"10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"

[Lynn McGuire]

"10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"

http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them

Here we go again. I have only read four of them.

Lynn

[Robert Carnegie]

Me: 4 read sometime in my life so far, 1 on the shelf under dust
(Jonathan Strange et al), 2 never heard of that I can reemember,
and I think I can live without _Gravity's Rainbow_, _Star Maker_,
and _Dhalgren_.

The 4 are _Cryptonomicon_, _Dune_, _Foundation_, and _1984_.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Five here, or *maybe* six; I can't remember if I ever read _The
Long Tomorrow_ or not.

--
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.

[David Johnston]

On 8/1/2015 1:58 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <mpj70b$tst$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>> "10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>>
>> http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>>
>> Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
>
> Five here, or *maybe* six; I can't remember if I ever read _The
> Long Tomorrow_ or not.
>

I've read Dune, Foundation, Long Tomorrow, 1984, Last and First Men and
Starmaker. I did not like Long Tomorrow. I have no intention of
wasting my time on Gravity's Rainbow or Cryptonomicon.

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 14:35:43 -0500, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
wrote:

>"10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>
>http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>
>Here we go again. I have only read four of them.

^^^^
Isn't this supposed to be "ten"? <BEG>

I have read only three of them myself.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Shawn Wilson]

No, Yes, No, Yes, Yes, Yes, No, No, Yes, No.

I HATED JS&MN and Dhalgren.

[William Hyde]

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 5:10:05 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
> On 8/1/2015 1:58 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > In article <mpj70b$tst$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> >> "10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
> >>
> >> http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
> >>
> >> Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
> >
> > Five here, or *maybe* six; I can't remember if I ever read _The
> > Long Tomorrow_ or not.
> >
>
> I've read Dune, Foundation, Long Tomorrow, 1984, Last and First Men and
> Starmaker. I did not like Long Tomorrow.

I've read those (recently reread TLC and still liked it) plus Dhalgren, so six. It will be seven when I get around to reading my copy of JS&MN, but that may take some time. I don't object in principle to reading the rest, but I suspect it will (shall?) not happen.

I've read 200 pages of "Gravity's Rainbow" and would probably finish it if only I could recall who has my copy.


William Hyde

[Titus G]

I have already wasted a lot of time on Craptomaximum and have read 7 of
the list which appears to be a diverse mix.
I am certain that there are posters here that could produce a better
list than she has. To me, she appears to be woffling rather nonsensically.

[Titus G]

Both required at least a child's knowledge of economic theory. That was
probably what made them difficult for you.

[John Dallman]

In article <mpj70b$tst$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com (Lynn McGuire)
wrote:

> http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have

> -read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>
> Here we go again. I have only read four of them.

Seven and a half: I bogged down in Cryptonomicon, but mean to read it
someday. Never touched the Brackett or the Williams. Read all the rest,
and liked them.

John

[J. Clarke]

In article <9oeqrapqhsfjo2o1o...@4ax.com>, ge...@telus.net
says...

I've read six.

[J. Clarke]

In article <memo.2015080...@jgd.cix.co.uk>, j...@cix.co.uk
says...

I just put Gravity's Rainbow on the Kindle--start on it after I finish
what I'm reading now. I don't know how I missed that particular
Brackett.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 14:35:43 -0500, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
wrote:

>"10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>
>http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>
>Here we go again. I have only read four of them.

I'm amused to say I only finished two. I started at least four.




--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[David Johnston]

On 8/1/2015 3:53 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 5:10:05 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 8/1/2015 1:58 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <mpj70b$tst$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>>> "10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>>>>
>>>> http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>>>>
>>>> Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
>>>
>>> Five here, or *maybe* six; I can't remember if I ever read _The
>>> Long Tomorrow_ or not.
>>>
>>
>> I've read Dune, Foundation, Long Tomorrow, 1984, Last and First Men and
>> Starmaker. I did not like Long Tomorrow.
>
> I've read those (recently reread TLC and still liked it) plus Dhalgren, so six.

Seven. Last and First Men and Starmaker are not a single novel.

[Don Bruder]

In article <MPG.3027167f...@news.eternal-september.org>,

I've tried Gravity's Rainbow four times, and all four times, bounced off
it nearly hard enough to leave a bruise. I think the furthest I made it
was about 30-40 pages.

Snow Crash put Stephenson on my "grab anything he puts out" list.
Cryptonomicon traced over the first entry with a big ol' fluorescent
highlighter . Reamde scraped off some of the highlighter, but didn't
erase him from the list - not by a long shot - just took some of the
"urgency" off. But his latest, "Seveneves", well... About halfway
through, I started wondering if the brain-eater was getting a grip on
him. By 3/4 through, I was pretty well convinced that it had at least
taken a big bite. When <ROT13>Gur qrfpraqnagf bs gur fheivinyvfg perj
gung ubyrq hc va n zvar va Vqnub cbccrq bhg - svir gubhfnaq lrnef
yngre?!?!? Lrnu! Evtug!</ROT13> I was fully convinced that the brain
eater had a solid grip on him and was chomping away merrily. Hopefully,
his next is better put together than the mess that Seveneves turned out
to be. If it isn't, he'll likely move from my "get it, read it, ASAP"
list, and wind up on my "Eh, if I get around to it" list instead.

--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

[Robert Bannister]

Three I haven't read and at least one I really disliked.

--
Robert Bannister
Perth, Western Australia

[Quadibloc]

Cryptonomicon - I think I finished it.
Dune - Yep, read that.
Gravity's Rainbow - Sad to say, I don't think I've even tried to find a copy.
Foundation - Yes, and also Foundation and Empire and Second Foundation as well. Plus the less acclaimed modern series that joined it up with The Caves of Steel and The Naked Sun.
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell - No, haven't been keeping up, didn't realize it was worth reading. (Seen copies lying around in odd places.)
1984 - Yep, read that.
Last and First Men and Star Maker - Yes, and several others by that author, such as Last Men in London.
The Long Tomorrow - I believe I did read it at least once, but I don't remember it at all.
Dhalgren - I began it, but was put off by various aspects of its content.
Infinite Jest - Never heard of it.

John Savard

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <mpjcga$htl$1...@dont-email.me>,

I read _Gravity's Rainbow_ because I was intrigued by the title:
such a nice phrase for a ballistic trajectory. Boy, was I
surprised. Don't trouble to read it; it's all full of child
abuse, varieties of sex which I consider depraved, YMMV, and
bad magic.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <5e296ad6-f4b1-4e45...@googlegroups.com>,

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, 1 August 2015 20:36:15 UTC+1, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> "10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>>
>>
>http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>>
>> Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
>>
>> Lynn
>
>Me: 4 read sometime in my life so far, 1 on the shelf under dust
>(Jonathan Strange et al), 2 never heard of that I can reemember,
>and I think I can live without _Gravity's Rainbow_, _Star Maker_,
>and _Dhalgren_.

Well, _Star Maker_ is not *bad*. It's just Stapledon, meaning
way-way-out-for-billions-of-years weird.

[William Hyde]

True, but the list for some reason treats them as a single item. Perhaps because they are often published together, as in my volume.

If anyone feels the desire to puff their numbers on this, I recommend the Brackett. It's a far-post apocalypse novel, like "Davy" or "A Canticle for Liebowitz", but with a different take on the postwar world than either. It's also quite a short book by today's standards.

William Hyde

[Gary R. Schmidt]

Cryptonomicon - No.
Dune - Yes.
Gravity's Rainbow - No, but I've thought about it, on seeing a copy.
Foundation - Yes, et sequae.
Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell - No.
1984 - Yes.
Last and First Men and Star Maker - Yes, to both.
The Long Tomorrow - Not sure, that'll have to be a "no".
Dhalgren - Yes.
Infinite Jest - No.

So that's 5/10 - but I've never claimed to have read the other five.

Frankly, the person who wrote the blog post seems to be a bit of a
drongo, which is a shame because she has written some sensible stuff in
the past. Perhaps she was stuck for her 1000 words and thought, "I'll
pick 10 random-ish titles from my shelves and build an article around
them, oh, look, shiny..." and then ran into a deadline?

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--
When men talk to their friends, they insult each other.
They don't really mean it.
When women talk to their friends, they compliment each other.
They don't mean it either.

[William December Starr]

In article <mpj70b$tst$1...@dont-email.me>,

So why should you read Gravity's Rainbow where some of the coolest
genre writers have failed? Several people said they've found the
parts they were able to get through immensely enriching.

Plus Pat Murphy, author of The City, Not Long After and The Wild
Girls, offers some reasons: "This is science fiction that is
compared to James Joyce, that was a contender for the Pulitzer,
that's twisted and difficult and transgressive and regressive and
digressive."

Sounds like good reasons for not reading it.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

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

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

> I read _Gravity's Rainbow_ because I was intrigued by the title:
> such a nice phrase for a ballistic trajectory. Boy, was I
> surprised. Don't trouble to read it; it's all full of child
> abuse, varieties of sex which I consider depraved, YMMV, and
> bad magic.

I have, on several occasions thtroughout my life, asked with regard
to GRAVITY'S RAINBOW "Yes yes, but what's it _about_?"

I have never gotten an answer.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <9oeqrapqhsfjo2o1o...@4ax.com>,

Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> said:

> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>
>> "10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>>
>> http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>>
>> Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
> ^^^^
> Isn't this supposed to be "ten"? <BEG>

Seriously: no, because I think whoever put this list together just
made up that "People pretend they've read all these books" thing out
of the proverbial whole cloth.

(Why would anyone bother to pretend to have read Dhalgren?)

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <memo.2015080...@jgd.cix.co.uk>,

j...@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) said:

> Seven and a half: I bogged down in Cryptonomicon, but mean to read
> it someday. Never touched the Brackett or the Williams. Read all
> the rest, and liked them.

Williams? You meant Wallace, right?

Me, I've read CRYPTONOMICON, DUNE, "Foundation -- the three
originally published novels -- and 1984. I enjoyed CRYPTONOMICON.

JONATHAN STRANGE & MR. NORRELL is on my "I should really give this
a try sometime" list.

-- wds

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <mpk60s$4qb$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

Well, it's kind of about a GI who tries to make his way to
Peenemuende to do something (apparently programmed into him in
infancy) which he never gets to do because he's not sane by the
time he gets there.

That's my best take, leaving out all the yucchy things I
mentioned above.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <mpk6ie$lse$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>

>JONATHAN STRANGE & MR. NORRELL is on my "I should really give this
>a try sometime" list.

It's on my "Tried to read, bounced a couple pages in" list. De
gustibus.

[William Vetter]

Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
> Cryptonomicon - No.
> Dune - Yes.
> Gravity's Rainbow - No, but I've thought about it, on seeing a copy.
> Foundation - Yes, et sequae.
> Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell - No.
> 1984 - Yes.
> Last and First Men and Star Maker - Yes, to both.
> The Long Tomorrow - Not sure, that'll have to be a "no".
> Dhalgren - Yes.
> Infinite Jest - No.
>
> So that's 5/10 - but I've never claimed to have read the other five.
>
> Frankly, the person who wrote the blog post seems to be a bit of a drongo,
> which is a shame because she has written some sensible stuff in the past.
> Perhaps she was stuck for her 1000 words and thought, "I'll pick 10
> random-ish titles from my shelves and build an article around them, oh, look,
> shiny..." and then ran into a deadline?
>

_The Female Man_ by Joanna Russ is one that a lot of people say is
important like _Gravity's Rainbow_ but nobody wants to read much of it.

The others...I don't know what this person is getting at.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <j2g09c-...@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au>,

Gary R. Schmidt <grsc...@acm.org> wrote:
>
>Frankly, the person who wrote the blog post seems to be a bit of a
>drongo, which is a shame because she has written some sensible stuff in
>the past. Perhaps she was stuck for her 1000 words and thought, "I'll
>pick 10 random-ish titles from my shelves and build an article around
>them, oh, look, shiny..." and then ran into a deadline?

Hmmmm ... Charlie Jane Anders.... Never heard of her. Does she
write, like, fiction, or just a blog?

I could pull ten randomish titles off my shelves too, most of
which she would probably never have heard of -- if that's a
picture of her at the head of the article, as distinguished from
some random female from a paperback cover, then she's fairly
young.

I bet she's never read any Hal Clement; maybe not even any Poul
Anderson.

[David Johnston]

It's about two things, a man going insane while he tries to track down a
secret V-weapon special project, and the project itself which is
vicious, pointless and kinky.

[David DeLaney]

On 2015-08-01, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> "10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>
> < http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read
-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them >
>
> Here we go again. I have only read four of them.

I've read 1,2,4,5,7, and have studiously avoided 3. 6 I know some stuff about
through osmosis. 8 I hadn't heard of till now; 9 is Someday for me (and No
Relation); and 10 I was going to plan to avoid as well.

7 is definitely on my have/will-reread list, as are 4 and 2; I wouldn't mind
rereading 1 or 5.

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://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

On 2015-08-01, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> and I think I can live without _Gravity's Rainbow_, _Star Maker_,
> and _Dhalgren_.

_Last and First Men_ and _Star Maker_ are a pair of really wide-scope space
operas from before the term even existed. Somewhat dated language / writing,
of course ... but many wow moments.

(Technically L&FM is 'planetary SF' because it never actually gets outside
our own Solar System until right at the end, and even then we never see what
happens to the broadcast spore patterns.)

Out of those three, I'd say try this pair before the other two. They are on
Project Gutenberg AU but not on the main Project Gutenberg, so if they are
still under copyright where you live, make sure not to point your web browser
at http://gutenberg.net.au/plusfifty-n-z.html#letterS and make sure, if you do,
not to search down the page for "stap", and for goodness' sake don't click on
the handy download links if you DO find yourself there accidental-like.

[Jerry Brown]

On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 14:35:43 -0500, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>

wrote:

>"10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>
>http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>
>Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
>

>Lynn

5 in my case: Dune, Foundation, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, 1984,
Last and First Men (but not Star Maker).

Why on earth do they include just Foundation rather than the whole
"trilogy", but then put 2 different Stapledon books in one slot?

--
Jerry Brown

A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)

[David Goldfarb]

In article <mpj70b$tst$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>"10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>
>http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>
>Here we go again. I have only read four of them.

Six out of ten. Missing _Last and First Men_, _Infinite Jest_,
_The Long Tomorrow_, and _Gravity's Rainbow_. Based on the quality
of the other six, maybe I should get to work on remedying those.
(I have read and enjoyed other Pynchon, such as _V._)

--
David Goldfarb |"Backward, turn backward, O time in your flight!
goldf...@gmail.com | I've thought of a comeback I needed last night."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Dorothy Parker

[Greg Goss]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:

>"10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>
>http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>
>Here we go again. I have only read four of them.

1) Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson
2) Dune by Frank Herbert
3) Gravity’s Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon
4) Foundation by Isaac Asimov
5) Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke
6) 1984 by George Orwell
7) Last and First Men and Star Maker by Olaf Stapledon
8) The Long Tomorrow by Leigh Brackett
9) Dhalgren by Samuel Delany
10) Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace

I've read 2,4,6 and half of 7.

I bounced off of Dhalgren and Gravity's Rainbow I've never been
attracted to #1 (dunno why) or 10. I've never heard of 5 or 8.

----------------------------
Speaking of books which everyone claims to have read, I finally got
around to reading Jeckyl&Hyde today. I have a friend who may have
MPD, and I wanted to be clear in my mind what the story line was
before discussing it with her. Now that I've read the book, I think I
will avoid referring to her second personality as "Hyde".
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Greg Goss]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:

>"10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>
>http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>
>Here we go again. I have only read four of them.

My Grade 11 English curriculum required that the school (teacher?)
choose one dystopia book from a list of four. 1984, Brave New World,
This Perfect Day and one other I can't remember.

I had never heard of This Perfect Day, but it became a minor scandal
in our school district because some parents thought that the rape
scene was inappropriate for high schoolers. I agree. I, too, find
the rape scene disturbing. Spoilers: Gur punenpgref va gur obbx ner
qehttrq vagb ybj-vavgvngvir fhozvffvba, juvpu nyfb vzcnpgf gurve
frkhny qrfver. Gur ureb bs gur obbx, nsgre nppvqragnyyl pbzvat njnxr
(qrsrpgvir nhgbqbp? V qba'g erzrzore) svaqf n jnl gb fgnl gung jnl.
Nsgre erfphvat (xvqanccvat) uvf srznyr vagrerfg, ur encrf ure. Nsgre
fur pbzrf gb ure frafrf, gerngf guvf nf ab ovt qrny. Guvf gvrf vagb
gbb zhpu "encr phygher" zlgubybtl gung gbb znal grraf oryvrir.

At that time, I'd never heard of This Perfect Day. Now I've read it a
couple of times. Other than the rape scene, I like it.

[Dan Tilque]

Lynn McGuire wrote:
> "10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>
> http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>
>
> Here we go again. I have only read four of them.

I've read 5 of them, including _Dhalgren_, believe it or not. You
couldn't pay me enough to reread it though. Ditto for _1984_. Tried to
reread that once and the opening chapter reminded me of how depressing
the whole thing was.

Not sure why people have so much trouble with _Cryptonomicon_, though.
It's the perfect techno-nerd book. Well, I guess some SF fans aren't
techno-nerds, hard as it is to believe that...

Never heard of that last one (Infinite Jest).

--
Dan Tilque

[Gary R. Schmidt]

On 2/08/2015 3:06 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <j2g09c-...@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au>,
> Gary R. Schmidt <grsc...@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Frankly, the person who wrote the blog post seems to be a bit of a
>> drongo, which is a shame because she has written some sensible stuff in
>> the past. Perhaps she was stuck for her 1000 words and thought, "I'll
>> pick 10 random-ish titles from my shelves and build an article around
>> them, oh, look, shiny..." and then ran into a deadline?
>
> Hmmmm ... Charlie Jane Anders.... Never heard of her. Does she
> write, like, fiction, or just a blog?

Published a few novels, won a Hugo for Best Novelette in 2012, Nebula
nominations, stuff like that/

> I could pull ten randomish titles off my shelves too, most of
> which she would probably never have heard of -- if that's a
> picture of her at the head of the article, as distinguished from
> some random female from a paperback cover, then she's fairly
> young.
>
> I bet she's never read any Hal Clement; maybe not even any Poul
> Anderson.
>

Possibly not - but she is a trans, so possibly did as a youngling.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <mpk933$1fo$1...@dont-email.me>,

Yes, those are appropriate adjectives.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <t9219c-...@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au>,

Gary R. Schmidt <grsc...@acm.org> wrote:
>On 2/08/2015 3:06 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <j2g09c-...@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au>,
>> Gary R. Schmidt <grsc...@acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Frankly, the person who wrote the blog post seems to be a bit of a
>>> drongo, which is a shame because she has written some sensible stuff in
>>> the past. Perhaps she was stuck for her 1000 words and thought, "I'll
>>> pick 10 random-ish titles from my shelves and build an article around
>>> them, oh, look, shiny..." and then ran into a deadline?
>>
>> Hmmmm ... Charlie Jane Anders.... Never heard of her. Does she
>> write, like, fiction, or just a blog?
>Published a few novels, won a Hugo for Best Novelette in 2012, Nebula
>nominations, stuff like that/
>
>> I could pull ten randomish titles off my shelves too, most of
>> which she would probably never have heard of -- if that's a
>> picture of her at the head of the article, as distinguished from
>> some random female from a paperback cover, then she's fairly
>> young.
>>
>> I bet she's never read any Hal Clement; maybe not even any Poul
>> Anderson.
>>
>Possibly not - but she is a trans, so possibly did as a youngling.

Being trans isn't the point; how *old* is she?

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <sghrradpbbaot8hb1...@jwbrown.co.uk>,

Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 14:35:43 -0500, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>>
>>http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>>
>>Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
>>
>>Lynn
>
>5 in my case: Dune, Foundation, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, 1984,
>Last and First Men (but not Star Maker).
>
>Why on earth do they include just Foundation rather than the whole
>"trilogy", but then put 2 different Stapledon books in one slot?
>

Personal whim? We all have them, and they're frequently
incomprehensible to other people.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Sunday, 2 August 2015 08:32:17 UTC+1, Jerry Brown wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 14:35:43 -0500, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
> >
> >http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
> >
> >Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
> >
> >Lynn
>
> 5 in my case: Dune, Foundation, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, 1984,
> Last and First Men (but not Star Maker).
>
> Why on earth do they include just Foundation rather than the whole
> "trilogy", but then put 2 different Stapledon books in one slot?

If "a book" is a number of sheets of paper bound together.
It's not an unreasonable position.

I think the claim amounts to these being ten books
that people commonly talk about without having read
them. But not "the" ten books.

I wonder which Ace Doubles could qualify?

[J. Clarke]

In article <mpklhd$11a$1...@dont-email.me>, dti...@frontier.com says...

>
> Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > "10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
> >
> > http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
> >
> >
> > Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
>
> I've read 5 of them, including _Dhalgren_, believe it or not. You
> couldn't pay me enough to reread it though.

Amen. Delaney needed better drugs or something.

> Ditto for _1984_. Tried to
> reread that once and the opening chapter reminded me of how depressing
> the whole thing was.

I managed to get through that a couple of times somehow.

>
> Not sure why people have so much trouble with _Cryptonomicon_, though.
> It's the perfect techno-nerd book. Well, I guess some SF fans aren't
> techno-nerds, hard as it is to believe that...

These days "nerd" is a fad. In my previous job, one of my co-workers
claimed to be a nerd but she didn't know the difference between Star
Wars and Star Trek.

[Titus G]

One of the reasons I disliked Crapto were the never-ending moronic
cliches about stereotypes such as noble US marines and evil Japs.

Compared to Snowcrash it was very disappointing.

[Lynn McGuire]

I have have no idea. The book was good but very depressing.

I wonder if this list came out of some hoity toity discussion group at a
Con?

Lynn

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 06:26:32 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>These days "nerd" is a fad. In my previous job, one of my co-workers
>claimed to be a nerd but she didn't know the difference between Star
>Wars and Star Trek.

What kind of nerd?

I am an SF nerd, a programming nerd, a math nerd, and probably
others.

While I know about Star Wars and Star Trek, I am not a nerd of
either.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 19:26:15 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans
<l...@sff.net> wrote
in<news:0clqraddo5n0mhfod...@reader80.eternal-september.org>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 14:35:43 -0500, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>

> wrote:

>>"10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"

>>http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them

>>Here we go again. I have only read four of them.

> I'm amused to say I only finished two. I started at least four.

I’ve read _Dune_, _Foundation_, _Jonathan Strange & Mr
Norrell_, _1984_, and _The Long Tomorrow_. I did start
_Dhalgren_, but I fairly quickly decided that I had no
reason to finish it. I’ve not had any desire to read
_Cryptonomicon_; in fact, I think that _Anathem_, which I
rather liked, is the only Stephenson that I’ve been moved
to try. I’ve vastly less desire to read _Gravity’s
Rainbow_. I might one day read the Stapledon novels out of
curiosity, but I probably won’t get around to it. I don’t
think that I’d even heard of _Infinite Jest_ before --
certainly not to notice -- and it hardly sounds worthwhile.

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.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 00:50:36 -0400, William Vetter
<mdha...@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:mpk7g6$t77$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> _The Female Man_ by Joanna Russ is one that a lot of
> people say is important like _Gravity's Rainbow_ but
> nobody wants to read much of it.

I liked _Picnic on Paradise_, but I didn’t finish either of
her next two: without more of a story the politics wasn’t
enough of a payoff.

[...]

[David Johnston]

The reason I've never read Cryptonomicon is because I've never heard any
hint that anything interesting happens in it.

[Anonymous]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

In article <nsFLw...@kithrup.com>
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
> In article <mpjcga$htl$1...@dont-email.me>,
> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> >On 8/1/2015 1:58 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> >> In article <mpj70b$tst$1...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> >>> "10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
> >>>
> >>>
> >http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
> >>>
> >>> Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
> >>

> >> Five here, or *maybe* six; I can't remember if I ever read _The
> >> Long Tomorrow_ or not.
> >>
> >
> >I've read Dune, Foundation, Long Tomorrow, 1984, Last and First Men and
> >Starmaker. I did not like Long Tomorrow. I have no intention of
> >wasting my time on Gravity's Rainbow or Cryptonomicon.

>
> I read _Gravity's Rainbow_ because I was intrigued by the title:
> such a nice phrase for a ballistic trajectory. Boy, was I
> surprised. Don't trouble to read it; it's all full of child
> abuse, varieties of sex which I consider depraved, YMMV, and
> bad magic.

"varieties of sex which I consider depraved" Oh, well depending on
your judgement regarding depraved sex I wonder if that might be a
recommendation for me to read it?

Maybe someone should write a book titled "Depravity's Rainbow" and
see if anyone reads that.


Adamastor Glace Mortimer

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iEYEAREKAAYFAlW+GF8ACgkQ1vVH2r/FDv3FGQCcDuLdfvXth8ENuv3QydvWkmiL
R/sAnA3E3svq5j6GfKTAIf98TD8+C0En
=v8qb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <mplfv6$sbf$1...@dont-email.me>,

David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>
>The reason I've never read Cryptonomicon is because I've never heard any
>hint that anything interesting happens in it.

"Incredibly strong, living, fascinating characters will make
a weak plot work ... for a certain segment of the readership.
A fast-moving, intricate, exciting plot will make a book work
in spite of cardboard characters ... for a different segment
of the readership. And each segment tends to throw the
others' books across the room with cries of "Who PUBLISHES
this junk?!?!!"

--Patricia Wrede, rec.arts.sf.composition, Sept. 23, 1997

[J. Clarke]

In article <2mesra55ff2sjvt55...@4ax.com>, ge...@telus.net
says...

Self-identification as a "nerd" is probably a counterindication of
nerdhood.

However when I say "didn't know the difference between Star Trek and
Star Wars" I did not mean some fine point of trivia. I meant that they
thought that Captain Kirk was a character in Star Wars.

[J. Clarke]

In article <6db3b6140aee8d28...@hoi-polloi.org>,
anon...@hoi-polloi.org says...

I think they already did--the rainbow is grayscale.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <6db3b6140aee8d28...@hoi-polloi.org>,

Anonymous <anon...@hoi-polloi.org> wrote:
>
>In article <nsFLw...@kithrup.com>
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>
>> I read _Gravity's Rainbow_ because I was intrigued by the title:
>> such a nice phrase for a ballistic trajectory. Boy, was I
>> surprised. Don't trouble to read it; it's all full of child
>> abuse, varieties of sex which I consider depraved, YMMV, and
>> bad magic.
>
>"varieties of sex which I consider depraved" Oh, well depending on
>your judgement regarding depraved sex I wonder if that might be a
>recommendation for me to read it?

Damfino. I don't know your tastes. The depravitiies include
_defecatio in os_ and conditioning an infant to react sexually to
the presence of a certain chemical.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <nsG6E...@kithrup.com>,

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <mpk933$1fo$1...@dont-email.me>,
>David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>On 8/1/2015 10:23 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>>> In article <nsFLw...@kithrup.com>,
>>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
>>>
>>>> I read _Gravity's Rainbow_ because I was intrigued by the title:
>>>> such a nice phrase for a ballistic trajectory. Boy, was I
>>>> surprised. Don't trouble to read it; it's all full of child
>>>> abuse, varieties of sex which I consider depraved, YMMV, and
>>>> bad magic.
>>>
>>> I have, on several occasions thtroughout my life, asked with regard
>>> to GRAVITY'S RAINBOW "Yes yes, but what's it _about_?"
>>
>>It's about two things, a man going insane while he tries to track down a
>>secret V-weapon special project, and the project itself which is
>>vicious, pointless and kinky.
>
>Yes, those are appropriate adjectives.
>

I don't think I finished it. At circa 13 years old, all the sex made
an impression no doubt, but the only other thing I remember is a pretty
funny digression on the dangers of English candy.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[William December Starr]

In article <mpk7g6$t77$1...@dont-email.me>,

William Vetter <mdha...@gmail.com> said:

> _The Female Man_ by Joanna Russ is one that a lot of people say is
> important like _Gravity's Rainbow_ but nobody wants to read much of it.

I'd say the same for 1984, except maybe for the "like _Gravity's Raibow_"
bit.

-- wds

[Don Kuenz]

Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 14:35:43 -0500, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>>
>>http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>>
>>Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
>>
>>Lynn
>
> 5 in my case: Dune, Foundation, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, 1984,
> Last and First Men (but not Star Maker).
>
> Why on earth do they include just Foundation rather than the whole
> "trilogy", but then put 2 different Stapledon books in one slot?

_Foundation_ is a collection of short stories, which makes it extremely
readable. It's as easy to read as John Dewey's essays on education.

_Foundation's_ a touchstone in my real life. The mere mention of it in
casual conversation guarantees an imminent, detailed opinion of the
story from any fellow SciFi fan(s) who happen to be present. Opinion
that typically contains enough detail to convince me that the fellow(s)
truly read the story.

Isn't _Foundation_ a gateway story that pulls people deeper into SciFi?
Why does anyone *pretend* to read it when it's so easy to read?

###

FWIW, four for me: _Cryptonomicon_, _Dune_, _Foundation_, and _1984_.
This thread bumps the Brackett and the Stapledons nearer to the top of
my to-be-read list so as to enable me to score 4.5 - 6 the next time
this topic inevitably appears. :)

--
,-. There was a young lady named Bright
\_/ Whose speed was far faster than light;
{|||)< Don Kuenz KB7RPU She set out one day
/ \ In a relative way
`-' And returned on the previous night.

What you do speaks so loud that I can not hear what you say. - Emerson.

[Adamastor Glace Mortimer]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

In article <mpj70b$tst$1...@dont-email.me>

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>
> "10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>
> http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>
> Here we go again. I have only read four of them.

I've apparently done 3.25.

Dune
Foundation (& sequels)
1984
Last and First Men and Star Maker

The last is apparently a double book. I do not recall if I got one
of them and stalled about half way though it, or if I got the two
books in one volume and stalled about halfway through one part of
it. I was about 11 years old at the time, and would much have
preferred some good space opera to Mr. Stapledon's novel. So I'll
say I did 0.25 on this volume.

"Gravity's Rainbow" I kept meaning to try. Many things in my life
are in that category.

The only times when I've found a need to pretend that I've read
something that I haven't was in school when they assigned us some
junk that I did not want to read at all.

Adamastor Glace Mortimer

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iEYEAREKAAYFAlW+GngACgkQ1vVH2r/FDv2Y0wCgm2ytLK8VasOS1cEfZgot8EUB
9p4AoKzYjePgQ4eT+WNCu8yrEK0RCykJ
=MVEJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 8/1/2015 12:58 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> On Saturday, 1 August 2015 20:36:15 UTC+1, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> "10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>>
>> http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>>
>> Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
>>

>> Lynn
>
> Me: 4 read sometime in my life so far, 1 on the shelf under dust
> (Jonathan Strange et al), 2 never heard of that I can reemember,
> and I think I can live without _Gravity's Rainbow_, _Star Maker_,
> and _Dhalgren_.
>
> The 4 are _Cryptonomicon_, _Dune_, _Foundation_, and _1984_.
>
I've read the same four.

--
Veni, vidi, snarki.

[Don Bruder]

In article <mplfv6$sbf$1...@dont-email.me>,

<packages up hint>

Lotsa nifty thing happen in it. Too many to name. It's a great read.

Dunno who you've been listening to, but whoever it is/was, they don't
have a clue what they're talking about.

--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <2015...@crcomp.net>, Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> wrote:
>Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 14:35:43 -0500, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>>>
>>>http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>>>
>>>Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
>>>
>>>Lynn
>>
>> 5 in my case: Dune, Foundation, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, 1984,
>> Last and First Men (but not Star Maker).
>>
>> Why on earth do they include just Foundation rather than the whole
>> "trilogy", but then put 2 different Stapledon books in one slot?
>
>_Foundation_ is a collection of short stories, which makes it extremely
>readable. It's as easy to read as John Dewey's essays on education.
>
>_Foundation's_ a touchstone in my real life. The mere mention of it in
>casual conversation guarantees an imminent, detailed opinion of the
>story from any fellow SciFi fan(s) who happen to be present. Opinion
>that typically contains enough detail to convince me that the fellow(s)
>truly read the story.
>
>Isn't _Foundation_ a gateway story that pulls people deeper into SciFi?
>Why does anyone *pretend* to read it when it's so easy to read?

Possibly because it was written in the forties? I don't know if
it's still in print or not.

[William Hyde]

On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 11:52:21 AM UTC-4, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 19:26:15 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans
> <l...@sff.net> wrote
> in<news:0clqraddo5n0mhfod...@reader80.eternal-september.org>
> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> > On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 14:35:43 -0500, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>
> >>http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>
> >>Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
>
> > I'm amused to say I only finished two. I started at least four.
>
> I've read _Dune_, _Foundation_, _Jonathan Strange & Mr
> Norrell_, _1984_, and _The Long Tomorrow_. I did start
> _Dhalgren_, but I fairly quickly decided that I had no
> reason to finish it. I've not had any desire to read
> _Cryptonomicon_; in fact, I think that _Anathem_, which I
> rather liked, is the only Stephenson that I've been moved
> to try. I've vastly less desire to read _Gravity's
> Rainbow_. I might one day read the Stapledon novels out of
> curiosity, but I probably won't get around to it.

If you do start LAFM, feel free to skim much of the beginning. The book does not really get going until a few hundred years into the future, when it begins to read like history, not a novel.

From that point on there was no question but that I would finish the book. In the first twenty pages I nearly abandoned it at least twice.

I may in fact read it again.

William Hyde

[John Dallman]

In article <2015...@crcomp.net>, gar...@crcomp.net (Don Kuenz) wrote:

> Isn't _Foundation_ a gateway story that pulls people deeper into
> SciFi? Why does anyone *pretend* to read it when it's so easy to read?

Its tone is pretty dry, and there's an absence of action scenes. To
someone whose tastes were formed by Star Trek and Star Wars, it may seem
unappetising, yet it is well-known, and remains in print

John

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 9:44:18 PM UTC-6, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
> Perhaps she was stuck for her 1000 words and thought, "I'll
> pick 10 random-ish titles from my shelves and build an article around
> them, oh, look, shiny..." and then ran into a deadline?

I doubt it, given that the title and intent of the column is to point out "these
books that everybody says are good really are good".

If that weren't true, it's too easy to get caught. And this is a topic people
usually want to express sincere feelings about.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 2:48:37 AM UTC-6, Greg Goss wrote:

> I had never heard of This Perfect Day, but it became a minor scandal
> in our school district because some parents thought that the rape
> scene was inappropriate for high schoolers.

I don't recall the details of the book now.

I read it because I saw it in a used book store, and it was a dystopia.

Thus, in addition to

1984 by George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair), author of "The Road to Wigan Pier" and "Keep the Aspidastra Flying",

If This Goes On... by Robert Anson Heinlein, author of "Stranger in a Strange Land",

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, author of "The Doors of Perception"

I've also read We by Evgeny Zamyatin in English translation, and the short story The Junkmakers by Albert Teichner.

In addition to

This Perfect Day by Ira Levin, author of "Rosemary's Baby".

Given his more well-known literary credit, it shouldn't be surprising that a
book he wrote wasn't safe for the kiddies.

John Savard

[David Johnston]

On 8/1/2015 9:40 PM, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:

> On 2/08/2015 5:35 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> "10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>>
>> http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>>
>>
>>
>> Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
>>

> Cryptonomicon - No.
> Dune - Yes.
> Gravity's Rainbow - No, but I've thought about it, on seeing a copy.
> Foundation - Yes, et sequae.
> Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell - No.
> 1984 - Yes.
> Last and First Men and Star Maker - Yes, to both.
> The Long Tomorrow - Not sure, that'll have to be a "no".
> Dhalgren - Yes.
> Infinite Jest - No.
>
> So that's 5/10 - but I've never claimed to have read the other five.
>
> Frankly, the person who wrote the blog post seems to be a bit of a
> drongo,

Based on what, apart from the title? Yes, it is frequently the case
that websites like io9 and Cracked will characterize the reader in a way
that is highly unlikely to be true in many cases. That's because
argumentative titles attract clicks. But often the writer of the
article doesn't write the title.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

I never pretend to have read anything. Even in class I would be honest
about not having read an assignment.

Of this list, I've read three: Dune, Foundation, and 1984. Of the
others, two or three I will probably read, and two or three I would
actively avoid.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[J. Clarke]

In article <nsH0p...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com says...

>
> In article <2015...@crcomp.net>, Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> wrote:
> >Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 14:35:43 -0500, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>"10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
> >>>
> >>>http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
> >>>
> >>>Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
> >>>
> >>>Lynn
> >>
> >> 5 in my case: Dune, Foundation, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, 1984,
> >> Last and First Men (but not Star Maker).
> >>
> >> Why on earth do they include just Foundation rather than the whole
> >> "trilogy", but then put 2 different Stapledon books in one slot?
> >
> >_Foundation_ is a collection of short stories, which makes it extremely
> >readable. It's as easy to read as John Dewey's essays on education.
> >
> >_Foundation's_ a touchstone in my real life. The mere mention of it in
> >casual conversation guarantees an imminent, detailed opinion of the
> >story from any fellow SciFi fan(s) who happen to be present. Opinion
> >that typically contains enough detail to convince me that the fellow(s)
> >truly read the story.
> >
> >Isn't _Foundation_ a gateway story that pulls people deeper into SciFi?
> >Why does anyone *pretend* to read it when it's so easy to read?
>
> Possibly because it was written in the forties? I don't know if
> it's still in print or not.

In the Amazon hard SF category the mass market paperback is #63 and the
Kindle is #25, it's around 1600 overall in both print and Kindle. So
yes, it's still in print and _somebody_ is reading it. Or at least
buying it to sit on the shelf and impress people.

[Moriarty]

<snip>

> Cryptonomicon - Yes, loved, recently re-read
> Dune - Yes, loved, re-read multiple times though not for years
> Gravity's Rainbow - No
> Foundation - Yes, of course
> Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell - Yes, enjoyed
> 1984 - Yes, glad I did, a deserved classic, but geez it's depressing
> Last and First Men and Star Maker - No
> The Long Tomorrow - No.
> Dhalgren - No
> Infinite Jest - No

I've no interest in Gravity's Rainbow or Dhalgren. I've never even heard of The Long Tomorrow or Infinite Jest.

-Moriarty

[William Vetter]

Shawn Wilson wrote:
>
> I HATED JS&MN and Dhalgren.

I think _Dhalgren_ was one of the first SF novels to have a lot of
literary-fiction metafictional devices in it. That's why some people
say it's important.

[William December Starr]

In article <mpm8c2$v3u$1...@dont-email.me>,

William Vetter <mdha...@gmail.com> said:

> I think _Dhalgren_ was one of the first SF novels to have a lot of
> literary-fiction metafictional devices in it. That's why some
> people say it's important.

Just to state the obvious:

A book can be as important as it wants to be, but, that doesn't
mean that it's any good.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <mpm0ot$3m5$1...@dont-email.me>,

The writer of the article does write the article though, and this
one starts out with:

Science fiction and fantasy offer a rich legacy of great books --
but that abundant pile of reading material can also be daunting. So
sometimes, it's easier to fake it. We asked some of our favorite
writers, and they told us the 10 books that everyone pretends to
have read. And why you should actually read them.

From Asimov to Pynchon, science fiction contains some fantastic,
ambitious works of genre fiction. But a lot of us get
overwhelmed. And it's not that hard to fake a first-hand
knowledge of these books, because they're everywhere, and we've
heard people talk about them so many times. We SF fans are good
at pretending. But these books are classics for a reason -- and
they're worth reading.

-- wds

[Robert Bannister]

On 2/08/2015 4:47 pm, Greg Goss wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>
>> "10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>>
>> http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>>
>> Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
>

> My Grade 11 English curriculum required that the school (teacher?)
> choose one dystopia book from a list of four. 1984, Brave New World,
> This Perfect Day and one other I can't remember.

>
> I had never heard of This Perfect Day, but it became a minor scandal
> in our school district because some parents thought that the rape

> scene was inappropriate for high schoolers. I agree. I, too, find
> the rape scene disturbing. Spoilers: Gur punenpgref va gur obbx ner
> qehttrq vagb ybj-vavgvngvir fhozvffvba, juvpu nyfb vzcnpgf gurve
> frkhny qrfver. Gur ureb bs gur obbx, nsgre nppvqragnyyl pbzvat njnxr
> (qrsrpgvir nhgbqbp? V qba'g erzrzore) svaqf n jnl gb fgnl gung jnl.
> Nsgre erfphvat (xvqanccvat) uvf srznyr vagrerfg, ur encrf ure. Nsgre
> fur pbzrf gb ure frafrf, gerngf guvf nf ab ovt qrny. Guvf gvrf vagb
> gbb zhpu "encr phygher" zlgubybtl gung gbb znal grraf oryvrir.
>
> At that time, I'd never heard of This Perfect Day. Now I've read it a
> couple of times. Other than the rape scene, I like it.
>
This was my review in GoodReads:

It was vaguely reminiscent of Brave New World, another book strong on
ideas, but weak on story. To be fair, there is a bit of excitement in
the last section, but it was all very predictable. I was surprised at
how surprised I was at all the smoking, considering that when this book
was published, I was still a heavy smoker with no thought of giving it
up. Now, I kept thinking, 'Surely he's overdoing it." Same with all the
expletives, even though they're not rude words in our language — did we
really swear all the time? Maybe my memory's faulty. As to the exciting
plot twists, I might not have guessed exactly who, but I certainly was
expecting the what. The main character is a bit wooden, but with a crazy
sex drive — the author must have had a programmer in mind! Why Lilac
sticks with him after the way he treats her, has me totally puzzled.

Basically, I was not impressed.
--
Robert Bannister
Perth, Western Australia

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 6:20:09 PM UTC-6, William December Starr wrote:

> Just to state the obvious:
>
> A book can be as important as it wants to be, but, that doesn't
> mean that it's any good.

A book can be as pretentious as it wants to be, but that doesn't make it
significant.

That is, I don't think a book _can_ be important just because it wants to be.

John Savard

[Moriarty]

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 2:30:05 AM UTC+10, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <mplfv6$sbf$1...@dont-email.me>,
> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> >
> >The reason I've never read Cryptonomicon is because I've never heard any
> >hint that anything interesting happens in it.
>
> "Incredibly strong, living, fascinating characters will make
> a weak plot work ... for a certain segment of the readership.
> A fast-moving, intricate, exciting plot will make a book work
> in spite of cardboard characters ... for a different segment
> of the readership. And each segment tends to throw the
> others' books across the room with cries of "Who PUBLISHES
> this junk?!?!!"
>
> --Patricia Wrede, rec.arts.sf.composition, Sept. 23, 1997

It's kind of nice to have a foot in both camps.

My two favourite books are "Pride and Prejudice" and LOTR. The plot of the former may be summed up thusly: a young man changes his manner and a young lady changes her mind. But the characters... Ms Austen was a genius at characterisation.

And Tolkien, I wouldn't go so far as to say his characterisation is *bad*, but it's certainly not his strong suit.

-Moriarty

[William Vetter]

Some books are important in the sense that they were the first of
something; nevertheless, they sucked in some way that makes nobody want
to read them. My hypothesis was that such situations might explain why
people supposedly lie about having read them, but I must concede that I
am really not an expert because I don't bother to lie about such
things.

[David Duffy]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> "10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>
> http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>
> Here we go again. I have only read four of them.

9.3 - I should get back to _Infinite Jest - as I was finally getting into it
it had to go back to the library ;) I found it very Pynchonesque.
_Cryptonomicon_ has lots of riffs on Pynchon too, which might explain
clustering of likes and dislikes.

Re Pynchon, he has mellowed (generally happy endings for individuals
even if the world might not be going so well). And is very funny in his
last couple of books, which admittedly aren't SF. _Against The Day_
(2006) is SF steampunk/alt-history/multiverse spanning *a* Chicago
World's Fair to WW1, but it's 1200 pages long! I'm afraid I read it
straight through with some enjoyment, but it was exhausting. Clute
describes it as Moorcockian, which is right. Tesla of course appears,
but far less than you might expect. The "science" is really funny (and
there's lots) - several characters are sure that quaternions are the
key to the future: "a Quaternionic Weapon, a means to unloose upon the
world energies hitherto unimagined .?? hidden ... 'innocently,' inside
the w term".

Cheers, David Duffy.

[Raymond Daley]

1) Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson
Fucking AWFUL. Too long winded, I think I got to about chapter 25 and gave
up when I realised I wasn't even a third of the way through the book. All
the back and forth doesn't help the flow of reading, there are WAY too many
info dumps and most of the stuff you get is information you don't need at
the time. If this book is typical of his content, I won't be reading another
by him.
2) Dune by Frank Herbert
I think I didn't mind reading this because I've seen the movie so many times
and wanted to know more. It's okay.
3) Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon
Haven't read it, know nothing about it. Might add it to my "to be read"
list.
4) Foundation by Isaac Asimov
I've sort of started reading this. It was a bit dull, but I'm trying to
soldier on through it.
5) Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke
No interest in reading this at all. Wasn't even interested after seeing bits
of the telly series. Not my bag at all. No sir.
6) 1984 by George Orwell
Read it once all the way through. I found that by the time I got to reading
a book within in a book it was boring me. I was probably way too young at
the time though. I should really try to read this again.
7) Last and First Men and Star Maker by Olaf Stapledon
This is 2 books and that should instantly disqualify it because some idiot
can't read their own title.
8) The Long Tomorrow by Leigh Brackett
Never read it. I've heard of Brackett, don't think I've read anything
though.
9) Dhalgren by Samuel Delany
Not sure why, but the title of this has always put me off because I assume
it's a swords and sorcery fantasy book. I should maybe give it a go.
10) Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace
I'm not sure why this is on the list, there have to be many more much well
known older books that could replace it? I don't know the author and the
description on IO9 puts me off wanting to seek it out at all.

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 5:20:31 AM UTC-6, David Duffy wrote:
> The "science" is really funny (and
> there's lots) - several characters are sure that quaternions are the
> key to the future: "a Quaternionic Weapon, a means to unloose upon the
> world energies hitherto unimagined .?? hidden ... 'innocently,' inside
> the w term".

Well, there are equations in electromagnetism that involve the cross product
and the dot product. And in special relativity, four-vectors can be thought of
as quaternions with time as the real part.

So if those cross products were "really" quaternion multiplications in
disguise, then applying a magnetic field to a wire conducting electricity *in
the direction of the magnetic field lines* instead of perpendicular to them...
should tend to push on the wire so as to move it through time instead of space.

I'm sure it's been tried, even if by accident, and it doesn't work. But it's a
handy starting handwave for an SF story.

John Savard

[Richard Hershberger]

Similarly with films. Some film will be the first to use some now-standard technique. People at the time were wowed by this, and film historians go on at length about it. This is all very interesting, but if the film itself sucks, then it is a bad, albeit innovative, film. It might well be of legitimate historical interest, but that is neither here nor there for those of us who just want to enjoy a good film.

Richard R. Hershberger

[Richard Hershberger]

On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 11:52:21 AM UTC-4, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 19:26:15 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans
> <l...@sff.net> wrote
> in<news:0clqraddo5n0mhfod...@reader80.eternal-september.org>
> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>

> > On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 14:35:43 -0500, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >>"10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>
> >>http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>
> >>Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
>

> > I'm amused to say I only finished two. I started at least four.
>
> I've read _Dune_, _Foundation_, _Jonathan Strange & Mr
> Norrell_, _1984_, and _The Long Tomorrow_. I did start
> _Dhalgren_, but I fairly quickly decided that I had no
> reason to finish it. I've not had any desire to read
> _Cryptonomicon_; in fact, I think that _Anathem_, which I
> rather liked, is the only Stephenson that I've been moved
> to try.

It seems odd that you liked the one Stephenson novel you have read, yet have no desire to read any others. Cryptonomicon shares something of the look and feel with Anathem, though the settings are entirely different. The Baroque Cycle, by way of contrast, while having loosely continuity with Cryptonomicon, is entirely different.

I've vastly less desire to read _Gravity's
> Rainbow_. I might one day read the Stapledon novels out of

> curiosity, but I probably won't get around to it. I don't
> think that I'd even heard of _Infinite Jest_ before --
> certainly not to notice -- and it hardly sounds worthwhile.

Infinite Jest comes from the literary fiction side, and is a big deal over there. The history of literary fiction authors writing science fiction is not encouraging, but I have seen people from the SF side praise it. I first became aware of Wallace from an excruciatingly stupid and pretentious article he wrote for Harpers some years ago. I had no idea at the time that it was by a famous writer. I made the connection years later in the context of a discussion of Infinite Jest, and it put me off trying the novel.

Richard R. Hershberger

[Richard Hershberger]

On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 4:00:04 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <2015...@crcomp.net>, Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> wrote:
> >Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 14:35:43 -0500, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>"10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
> >>>
> >>>http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
> >>>
> >>>Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
> >>>
> >>>Lynn
> >>
> >> 5 in my case: Dune, Foundation, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, 1984,
> >> Last and First Men (but not Star Maker).
> >>
> >> Why on earth do they include just Foundation rather than the whole
> >> "trilogy", but then put 2 different Stapledon books in one slot?
> >
> >_Foundation_ is a collection of short stories, which makes it extremely
> >readable. It's as easy to read as John Dewey's essays on education.
> >
> >_Foundation's_ a touchstone in my real life. The mere mention of it in
> >casual conversation guarantees an imminent, detailed opinion of the
> >story from any fellow SciFi fan(s) who happen to be present. Opinion
> >that typically contains enough detail to convince me that the fellow(s)
> >truly read the story.
> >
> >Isn't _Foundation_ a gateway story that pulls people deeper into SciFi?
> >Why does anyone *pretend* to read it when it's so easy to read?
>
> Possibly because it was written in the forties? I don't know if
> it's still in print or not.

The "written in the forties" is key. It was written in the literary style of popular fiction of the day. This rarely ages well, regardless of what is "the day" in question. There are exceptions, and fashions in writing style come around in circles just like any other fashion. (Case in point: I find Jane Austen much more readable than the vast majority of Victorian novelists.)

Some books are good enough that they endure despite the writing style, usually by being reclassified as "literary." Huckleberry Finn is a good example of this. But go back and read most Twain and it turns out that the vast majority of it is awful, both in content and writing style. (His critique of Cooper, by the way, is really just the observation that popular fiction writing style had changed since Cooper's day.)

The poor aging of popular fiction can also be obscured by catching the reader young. My Asimov phase was in the 1970s, when his Golden Age fiction was already getting long in the tooth. As a teenager hitting my own Golden Age, I barely noticed. My seven-year old daughter is perfectly happy reading the original Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

And, of course, one way to avoid the aging out of demotic prose is to not write demotic prose in the first place, going rather for a "literary" style. A standard critique of Tolkien is his writing style, which was most certainly not demotic. But what would these people prefer? That The Lord of the Rings read like a popular novel of the 1940s?

Richard R. Hershberger

[J. Clarke]

In article <5e317284-5a87-42d0...@googlegroups.com>,
rrh...@gmail.com says...

In some cases it's not even a bad movie, just made for the wrong people
or the wrong cause. Two classic examples of this are "Triumph of the
Will", and "Birth of a Nation". If you can ignore that they glorify the
Nazis and the Klan respectively they're both quite watchable as '302
propaganda movies and early silents go.

But if you see "Triumph of the Will" you'll never look at Star Wars the
same way again--one scene was lifted bodily with Luke Skywalker
occupying Hitler's position.

[Kevrob]

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 7:24:26 AM UTC-4, Raymond Daley wrote:

> 4) Foundation by Isaac Asimov
> I've sort of started reading this. It was a bit dull, but I'm trying to
> soldier on through it.

I was reading the Foundation trilogy in the late 1960s, early 1970s.
The earliest story was from 1942. That was shortly after my Dad graduated
college and was stuffed into US Army fatigues. That first installment is
now 74 years old. At the same time I was cutting my teeth on Asimov,
Clarke and Heinlein, I was also reading Wells and Verne. If I read THE
TIME MACHINE in 1969, that would have been an identical 74 year gap.
There were ideas and attitudes in Victorian Era SF I didn't quite get.
I loved history, so I didn't mind learning about the old and the new,
even if I had to crack the dictionary or encyclopedia to figure things
out. I'm approaching my 6th decade - still no jetpack, flying cars nor
vacation trips to Luna* - and I suppose that someone much younger would
similarly have to knock the Zeerust off some of my mid-20th century faves.

> 6) 1984 by George Orwell
> Read it once all the way through. I found that by the time I got to reading
> a book within in a book it was boring me. I was probably way too young at
> the time though. I should really try to read this again.

If 1984 isn't your cuppa, try Zemyatin's WE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel)

The Orwell may not resonate as much since the Berlin Wall fell,
but totalitarianism can rear its ugly head from other sources.
(...and we have always been at war with the caliphate.)

> 9) Dhalgren by Samuel Delany
> Not sure why, but the title of this has always put me off because I assume
> it's a swords and sorcery fantasy book. I should maybe give it a go.

I wouldn't think of swords. Now artillery...?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahlgren_gun

I've never read Dhalgren, either. Reviews I've read make it seem like
a literary exercise, rather than a story, not unlike a SFnal "Nouveau
roman." Probably too "lit crit" for my tastes, but maybe I'll take a
stab at it someday.

Kevin R

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <MPG.302942c3a...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Ayup. I assume you refer to the final awards scene.

I have a DVD of _TotW_; someday I may actually watch it.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <5e317284-5a87-42d0...@googlegroups.com>,

As distinguished from film students, who will probably *have* to
watch them at some point, so as to know what to steal from them.

"Immature artists imitate; mature artists steal." --T. S. Eliot

[Will in New Haven]

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 3:36:15 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> "10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>
> http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>
> Here we go again. I have only read four of them.

1) Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson

2) Dune by Frank Herbert

3) Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon

4) Foundation by Isaac Asimov

5) Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke

6) 1984 by George Orwell

7) Last and First Men and Star Maker by Olaf Stapledon

8) The Long Tomorrow by Leigh Brackett

9) Dhalgren by Samuel Delany

10) Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace

1: I read it and enjoyed it to an extent. I almost stopped a couple of times but the author's track record with books I've almost stopped reading is good.
2: Read it long ago and re-read it fairly recently.
3: I didn't get very far into it.
4: Read the whole first trilogy. Wish I could have those hours back.
5: I intend to read it one day but I'm seventy and haven't even bought it yet.
6: Over-rated but still good, not a rare thing. I call it the Roberto Clemente category.
7: Never got around to it.
8: I thought it was ok when I read it but that was long ago.
9: The only Delaney I didn't finish.
10: Might try it some time.

--
Will in New Haven

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 06:40:24 -0700 (PDT), Richard
Hershberger <rrh...@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:fe1b42d0-34b1-4eb5...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 11:52:21 AM UTC-4, Brian M.
> Scott wrote:

[...]

>> I've read _Dune_, _Foundation_, _Jonathan Strange & Mr
>> Norrell_, _1984_, and _The Long Tomorrow_. I did start
>> _Dhalgren_, but I fairly quickly decided that I had no
>> reason to finish it. I've not had any desire to read
>> _Cryptonomicon_; in fact, I think that _Anathem_, which
>> I rather liked, is the only Stephenson that I've been
>> moved to try.

> It seems odd that you liked the one Stephenson novel you
> have read, yet have no desire to read any others.

I looked at the others, sometimes more than once, and
neither spot reading nor what I read *about* them gave me
any reason to spend my money on them.

[...]

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.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <79faca5a-b32e-4d3b...@googlegroups.com>,

Oh, I dunno. Hold on a minute, I'm going to see if I can find my
copy ....

Found it. This is from LeGuin's essay "Science Fiction and Mrs.
Brown," in which she discusses characterization (or lack thereof)
in SF.

She begins by quoting Virginia Woolf, describing an old woman
seen on a train, in such detail that the reader winds up knowing
her very well. Woolf invents a name for this lady, "Mrs. Brown,"
and LeGuin picks up the term and uses it for any memorable
character.

She continues, I'm quoting selected bits here:

"A quite good simple test to determine the presence or absence of
Mrs. Brown in a work of fiction is this: a month or so after
reading the book, can you remember her name?"

"Anyone who has read one of Mr. Norman Mailer's works need not
apologize if he can't remember a single name from it -- except
one, of course, that of Norman Mailer. Because Mr. Mailer's
books aren't about Mrs. Brown, they're about Mr. Mailer."

She continues with praise for Tappan Wright's _Islandia_ and
Zamyatin's _We_, and laments that the tradition of most science
fiction is to tell adventures whose heroes don't need
characterization -- "the humanity of an astronaut is a liability,
a weakness, irrelevant to his mission. As astronaut, he is not a
being, he is an act."

And goes on in that vein, and believe me, I am summarizing a
*lot* here. And finally she comes to the point I want to make:

"But who is this character, then, who really looks very like
Mrs. Brown, except that he has furry feet; a short, thin,
tired-looking fellow, wearing a gold ring on a chain around his
neck, and heading rather disconsolately eastward, on foot?
I think you know his name."

And then there's that other hero, who says, "I am Aragorn son of
Arathorn, and if by life or death I can save you, I will."
Everything else we learn about him (and we have only just met
him) is embodied in that sentence.

[J. Clarke]

In article <f174a3f3-862c-4b13...@googlegroups.com>,
kev...@my-deja.com says...

Yep. When I heard "Department of Homeland Security" for the first time,
it translated in my head to "GEheime STAatsPOlizei" and we all know how
_that_ turned out. "New World Order" coming out of Bush didn't help.
Made me sad to be a Republican.

[J. Clarke]

In article <nsIIx...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com says...

It's worthwhile. Reifenstahl was a Hell of a director and the Nazis
knew how to throw a political rally.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <mpnipn$ae2$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Sounds like the "extra spectra" that Campbell invented for _Sixth
Column_ and with which Heinlein did the best he could under the
circumstances.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <GbIvx.45582$ur5....@fx20.am4>,

Raymond Daley <raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>9) Dhalgren by Samuel Delany
>Not sure why, but the title of this has always put me off because I assume
>it's a swords and sorcery fantasy book. I should maybe give it a go.

I haven't read it either, and I have no idea whether it's S&S or
not. When it first came out, fandom got all abuzz about "it
glorifies rape!" and whether that is strictly true or not, it was
enough to put it on my never-never list.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <MPG.30295b00d...@news.eternal-september.org>,

J. Clarke <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Yep. When I heard "Department of Homeland Security" for the first time,
>it translated in my head to "GEheime STAatsPOlizei" and we all know how
>_that_ turned out.

I had exactly the same reaction.

> "New World Order" coming out of Bush didn't help.
>Made me sad to be a Republican.

I feel your pain (and I'm a Democrat). Just asking: how do you
feel nowadays?

I have some hope that the Trump situation will cause the GOP to
fission; that the RNC will decline to nominate Trump and he will
pick up his ball and go off in a large cream-colored huff, taking
the far right with him. This will leave the Republican Party as
a smaller, moderate, organization that will be able to look at
itself in the mirror every morning, and will probably regain some
of the voters it has lost over the last decade-or-so of catering
to the far right. Which latter will suffer the fate of all third
parties, that is, oblivion.

But I digress.

[lal_truckee]

On 8/3/15 9:12 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> This will leave the Republican Party as
> a smaller, moderate, organization that will be able to look at
> itself in the mirror every morning, and will probably regain some
> of the voters it has lost over the last decade-or-so of catering
> to the far right.

They've been catering to the (cultural) far right since Nixon and his
cronies invented the strategy circa 1970.

[Joseph Nebus]

In <nsIKJ...@kithrup.com> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:

>In article <GbIvx.45582$ur5....@fx20.am4>,
>Raymond Daley <raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>9) Dhalgren by Samuel Delany
>>Not sure why, but the title of this has always put me off because I assume
>>it's a swords and sorcery fantasy book. I should maybe give it a go.

>I haven't read it either, and I have no idea whether it's S&S or
>not. When it first came out, fandom got all abuzz about "it
>glorifies rape!" and whether that is strictly true or not, it was
>enough to put it on my never-never list.

One might generically ask whether it is fair to hold an untrue
fact about a book as a point against it. (He said, having never read
_Dhalgren_.)

--
Joseph Nebus
Math: What I Learned Doing The A To Z Project http://wp.me/p1RYhY-PP
Humor: From The Dawn Of Beeps http://wp.me/p37lb5-V4
--------------------------------------------------------+---------------------

[Robert Carnegie]

On Sunday, 2 August 2015 17:21:28 UTC+1, David Johnston wrote:
> On 8/2/2015 2:50 AM, Dan Tilque wrote:

> > Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >> "10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
> >>
> >> http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
> >>
> >>
> >> Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
> >

> > I've read 5 of them, including _Dhalgren_, believe it or not. You
> > couldn't pay me enough to reread it though. Ditto for _1984_. Tried to
> > reread that once and the opening chapter reminded me of how depressing
> > the whole thing was.
> >
> > Not sure why people have so much trouble with _Cryptonomicon_, though.
> > It's the perfect techno-nerd book. Well, I guess some SF fans aren't
> > techno-nerds, hard as it is to believe that...
> >
> > Never heard of that last one (Infinite Jest).

> >
>
> The reason I've never read Cryptonomicon is because I've never heard any
> hint that anything interesting happens in it.

The Second World War, the invention of computers,
the Hindenburg (?) airship disaster, and, of course,
digital currency.

When someone hacks and encrypts your computer with
/their/ password and demands a ransom to get your
own data back, that will be Bitcoin (or some
alternatives). I don't remember if that is proposed
in the book; unintended consequences?

I'm not sure why they needed the <spoiler>, and
Terry Pratchett's _Making Money_ adds to my confusion...

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <MPG.30295c872...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Yes. I'm sure I'll appreciate the cinematography. I just don't
know how much wincing I'll do in the process.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <mpo568$jc4$2...@reader1.panix.com>,

Joseph Nebus <nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
>In <nsIKJ...@kithrup.com> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>>In article <GbIvx.45582$ur5....@fx20.am4>,
>>Raymond Daley <raymon...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>9) Dhalgren by Samuel Delany
>>>Not sure why, but the title of this has always put me off because I assume
>>>it's a swords and sorcery fantasy book. I should maybe give it a go.
>
>>I haven't read it either, and I have no idea whether it's S&S or
>>not. When it first came out, fandom got all abuzz about "it
>>glorifies rape!" and whether that is strictly true or not, it was
>>enough to put it on my never-never list.
>
> One might generically ask whether it is fair to hold an untrue
>fact about a book as a point against it. (He said, having never read
>_Dhalgren_.)
>

Oh, I didn't say mine was a logical reaction, let alone fair. I
only say it was my reaction.

[David Johnston]

On 8/3/2015 10:53 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Sunday, 2 August 2015 17:21:28 UTC+1, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 8/2/2015 2:50 AM, Dan Tilque wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> "10 Books You Pretend to Have Read (And Why You Should Really Read Them)"
>>>>
>>>> http://io9.com/5924625/10-science-fiction-novels-you-pretend-to-have-read-and-why-you-should-actually-read-them
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here we go again. I have only read four of them.
>>>
>>> I've read 5 of them, including _Dhalgren_, believe it or not. You
>>> couldn't pay me enough to reread it though. Ditto for _1984_. Tried to
>>> reread that once and the opening chapter reminded me of how depressing
>>> the whole thing was.
>>>
>>> Not sure why people have so much trouble with _Cryptonomicon_, though.
>>> It's the perfect techno-nerd book. Well, I guess some SF fans aren't
>>> techno-nerds, hard as it is to believe that...
>>>
>>> Never heard of that last one (Infinite Jest).
>>>
>>
>> The reason I've never read Cryptonomicon is because I've never heard any
>> hint that anything interesting happens in it.
>
> The Second World War, the invention of computers,
> the Hindenburg (?) airship disaster, and, of course,
> digital currency.

I'm pretty sure none of those things were made up for the book.