological surgery to modify
>> peoples' memories. In that context he talks about breaks in memory
>> chains.
>>
>> I found that interesting, because those memory-chain breaks are what
>> L.Ron Hubbard calls "engrams" in his _Dianetics_ which was also
>> published in 1950. Hubbard goes on, as I recall, about dianetics
>> being a "science of mind", which is a phrase used by "Doc" Smith when
>> referring to the Arisians.
>>
>> Looking around I also came across references to A.E. van Vogt having
>> worked with Hubbard on developing dianetics in the 1950s.
>>
>> What a strange brew!
>
>I'm sorry, but I don't at all see why you would think that remarkable.
Probably because it seems quaint and both seemed to accept the
likelihood of a similar mechanism -- it isn't the concept that seems
remarkable but the closeness of the timing, at least two forward
thinkers coming to similar conclusions during the same period. Or
maybe it seems remarkable because I was learning to walk at about that
time. Miz Rosenbaum seems to have been writing heavily during the
same period, Nikola Tesla had stepped aside in 1943 and Uncle Albert
was about to in 1955. Perhaps world wars are thought-inspiring, I
can't say for sure but I'd prefer not to find out the hard way. I do
seem to miss out on the best parties though...
>The notion that human beings are behaviorally plastic, and that various
>procedures can result in fundamental changes in human behavior, is
>fundamental to (what was then regarded as) the emerging science of
>psychology. Outbreaks using different terminology are all over the first
>half of the Twentieth Century, from New Soviet Man through the founding
>psychologists to the notion of "brainwashing", and survive today as
>"deprogramming", psychological "therapy", and the like.
>
>The notion looks quaint today, in a world of psychoactive drugs and
>awareness that much mental illness is the result of chemical imbalances
[perhaps those creating the greatest profits]
>and disorders in the physical basis of "thinking". At the time, though,
>the notion was pervasive, and pops up all over the place. Consider "The
>Manchurian Candidate", for instance.
Funny thing, that one falls into the _Gone_With_The_Wind_ category of
boredom for me.
>I wouldn't even put Hubbard as the main offender in that particular
>chain; he's just the one who put it all together to make money off it,
>and van Vogt had his version (non-Aristotelianism) worked out in much
>more detail at the time. S. Freud is another example of the same thing.
>
>Regards,
>Ric
I'm gonna skip right past comments about the descendants of Hubbard's
philosophy being investigated by organized crime taskforces.
Sometimes it's hard to tell an Eddorian from a can of peaches.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> I'm gonna skip right past comments about the descendants of Hubbard's
> philosophy being investigated by organized crime taskforces.
>
> Sometimes it's hard to tell an Eddorian from a can of peaches.
>
The can of peaches won't drive you mad just from looking at it (well,
unless you're REALLY hungry and have no can opener), and originated on
Earth rather than in some indescribably alien dimension.
Also it probably won't demand that you obey it and help conquer the
entirety of reality.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Eric Ammadon
>Eric Ammadon wrote:
>
>> I'm gonna skip right past comments about the descendants of Hubbard's
>> philosophy being investigated by organized crime taskforces.
>>
>> Sometimes it's hard to tell an Eddorian from a can of peaches.
>>
>
> The can of peaches won't drive you mad just from looking at it (well,
>unless you're REALLY hungry and have no can opener),
"Always carry a chainsaw or a space axe."
> and originated on
>Earth rather than in some indescribably alien dimension.
>
> Also it probably won't demand that you obey it and help conquer the
>entirety of reality.
I don't understand why things that come from alien dimensions don't
stay there, what do we have that's so great and where can I get some
of that?
I also don't get "intrinsic velocity" but I suppose that's because I
have no experience with the inertialess.
And I find Doc's description of speeds of millions of lights or
whatever to be kind of silly... though I guess in those days FTS
(Faster Than Shit!) would have been impolitic.
[btw, I know little of the overall worldview of your work, but I sense
some roots in Doc's work and suspect I'd find more in _Triplanetary_.]
James A. Donald
wrote:
> Probably because it seems quaint and both seemed to accept the
> likelihood of a similar mechanism -- it isn't the concept that seems
> remarkable but the closeness of the timing, at least two forward
> thinkers coming to similar conclusions during the same period. Or
> maybe it seems remarkable because I was learning to walk at about that
> time. Miz Rosenbaum seems to have been writing heavily during the
> same period, Nikola Tesla had stepped aside in 1943 and Uncle Albert
> was about to in 1955. Perhaps world wars are thought-inspiring
Causality in the other direction seems more likely. More likely the
wars were caused by dangerous thoughts. The world wars were
ideological, especially the second - ideas about government
and violence, backed by government and violence.
Indeed, the postwar emphasis on pacifistic talk seems to imply
a belief in the causal influence of the pre war war talk.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
John W Kennedy
As far as I know, van Vogt was merely an amateur disciple when it came
to Ā, which was the Postmodernism of its age. And, also as far as I
know, Campbell was only interested in Dianetics when it was an
unorthodox, but intriguing and prima-facie promising, mode of
psychotherapy.
--
John W Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction together; but it is
about as perceptive as classing the works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W.
W. Jacobs together as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Eric Ammadon wrote:
>>
>>> I'm gonna skip right past comments about the descendants of Hubbard's
>>> philosophy being investigated by organized crime taskforces.
>>>
>>> Sometimes it's hard to tell an Eddorian from a can of peaches.
>>>
>> The can of peaches won't drive you mad just from looking at it (well,
>> unless you're REALLY hungry and have no can opener),
>
> "Always carry a chainsaw or a space axe."
>
>
>> and originated on
>> Earth rather than in some indescribably alien dimension.
>>
>> Also it probably won't demand that you obey it and help conquer the
>> entirety of reality.
>
> I don't understand why things that come from alien dimensions don't
> stay there, what do we have that's so great and where can I get some
> of that?
In the Lensverse?
More planets.
Going by the cosmology that Doc knew when he was writing, one of the
theories for where suns got their planets was that it only happened when
two stars had a VERY close encounter, almost a collision, which caused
each to have some of their mass pulled out by the gravity of the other.
This mass then condensed into the planets.
By this logic, any given galaxy would have very few planets, and
probably only one with life -- if any at all.
In the Lensverse, the galaxy called "Lundmark's Nebula" passed through
ours in a full edge-on intersection, leading to a vastly larger number
of near-collisions with stars, spawning millions of planets in both
galaxies.
The Eddorians travelled through many dimensions until they encountered
this one, and concluded that they were unlikely to find a universe that
offered more potential conquests, and that this one might even have
enough planets to sate even the Eddorian desire for dominance.
>
> I also don't get "intrinsic velocity" but I suppose that's because I
> have no experience with the inertialess.
Under inertialess drive, you instantly achieve a velocity at which the
friction of the medium you're passing through exactly counters the force
of your drive. If you shut off the drive, you'll stop dead as soon as
you hit ANY object -- even a molecule -- that's inert.
However, your ship began with a specific inertial velocity that you
simply TEMPORARILY render irrelevant when you switch on your Bergenholm.
As soon as you switch it off -- go from "free" to "inert" -- your old
inertia vector re-asserts itself.
This is no problem if you've come back to the exact location you
started from, but if you go, say, to another planet, it may have
DRASTICALLY different inert velocities due to, for example, the orbital
velocity of the new planet being very much not the same as the one of
the planet you left.
So it's very important to go "inert" at a distance and location from
your target landing location which allows you to match your velocity to
your local target. If you don't, and land "free", one failure of the
Bergenholm and you become an instant, point-blank meteor.
>
> And I find Doc's description of speeds of millions of lights or
> whatever to be kind of silly... though I guess in those days FTS
> (Faster Than Shit!) would have been impolitic.
Also inaccurate, and in those days, if you were providing descriptions
of things in real-world terms, readers wanted the numbers to be good
enough that they could see you had done your homework and knew how fast,
big, etc., your ship was.
>
> [btw, I know little of the overall worldview of your work, but I sense
> some roots in Doc's work and suspect I'd find more in _Triplanetary_.]
>
You'll see a lot more of Doc's influence in my forthcoming _Grand
Central Arena_ which is a salute to the Golden Age, and Doc Smith in
particular.
Peter Knutsen
> On 2010-02-14 12:27:37 -0500, Peter Knutsen said:
>> On 14/02/2010 15:24, Ric Locke wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I wouldn't even put Hubbard as the main offender in that particular
>>> chain; he's just the one who put it all together to make money off it,
>>> and van Vogt had his version (non-Aristotelianism) worked out in much
>>> more detail at the time. S. Freud is another example of the same thing.
>>
>> How much was John W. Campbell into it?
>
> As far as I know, van Vogt was merely an amateur disciple when it came
> to Ā, which was the Postmodernism of its age. And, also as far as I
> know, Campbell was only interested in Dianetics when it was an
> unorthodox, but intriguing and prima-facie promising, mode of
> psychotherapy.
I didn't mean to ask about dianetics, but about the more general concept
of "psychological surgery" as described by Eric Ammadon. Campbell did
distribute a lot of ideas among his authors, so I'm wondering if this
could have been one of them.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Carl Dershem
news:f9ufn5l68vou4cdct...@4ax.com:
Hubbard stole from a lot of people (ideas, until his 'church' took off),
and as is true of most writers, others took ideas off of him that they
found interesting.
Hubbard was a 'space opera' writer, and was a fairly well established one.
I'm not surprised that Smith had read his stuff.
I'm obviously not much of a fan of either, but have read enough to have
some idea what they did.
cd
Carl Dershem
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>Eric Ammadon wrote:
>>
>>> I'm gonna skip right past comments about the descendants of
>>> Hubbard's philosophy being investigated by organized crime
>>> taskforces.
>>>
>>> Sometimes it's hard to tell an Eddorian from a can of peaches.
>>>
>>
>> The can of peaches won't drive you mad just from looking at it
>> (well,
>>unless you're REALLY hungry and have no can opener),
>
> "Always carry a chainsaw or a space axe."
And a towel!
cd
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
More than one if you're using chainsaws and space axes.
Eric Ammadon
> Under inertialess drive, you instantly achieve a velocity at which the
>friction of the medium you're passing through exactly counters the force
>of your drive. If you shut off the drive, you'll stop dead as soon as
>you hit ANY object -- even a molecule -- that's inert.
>
> However, your ship began with a specific inertial velocity that you
>simply TEMPORARILY render irrelevant when you switch on your Bergenholm.
>As soon as you switch it off -- go from "free" to "inert" -- your old
>inertia vector re-asserts itself.
>
> This is no problem if you've come back to the exact location you
>started from, but if you go, say, to another planet, it may have
>DRASTICALLY different inert velocities due to, for example, the orbital
>velocity of the new planet being very much not the same as the one of
>the planet you left.
>
> So it's very important to go "inert" at a distance and location from
>your target landing location which allows you to match your velocity to
>your local target. If you don't, and land "free", one failure of the
>Bergenholm and you become an instant, point-blank meteor.
All that's fine, but it doesn't address the question of where your
"intrinsic inertia" is stored while you're free and why it comes back
as it was when you were last inert.
Eric Ammadon
>Carl Dershem wrote:
>> Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> typed in
>> news:brfgn5dcg3t0bqslu...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eric Ammadon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm gonna skip right past comments about the descendants of
>>>>> Hubbard's philosophy being investigated by organized crime
>>>>> taskforces.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes it's hard to tell an Eddorian from a can of peaches.
>>>>>
>>>> The can of peaches won't drive you mad just from looking at it
>>>> (well,
>>>> unless you're REALLY hungry and have no can opener),
>>> "Always carry a chainsaw or a space axe."
>>
>> And a towel!
>>
>
> More than one if you're using chainsaws and space axes.
Towels are for delicate eaters, I suspect that anyone who chooses to
open his can of Eddorian with a chainsaw will be unconcerned with a
trifling mess. <g>
Bill Swears
to be reckoned with. I suggest that an Eddorian should be treated much
as one would treat a Vogon. To be avoided as a bad poet who is likely
to blow up one's planet.
Bill
--
Living on the polemic may be temporarily satisfying, but it will raise
your blood-pressure, and gives you tunnel vision.
Remus Shepherd
> All that's fine, but it doesn't address the question of where your
> "intrinsic inertia" is stored while you're free and why it comes back
> as it was when you were last inert.
Eric, try reading this article:
http://www.tor.com/index.php?id=58637&option=com_content&view=blog
The gist of it is that not everything need be explained in a scifi/fantasy
story, because proper readers have been trained to have some amount of
disbelief.
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/remus_shepherd/
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
It went wherever inertia goes when it's temporarily negated.
If Doc could actually ANSWER that, it would have been (A) science fact,
not science fiction, and (B) enough to upset all of physics as we
currently knew it then. And we would now have flying cars. :)
Joel Polowin
> All that's fine, but it doesn't address the question of where your
> "intrinsic inertia" is stored while you're free and why it comes back
> as it was when you were last inert.
I assumed that the inertia was still there, just "disengaged" from
the rest of the universe while the field was active. Shut down the
Bergenholm device, your inertia re-engages with the universe, and
momentum happens.
Eric Ammadon
>Eric Ammadon <n...@spam.thankee> wrote:
>> All that's fine, but it doesn't address the question of where your
>> "intrinsic inertia" is stored while you're free and why it comes back
>> as it was when you were last inert.
>
> Eric, try reading this article:
>
>http://www.tor.com/index.php?id=58637&option=com_content&view=blog
>
> The gist of it is that not everything need be explained in a scifi/fantasy
>story, because proper readers have been trained to have some amount of
>disbelief.
I suppose I'm an improper reader then, the guy is talking about things
going inert with a miniscule mass and an intrinsic velocity of several
lights and raising all kinds of hell, but he never says how that
works. I'd say he should have glossed over some of it or made up a
good story for where it's stored while the object is moving around
inertialess. So it goes, huh?
JF
It's easy. The former is a mattress like lifeform which lived on
the bottom of ancient seas and was wiped out when some bastard
fish invented teeth.
Or am I thinking of something else?
JF
JF
Ah, a spindizzy.
JF
Bill Swears
It works just the way most FTL drives do. Just fine, thank you.
Space opera virtually always jumps the technological hurdle, but a lot
of readers want to experience the effects of our virtual genius. As a
writer, I'd suspect that something in Doc Smith's writing style was
bothering you, and left your willing suspension of disbelief engine
limping. It's the same effect as the one that causes Toto to go nosing
around the curtain in the Wizard of Oz movie. He got tired of looking
at the virtual head that shouted, and went to investigate what was
really around him.
I have to report a similar experience with Edgar Rice Burroughs. John
Carter once nearly lost control of a flying vehicle because, at nearly
top speed, he started to turn and a tailwind caught the back end of the
vehicle. This violates basic aerodynamics. Fortunately, on barsoom,
all basic laws of physics are malleable. Or, looked at another way, the
books are so much fun that you can blow by the obviously hokey (even for
the day) science, and just enjoy the adventure. Looked at in a third,
more postmodern way, John Carter was an unreliable narrator because he
didn't understand the science behind what he was doing.
Looked at in that third way, the independent fan is free to make up his
own explanations of the Bergenholm drive. Doc Smith explained it as
best he could, in attempting to relate the great tale of the Skylark to
an audience with limited shared experience.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>
> Looked at in that third way, the independent fan is free to make up his
> own explanations of the Bergenholm drive. Doc Smith explained it as
> best he could, in attempting to relate the great tale of the Skylark to
> an audience with limited shared experience.
Nit: Bergenholm = Lensverse.
Skylark uses X-metal based total conversion and, later, cosmic-energy
collection screens for energy.
Bill Swears
> Bill Swears wrote:
>
>>
>> Looked at in that third way, the independent fan is free to make up
>> his own explanations of the Bergenholm drive. Doc Smith explained it
>> as best he could, in attempting to relate the great tale of the
>> Skylark to an audience with limited shared experience.
>
> Nit: Bergenholm = Lensverse.
> Skylark uses X-metal based total conversion and, later,
> cosmic-energy collection screens for energy.
>
>
haven't read the skylark since I was in highschool in the seventies. I
know I owned a copy of Skylark of Space until my last move, when we
appear to have lost one book box full of paperbacks that we had left in
storage.
Daniel R. Reitman
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>Bill Swears wrote:
>
>>
>> Looked at in that third way, the independent fan is free to make up his
>> own explanations of the Bergenholm drive. Doc Smith explained it as
>> best he could, in attempting to relate the great tale of the Skylark to
>> an audience with limited shared experience.
>
> Nit: Bergenholm = Lensverse.
> Skylark uses X-metal based total conversion and, later, cosmic-energy
>collection screens for energy.
With a generous dose of handwavium. Which, given the era, I can deal
with. His writing style, however, was almost as leaden as Gernsbach's
"Bang! Bang! Bang! Three shots rang out . . . ."
Dan, ad nauseam
Daniel R. Reitman
Well, there was an element of cyclic history in the early part of the
Lensman series.
Dan, ad nauseam
Daniel R. Reitman
wrote:
>. . . .
>Hubbard was a 'space opera' writer, and was a fairly well established one.
>I'm not surprised that Smith had read his stuff.
>. . . .
Unfortunately, there are no indications that the quality of Hubbard's
work improved posthumously.
Dan, ad nauseam
Will in New Haven
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:15:15 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>
> >Bill Swears wrote:
>
> >> Looked at in that third way, the independent fan is free to make up his
> >> own explanations of the Bergenholm drive. Doc Smith explained it as
> >> best he could, in attempting to relate the great tale of the Skylark to
> >> an audience with limited shared experience.
>
> > Nit: Bergenholm = Lensverse.
> > Skylark uses X-metal based total conversion and, later, cosmic-energy
> >collection screens for energy.
>
> With a generous dose of handwavium. Which, given the era, I can deal
> with. His writing style, however, was almost as leaden as Gernsbach's
> "Bang! Bang! Bang! Three shots rang out . . . ."
Sure, it's leaden but at least he can count. How would you like "Bang!
Bang! Three shots rang out" or "Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!
Three shots rang out." Does he get no credit for accuracy?
--
Will in New Haven
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Feb 15, 3:11 pm, Daniel R. Reitman <dreit...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:15:15 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>>
>> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> Bill Swears wrote:
>>>> Looked at in that third way, the independent fan is free to make up his
>>>> own explanations of the Bergenholm drive. Doc Smith explained it as
>>>> best he could, in attempting to relate the great tale of the Skylark to
>>>> an audience with limited shared experience.
>>> Nit: Bergenholm = Lensverse.
>>> Skylark uses X-metal based total conversion and, later, cosmic-energy
>>> collection screens for energy.
>> With a generous dose of handwavium. Which, given the era, I can deal
>> with. His writing style, however, was almost as leaden as Gernsbach's
>> "Bang! Bang! Bang! Three shots rang out . . . ."
>
> Sure, it's leaden
Is not. Lead is not purple-shading-to-ultraviolet.
Kay Shapero
sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com says...
> Bill Swears wrote:
>
> >
> > Looked at in that third way, the independent fan is free to make up his
> > own explanations of the Bergenholm drive. Doc Smith explained it as
> > best he could, in attempting to relate the great tale of the Skylark to
> > an audience with limited shared experience.
>
> Nit: Bergenholm = Lensverse.
> Skylark uses X-metal based total conversion and, later, cosmic-energy
> collection screens for energy.
>
the speed of light limitation by having the ship zip right on past,
leaving the folks on board to decide "OK, guess we were wrong about
that." IIRC, my first encounter with Lampshade Hanging
(http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging)
--
Kay Shapero
address munged, email kay at following domain
http://www.kayshapero.net
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <hlc6g3$20t$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com says...
>> Bill Swears wrote:
>>
>>> Looked at in that third way, the independent fan is free to make up his
>>> own explanations of the Bergenholm drive. Doc Smith explained it as
>>> best he could, in attempting to relate the great tale of the Skylark to
>>> an audience with limited shared experience.
>> Nit: Bergenholm = Lensverse.
>> Skylark uses X-metal based total conversion and, later, cosmic-energy
>> collection screens for energy.
>>
> _The Skylark of Space_ is also the novel where he gleefully disposes of
> the speed of light limitation by having the ship zip right on past,
> leaving the folks on board to decide "OK, guess we were wrong about
> that."
IIRC, it was either DuQuesne or Seaton who said "Relativity is only a
theory. The distance is an observed fact."
Remus Shepherd
> Unfortunately, there are no indications that the quality of Hubbard's
> work improved posthumously.
There's a lot of evidence to the contrary. Whatever committee was writing
books in his name had no sense of how to string a story together.
Suzanne Blom
"JF" <jul...@oopsoopsfloodsclimbers.co.uk> wrote in message
news:UOydnfvjJPnUFuTW...@brightview.co.uk...
go at normal speed until you get where you want to go. It also gives the
Eddorians another, better reason to want to conquer our galaxy. They want
to go home again. "All those inveterate and vertebrate upstarts!"
Eric Ammadon
>Eric Ammadon wrote:
>> [btw, I know little of the overall worldview of your work, but I sense
>> some roots in Doc's work and suspect I'd find more in _Triplanetary_.]
>>
>
> You'll see a lot more of Doc's influence in my forthcoming _Grand
>Central Arena_ which is a salute to the Golden Age, and Doc Smith in
>particular.
Does that mean it's purple fan-fic? <g>
I'm wondering what makes it the salute you mention.
It seems like it might be fun to write _Third_Stage_Lensman_ and
explore the Arisian science of mind, but I'm far too busy trying to
keep the mud off the fenders of my own life just now.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Eric Ammadon wrote:
>
>>> [btw, I know little of the overall worldview of your work, but I sense
>>> some roots in Doc's work and suspect I'd find more in _Triplanetary_.]
>>>
>> You'll see a lot more of Doc's influence in my forthcoming _Grand
>> Central Arena_ which is a salute to the Golden Age, and Doc Smith in
>> particular.
>
> Does that mean it's purple fan-fic? <g>
In a sense, I suppose.
>
> I'm wondering what makes it the salute you mention.
Well, in particular one of the characters is named after Marc C.
DuQuesne, the main villain in his Skylark series, and has many aspects
in common with his namesake (for very good in-story reasons). In
general, it's a modernized version of the old-fashioned space opera --
scale, theme, and so on drawn from the Golden through Silver ages of SF.
>
> It seems like it might be fun to write _Third_Stage_Lensman_ and
> explore the Arisian science of mind, but I'm far too busy trying to
> keep the mud off the fenders of my own life just now.
>
I don't have the jets to swing THAT load, as Kimball Kinnison would put
it. I know what I would DO if I was going to attempt Final Lensman (as
I've always thought of it) but actually writing it would be... out of my
league. I'd attempt it if his estate wanted me to try, but it's one of
the few things that I find intimidating to contemplate. I'd find it much
easier to write my sequel to Lord of the Rings.
Eric Ammadon
>Eric Ammadon wrote:
>> It seems like it might be fun to write _Third_Stage_Lensman_ and
>> explore the Arisian science of mind, but I'm far too busy trying to
>> keep the mud off the fenders of my own life just now.
>>
>
> I don't have the jets to swing THAT load, as Kimball Kinnison would put
>it. I know what I would DO if I was going to attempt Final Lensman (as
>I've always thought of it) but actually writing it would be... out of my
>league.
That's because you _have_ a league. <g>
Some of it seems fairly doable, some seems quite difficult.
There is a significant issue in even the little I've read of Doc's
work; if Mentor is able to "visualize" so accurately as to foretell
the future barber-shop scene in great detail, why did Fossten's being
a deviant Arisian come as a surprise to him? It can't have because
it's directly on the path between his prediction and its
actualization, and the only way I can see around that is that it
didn't surprise him at all but was instead part of a plot and his
surprise was deception, which is in turn contrary to all we've been
told about Arisians and the ability to lie mind-to-mind. The only
other alternative that comes immediately is that Arisians are the
(probably unsuspecting) puppets of a yet-higher race of mental
scientists, which I suppose could be made to work (and could even
negate the necessity for deception, I suspect).
But I'd be loath to put a "tribute to Doc Smith" label on anything
without having read everything he wrote, and I don't anticipate that
the time and effort required to become a Doc-expert will become
critical path for me at any time in any future I can "visualize".
Besides, I usually don't have the jets to paint myself out of my own
corners, much less the ones someone else has left behind. Still it
might be fun, at least until it came time for issue-resolving.
Clear ether, dude. <g>
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Eric Ammadon wrote:
>
>>> It seems like it might be fun to write _Third_Stage_Lensman_ and
>>> explore the Arisian science of mind, but I'm far too busy trying to
>>> keep the mud off the fenders of my own life just now.
>>>
>> I don't have the jets to swing THAT load, as Kimball Kinnison would put
>> it. I know what I would DO if I was going to attempt Final Lensman (as
>> I've always thought of it) but actually writing it would be... out of my
>> league.
>
> That's because you _have_ a league. <g>
>
> Some of it seems fairly doable, some seems quite difficult.
>
> There is a significant issue in even the little I've read of Doc's
> work; if Mentor is able to "visualize" so accurately as to foretell
> the future barber-shop scene in great detail, why did Fossten's being
> a deviant Arisian come as a surprise to him?
1) Because Fossten wasn't, actually, a deviant Arisian, but was an
Eddorian -- Gharlane of Eddore, in fact.
2) He wasn't actually surprised, because Mentor knew exactly what
Fossten was.
3) Arisians and Eddorians are third-stage minds and a third-stage mind
is not 100% predictable to another third-stage mind UNLESS the one is
completely unaware of the existence of the other. Even powerful
second-stage minds can be hard to predict, especially if they have any
third-stage assistance (Kim Kinnison), which is why Fossten/Gharlane
couldn't really be sure until the end that "Traska Gannell" was actually
an agent of Civilization (and even then had a slightly wrong idea of
what "Star A Star" was, since that, too, had been misinformation). This
is explicitly stated several times in the series.
And in addition, see below:
> surprise was deception, which is in turn contrary to all we've been
> told about Arisians and the ability to lie mind-to-mind.
The Arisians cannot LIE, perhaps, but they are MASTERS of Telling The
Truth Like A Jedi.
Mentor NEVER states outright that what Kimball Kinnison fought WAS a
renegade Arisian. Kim *sees* what looks like an Arisian to him (and
everyone who visits Arisia sees somethign different when they meet
Mentor, so vision is notoriously untrustworthy) and demands to know why
an Arisian was working against him. Mentor tells him a story of this
"warped" Arisian, but never actually SAYS that this is what Kim faced;
he merely allows Kinnison to assume that Mentor is answering his
question directly rather than evading it in magnificent style.
>
> Clear ether, dude. <g>
>
QX. Clear Ether!
Eric Ammadon
My copy is in another building at the moment, but I specifically
remember KK asking Mentor what to do about the Arisian thingy that
Mentor had explained as being a distort, and I recall Mentor saying in
essence "we don't want it, destroy it".
Which of course leaves me somewhat confused.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Yes, but never did Mentor state that what KIM thought it was was, in
fact, that it REALLY was. He allowed Kinnison to believe what Mentor
wanted him to believe, and Mentor did not, in fact, have any use for the
form of flesh which had once been occupied by Gharlane of Eddore -- said
Eddorian's actual form being nothing even vaguely compatible with life
in Kinnison's dimension, and the Eddorian's essence having "passed to
another plane of existence" by being slammed simultaneously by L2
Kimball Kinnison and the fusion of Mentor of Arisia.
So everything Mentor said was true... from a certain point of view.
Lucas stole a LOT of stuff from Doc.
Eric Ammadon
QX, Arisians can't lie but they'll fib like a rug. <g>
I'll pass on that one regardless of jets, I prefer my archtypical
heros to be a little more pure than the Arisians appear to be.
There's a concept of speaking "fugue" which I've seen in several books
as a way to bypass lie-detector tests etc. It amounts to only
speaking part of a sentence which is true-in-the-whole and allowing
the listener to draw his own conclusions. Doesn't seem like up-and-up
communication to me. Sounds like Arisians have a fugue-think layer in
their mentality if they can fib telepathically.
Besides, every time I type 'Arisian' it's necessary for me to be
-very- careful not to type 'Artesian'. Oh Well, huh? <g>
Speaking of borrowing (stealing), remember the name "Fosten Paradise"
from _Fifth_Element_ (which at my house is called "fifth elephant")?
I wonder.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
As I said, they tell the truth like a Jedi.
>
> I'll pass on that one regardless of jets, I prefer my archtypical
> heros to be a little more pure than the Arisians appear to be.
The Arisians aren't the Heroes. That would be Kim Kinnison, et. al.,
who are about as pure as it gets. Mentor NEVER makes a claim to being
the Good Guy -- in fact, he pointedly DENIES it's "good versus evil",
says this is a loose and muddy concept.
>
> There's a concept of speaking "fugue" which I've seen in several books
> as a way to bypass lie-detector tests etc. It amounts to only
> speaking part of a sentence which is true-in-the-whole and allowing
> the listener to draw his own conclusions. Doesn't seem like up-and-up
> communication to me. Sounds like Arisians have a fugue-think layer in
> their mentality if they can fib telepathically.
>
> Besides, every time I type 'Arisian' it's necessary for me to be
> -very- careful not to type 'Artesian'. Oh Well, huh? <g>
Water you talking about?
>
> Speaking of borrowing (stealing), remember the name "Fosten Paradise"
> from _Fifth_Element_ (which at my house is called "fifth elephant")?
> I wonder.
Could be. Pratchett actually WROTE a book titled "The Fifth Elephant", btw.
Eric Ammadon
I missed some of the later Star Wars pieces due to boredom, and don't
remember a lot of the rest. Space Opera. Good animation. <shrug>
>> I'll pass on that one regardless of jets, I prefer my archtypical
>> heros to be a little more pure than the Arisians appear to be.
>
> The Arisians aren't the Heroes.
And the hero's teacher is called what? I thought of the word
"arch-hero" but I'm not able to come up with the word that describes
the source of the hero's understanding. The word 'guru' doesn't quite
cut the mustard. I'll pass.
> That would be Kim Kinnison, et. al.,
>who are about as pure as it gets. Mentor NEVER makes a claim to being
>the Good Guy -- in fact, he pointedly DENIES it's "good versus evil",
>says this is a loose and muddy concept.
The concept of good/evil being relative was not new when Smith was
writing, by at least two and a half millennium. The concept of
viewing good/evil as a useless paradigm makes it easy to redefine
those concepts in light of what is to one's benefit (good) or
disadvantage (evil). That the Arisians ascribe to that point of view
is an indication that they are not without preference for advantage.
I'll pass.
>> There's a concept of speaking "fugue" which I've seen in several books
>> as a way to bypass lie-detector tests etc. It amounts to only
>> speaking part of a sentence which is true-in-the-whole and allowing
>> the listener to draw his own conclusions. Doesn't seem like up-and-up
>> communication to me. Sounds like Arisians have a fugue-think layer in
>> their mentality if they can fib telepathically.
>>
>> Besides, every time I type 'Arisian' it's necessary for me to be
>> -very- careful not to type 'Artesian'. Oh Well, huh? <g>
>
> Water you talking about?
Chopping wood, I suppose.
>> Speaking of borrowing (stealing), remember the name "Fosten Paradise"
>> from _Fifth_Element_ (which at my house is called "fifth elephant")?
>> I wonder.
>
> Could be. Pratchett actually WROTE a book titled "The Fifth Elephant", btw.
I saw on BBC news this morning that Rowling is being sued for
plagiarism, the plaintiff's lawyer (I think it was) talking about a
"billion dollar" case. What a suckinass business life on Earth is
that the reward for success is to become a bullseye.