Robert Wolfe share thoughts about flamers...
Franklin Hummel
In article <32D14E...@wco.com>, Robert Holland
<rhol...@wco.com> wrote, quoting an article about Robert Wolfe:
>
>And despite the sometimes vituperative nature of
>the feedback he recieves from netizens meaner
>than a bunch of Vulcans in pon farr, Wolfe has no
>plans to abandon the medium. "I'm a writer, so I
>make my living from free and unfettered
>expression, so I'm all for the sort of free exchange
>that you get in the newsgroups," says Wolfe. "Like
>anything, it's something that can be abused, but it's
>been a positive experience, and one I plan to
>continue."
>Producer/writer Robert Wolfe typically appears on the
>alt.tv.startrek-ds9 and rec.arts.startrek.current Usenet
>newsgroups.
Ah-uh. From what I saw, Mr. Wolfe founded he was in over his
head in trying to answer the hard criticism (I assume this he what he
means in part by "flaming") when he found his messages being crossposted
to rec.arts.sf.tv, where the standards of what -is- Science Fiction
are a bit higher than in the much-more-friendlier-to-him TREK groups.
What Mr. Wolfe learn: since he can't take the heat, he's staying
out of the kitchen.
By the way, I don't know if it was in the actual article or in
Mr. Holland's copying, but the newsgroup is -not- "alt.tv.startrek-ds9",
it is "alt.tv.star-trek.ds9".
-- Franklin Hummel [ hum...@world.std.com ]
--
* NecronomiCon. 3rd Edition: The Cthulhu Mythos Convention *
August 15-17, 1997 - Providence, Rhode Island
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> Wasn't "first person" in this "sample exchange" actually Mr. Wolfe
himself?
> Not to be lazy, I'll do the DejaNews search myself...
>
> Ah...here it is:
>
> ***BEGIN ARCHIVED POST***
> Subject: Nasty sniping (was Re: DS9 borrows from DUNE!!)
> From: rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe)
> >What you don't seem to understand is that writing science-fiction
> >(especially with large, complex societies) is harder than writing just
> >a regular mainstream story.
>
> Don't make me bitch-slap you, man. _You_ are telling _me_ science
> fiction is hard to write? Teach your grandmother to suck eggs. I do
> this for a living. What do you do?
unfortunately he doesn't do it as well as some. I can name 10 Science
Fiction authors who could Mr. Wolfe's job(staff writer) far better.
> <rest snipped>
> ***END ARCHIVED POST***
>
> Not to imply that there's anything wrong with Mr. Wolfe. For better or
> worse, DS9 is producing the best new Trek on TV today. I'm really glad
he
> participates in USENET and wish more of the Trek people would come around
> this way, but when this article tries to give the impression that Mr.
Wolfe
> is somehow above the "rough-and-tumble" which often becomes part of
USENET
> discussion, it rubs me the wrong way.
It rubs YOU the wrong way? I am the one who is thought of as a proffesional
flamer because I choose to disagree with the undeserving adulation poured
on DS9 by its fans. I mean I love DS9 and all but the seeming unwillingnes
of its fans to bend an iota is ridiculous. I get so tired of hearing how
episodes that are poor (Visitor) to mediocre(Rapture) are the pinnacle of
Science FIction on the air. Oooops. Now I have gone and done it. I told the
truth. Most modern Trek ain't Science Fiction
--
Cronan Thompson, The man of 1000 names
First Officer of the USS Megadittos
"Isn't rationality a one trick pony?
When your sane you get that one trick,
thinking rationally, but when your good
and crazy HOOHOO"
-- The Tick
Any misspellings in the abuve ritings
are halusinasions. Egnore dem!!!
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> > Ah-uh. From what I saw, Mr. Wolfe founded he was in over his
> > head in trying to answer the hard criticism (I assume this he what he
> > means in part by "flaming") when he found his messages being
crossposted
> > to rec.arts.sf.tv, where the standards of what -is- Science Fiction
> > are a bit higher than in the much-more-friendlier-to-him TREK groups.
> >
>
I think Frank is right on target here. JMS does the exact same thing. He
more likely to stay on the newsgroups freindlier to his opinions about B5
than a Trek Ng where he will be more than likely flamed.
> > What Mr. Wolfe learn: since he can't take the heat, he's
staying
> > out of the kitchen.
>
> Either that, or if he *can* take the heat, he'll travel to Costa Rica
> for a couple of weeks.
>
> But i have to admit it Frank...when you talk tough like that, my nipples
> poke right through my tee-shirt.
You are in deperate need of therapy. Probably that of an elctro shock
nature.
Ashley E. Miller
In article <01bbfd32$c1e19840$610392cf@default>, "Cronan Thompson (Wise
beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)" <mal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> > Ah-uh. From what I saw, Mr. Wolfe founded he was in over his
>> > head in trying to answer the hard criticism (I assume this he what he
>> > means in part by "flaming") when he found his messages being
>crossposted
>> > to rec.arts.sf.tv, where the standards of what -is- Science Fiction
>> > are a bit higher than in the much-more-friendlier-to-him TREK groups.
>> >
>>
>> Oh, Frank. Do get over yourself.
>
>I think Frank is right on target here. JMS does the exact same thing. He
>more likely to stay on the newsgroups freindlier to his opinions about B5
>than a Trek Ng where he will be more than likely flamed.
Actually, this is true. Rob Wolfe *was* in Costa Rica for the last few weeks.
>
>> > What Mr. Wolfe learn: since he can't take the heat, he's
>staying
>> > out of the kitchen.
>>
>> Either that, or if he *can* take the heat, he'll travel to Costa Rica
>> for a couple of weeks.
>>
>> But i have to admit it Frank...when you talk tough like that, my nipples
>> poke right through my tee-shirt.
>
>You are in deperate need of therapy. Probably that of an elctro shock
>nature.
Dammit, Cronan. You found me out.
Cheers,
Ashley
TUFFY LANGENBERGER
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much) (mal...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
<snippage>
: Most modern Trek ain't Science Fiction
Granted, DS9 isn't the best sci-fi *ever* (I don't think anything still
in production fills that description).
However, the definition I got of sci-fi was that it needed to fit 4
criteria:
1) it must have advanced technology
2) it must have alien creatures
3) it must have some sort of social commentary
4) it must have a strong central character or leader
Star Trek: Deep Space 9 fits those 4 easily.
If you want to get less technical, to be science fiction a show needs
to have science and fiction. Again, DS9 fits both categories.
I'm not sure what the Snotty Artistic Interperatation(TM) of sci-fi is,
but DS9 and Voyager fit every other definition I can think of.
--
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein
Lasher
>
> It rubs YOU the wrong way? I am the one who is thought of as a
proffesional
> flamer because I choose to disagree with the undeserving adulation poured
> on DS9 by its fans. I mean I love DS9 and all but the seeming
unwillingnes
> of its fans to bend an iota is ridiculous. I get so tired of hearing how
So....what's really irritating you is that everyone else is being as
inflexible about "The Visitor" and "Rapture" as you are? I know how it
feels, I personally think "Independence Day" (which isn't any more sci-fi
than Trek is) was one of the worst movies of last year, and I haven't found
one person who agrees with me yet.
This week, you're in the minority. Disagree all you want, but don't get
so irked about it.
--
Lasher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/=================================================\
The preceding contained adult material and/or
dangerous ideas. If you want to read it again,
discretion is advised.
\ ================================================/
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< las...@maui.netwave.net
Travers Naran
Lasher (las...@maui.netwave.net) pontificated:
>
> So....what's really irritating you is that everyone else is being as
> inflexible about "The Visitor" and "Rapture" as you are? I know how it
> feels, I personally think "Independence Day" (which isn't any more sci-fi
> than Trek is) was one of the worst movies of last year, and I haven't found
> one person who agrees with me yet.
Then you should spend more time on USENET's rec.arts.sf.* heirarchy.
I and a lot of others would agree with you on the ID4 situation.
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> So....what's really irritating you is that everyone else is being as
> inflexible about "The Visitor" and "Rapture" as you are?
They are. Look at the DS9 newsgroup. No one who disagres isn't flamed or
told they are a B5 fan. My orginal opinion was that Rapture was okay. until
I watched it again after eading several peoples overly positive comments. I
immeadiately changed my opinon. As for the Visitor I have never seen such a
poor peice of work elevated to "one of Trek's best" for no reason other
than "it struck a chord".
I know how it
> feels,
Do you really? You always seem agree with the majority. Heaping accolades
on a pathetic episode that was poorly written and acted while ignoring any
discenting opinions or attacking those that have them
I personally think "Independence Day" (which isn't any more sci-fi
> than Trek is) was one of the worst movies of last year, and I haven't
found
> one person who agrees with me yet.
You have now
> This week, you're in the minority. Disagree all you want, but don't get
> so irked about it.
I don't think Iam in the minority. The majority of people who aren't
obsessed with DS9 being the best Trek ever see this episode as mediocre at
best.
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
-- > Granted, DS9 isn't the best sci-fi *ever* (I don't think anything
still
> in production fills that description).
Obviously you aren't making the distinction between Sci-Fi and Science
Fiction .
> However, the definition I got of sci-fi was that it needed to fit 4
> criteria:
>
> 1) it must have advanced technology
Not a criteria for Science Fiction. Science Fiction can a unique
application of an old technology. The science contained therein can be
anthropolgy of archealogy. It needn't be
> 2) it must have alien creatures
Again not a criteria for Science Fiction. This is the POV of a person who
only knows Trek. If you had a broader base from which to draw you would see
that SF does not require aliens involved.
> 3) it must have some sort of social commentary
This not nessecary. It is good to have but nessecary
> 4) it must have a strong central character or leader
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit You just defined what is nessecary to make a
Trek show not Science Fiction. Science Fiction does not require any of your
criteria.
>
> Star Trek: Deep Space 9 fits those 4 easily.
Yeah it does, because it is Trek. Have you ever read a decent Science
Fiction novel? If you had you would know that Ds9 is not Science Fiction
but SciFi. SciFi has a much loser definiton.
> If you want to get less technical, to be science fiction a show needs
> to have science and fiction. Again, DS9 fits both categories.
On what planet are you? And where can get what you are smoking? Sisko
having visions, transporters, The Prophets, Q, photorps/phasers, and Phased
cloaking devices have a scientific base? This is the result of someone
subsituting ST for physics class Go back to Jr. High.
> I'm not sure what the Snotty Artistic Interperatation(TM) of sci-fi is,
> but DS9 and Voyager fit every other definition I can think of.
Then you need a new dictionary
No SAI for me just a definiton of Science Fiction(not scifi): simple
understanding and application if science in a believeable setting that the
reasonably competent writer believes can conceivably happen. DS9, TNG and
Voyager do not fit that rather loose but far more accurate . It may be
SciFi but not Science Fiction
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
David G. Homerick
On 8 Jan 1997, TUFFY LANGENBERGER
(lang...@itlabs.umn.edu) announced to the world:
: Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
: (mal...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: <snippage>
: : Most modern Trek ain't Science Fiction
: Granted, DS9 isn't the best sci-fi *ever* (I don't think anything still
: in production fills that description).
(I'll assume that you intend "sci-fi" as an abbreviation for "science
fiction.")
: However, the definition I got of sci-fi was that it needed to fit 4
: criteria:
Huh? Where did you get it?
There are lots of "definitions" of science fiction, all of them faulty in
some way.
: 1) it must have advanced technology
: 2) it must have alien creatures
: 3) it must have some sort of social commentary
: 4) it must have a strong central character or leader
: Star Trek: Deep Space 9 fits those 4 easily.
_Twelve Monkeys_ did not have alien creatures.
_2001: A Space Odyssey_ did not have a strong central character or
leader.
Since _Twelve Monkeys_ does not fit the second criterion and _2001: A
Space Odyssey_ does not fit the fourth, obviously neither of these films
qualify as science fiction.
: If you want to get less technical, to be science fiction a show needs
: to have science and fiction. Again, DS9 fits both categories.
So does ER. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that the science (and the
fiction) on ER are _better_ than on DS9.
: I'm not sure what the Snotty Artistic Interperatation(TM) of sci-fi is,
: but DS9 and Voyager fit every other definition I can think of.
The "Snotty Artistic Interpretation" of science fiction is the one
Gharlane keeps posting. I don't think it's a very good definition,
though -- it's far too strict. Neal Stephenson's novel _Snow Crash,_ for
example, fails it, as does Frank Herbert's _Dune_. DS9 fails it in
spades, of course.
-- David
Robert H. Wolfe
For some reason, my response to this thread didn't show up here
(hopefully it did go to rec.art.sci-fi.tv or whatever it's called.
Under the vain assumption that some of you might care, I'll try to
summerize:
Frank Hummel accuses me of running away from hard criticism (despite
the fact that I participated in a running debate with him for a week or
so. "us" at mindspring correctly notes that I was out of the country
for the last two weeks, but it's not entirely accurate to say that's
why I stopped responding to Frank's posts. Basically, I got bored with
them. I mean, I could talk all day about the definition of science
fiction, the realities of the syndication market, my cirriculum vitae,
favorite books, etc... but what's the point? Frank (along with some of
the other participants in that thread) has an axe to grind. Which is
fine. More power to him. But it started feeling like trying to have a
rational discussion with a wall.
More broadly, I stand by my defense of freedom of speach. Frank,
Travars, the "B5 rules, DS9 sucks" crowd, their "DS9 rules, B5 sucks"
opponents, all have, in my opinion, a right to say whatever the hell
they want.
But I also have a right to stop listening to them when they get
repetative, vitriolic, or just plain dull. Frankly, every time I hear
that hoary old "DS9 is a B5 ripoff" bullshit, my eyes glaze over. But
I'll defend with my last breath Frank's right to say it, ignorant as it
may be. Hell, there're a lot worse ways to exercise the first
amendment.
Robert
Tracy Freeling
Lasher wrote:
> I know how it
> haven't found one person who agrees with me yet.
Actually, Lasher I think lots of people probably agree with you about
ID4! I think the producers of that one came up with the storyline while
watching _War of the Worlds_ or something. To paraphase _Field of
Dreams_, "if you spend a lotta money on special effects, they will come"
must have been their motto. If they were aiming for the kind of box
office returns of _Die Hard_ et al., why didn't they just get Chuck
Norris to play the President?! Maybe Jackie Chan could have been one of
the foreign 'resistance' people?!
Tracy Freeling tracy_f...@oxy.com
jse...@ime.net
: > inflexible about "The Visitor" and "Rapture" as you are?
:
: They are. Look at the DS9 newsgroup. No one who disagres isn't flamed or
: told they are a B5 fan. My orginal opinion was that Rapture was okay. until
: I watched it again after eading several peoples overly positive comments. I
: immeadiately changed my opinon. As for the Visitor I have never seen such a
: poor peice of work elevated to "one of Trek's best" for no reason other
: than "it struck a chord".
Geez, are you actually expecting to find people who don't like
DS9 in the DS9 newsgroup?
I don't understand your change of opinion on "Rapture". From
what I can tell from your message, you liked it, watched it again after
you heard other people liked it, and decided you didn't like it. What
changed your mind; did you just not want to agree (in direction, if not
degree) with the rank-and-file fans of DS9.
And striking a chord is a perfectly good reason for The Visitor
to be considered one of Trek's best: There's little enough on television
that connects at an emotional level like "The Visitor" did for a lot of
people, and modern Trek in particular has been deficient in that area.
: > This week, you're in the minority. Disagree all you want, but don't get
: > so irked about it.
:
: I don't think Iam in the minority. The majority of people who aren't
: obsessed with DS9 being the best Trek ever see this episode as mediocre at
: best.
By now, most of DS9's fans aren't obsessed about it being the best
Trek yet: The time for obsession is long passed; we're convinced. I'd
be interested in what you mean by people who are obsessed with DS9 being
the best Trek ever; DS9's fans seem to be a fairly quiet lot.
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> Oh my God! A B5 fan?! Good Lord!! That's horrible!! Who cares? Only
> idiots fall back on the "you're just saying that because you're a B5/DS9
> fan" argument!
My point exactly.
You're not taking those dummies seriously, are you? They
> probably wear armbands with their favorite series logos emblazoned on
them
> (unless Viacom has something to say about it).
LOL
> But I'm confused. Are you saying that your reason for deciding
"Rapture"
> was crap instead of just an average episode is solely based on the
> lovefest, or did you actually find something in the episode to change you
> mind?
Well on my second viewing i noticed several things that I hadn't seen in my
first one. Particularly that thing Sisko does with his shoulders. They seem
out of sinc with his walk. IT is like someone threw of his internal timing.
The biggest problem I have are facts that SIsko found this city that noone
on Bajor could find for 5000 years, they pushed the reset button in a way
that I find unforgivabe AND his performance was worse than usual
> Guess you missed the "Looking For ParMach" comments I made. After
tacking
> off every reason why the episode was utter crap (acting, writing,
> continuity--that baby had it all), I promptly got taken to task because
all
> the "ParMach" lovers automatically thought it was just because I don't
like
> to see major cast members in love.
I got something similar
Granted, the popularity of "ParMach"
> was nowhere close to that of "Rapture", but the situation is similar.
Is it ? PAr'Mach was a comedy. Comedy is more easily accepted as crap.
Drama is another thing entirely
>
> I also agreed with you that Brooks is not a particularly good actor.
> Personally, I don't think he's as terrible as you think he is, and I
> disagree that he did a bad job last week.
That's okay
However, there weren't that many
> people who even admitted he was anything but solid.
True
<<snipped>>
Lasher
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
<01bbfdb8$4c64b9e0$790392cf@default>...
> > So....what's really irritating you is that everyone else is being as
> > inflexible about "The Visitor" and "Rapture" as you are?
>
> They are. Look at the DS9 newsgroup. No one who disagres isn't flamed or
> told they are a B5 fan. My orginal opinion was that Rapture was okay.
until
> I watched it again after eading several peoples overly positive comments.
I
> immeadiately changed my opinon.
Oh my God! A B5 fan?! Good Lord!! That's horrible!! Who cares? Only
idiots fall back on the "you're just saying that because you're a B5/DS9
fan" argument! You're not taking those dummies seriously, are you? They
probably wear armbands with their favorite series logos emblazoned on them
(unless Viacom has something to say about it).
But I'm confused. Are you saying that your reason for deciding "Rapture"
was crap instead of just an average episode is solely based on the
lovefest, or did you actually find something in the episode to change you
mind?
> I know how it
> > feels,
>
> Do you really? You always seem agree with the majority. Heaping accolades
> on a pathetic episode that was poorly written and acted while ignoring
any
> discenting opinions or attacking those that have them
Always.
Guess you missed the "Looking For ParMach" comments I made. After tacking
off every reason why the episode was utter crap (acting, writing,
continuity--that baby had it all), I promptly got taken to task because all
the "ParMach" lovers automatically thought it was just because I don't like
to see major cast members in love. Granted, the popularity of "ParMach"
was nowhere close to that of "Rapture", but the situation is similar.
I also agreed with you that Brooks is not a particularly good actor.
Personally, I don't think he's as terrible as you think he is, and I
disagree that he did a bad job last week. However, there weren't that many
people who even admitted he was anything but solid.
I don't post very often, and when I do it's usually in spurts (a bunch of
posts for a couple months, then barely anything for a couple months). I
don't post as often as you do, and I'm sorry I'm not attacking enough
dissenting opinions to suit you, but I rarely see the point in saying
"you're wrong, wrong, WRONG", and nothing else. Who am I going to convince
by doing that, who am I going to sway? You? I'm not interested in
changing your mind, and I already know I stand a snowball's chance in Hell
of doing so. Besides, I like arguments!
I'm just trying to figure out why you disliked the show, just like you
were wondering why a lot of people loved it. You didn't like Brook's
performance, you thought it moved too slowly, and yet you thought it was OK
until everyone else loved it. Is this more of an aversion to being in the
majority, than it is a opinion of the episode itself?
I started off on the "Rapture" issue because you asked what it others saw
in it, and I told you what I thought. I loved the show before I even saw
the response on the 'net, kill me (on second thought, please don't :) ).
There's a difference between being in agreement with a bunch of people and
jumping on the bandwagon.
>
> I personally think "Independence Day" (which isn't any more sci-fi
> > than Trek is) was one of the worst movies of last year, and I haven't
> found
> > one person who agrees with me yet.
>
> You have now
Cool! I wasn't very clear when I made that comment. I know tons of
people hated it on the 'net; I was thinking about the people I saw
face-to-face all summer long when I was typing that in (bloody
philistines). It's amazing how many chiches people will swallow when you
blow up the White House.
Just for the record, I consider Trek science-fantasy. Any show that yanks
out a particle-of-the-week to justify a time-travel show doesn't have
science too high on it's mind.
Franklin Hummel
In article <5b0mqs$1...@epx.cis.umn.edu>,
TUFFY LANGENBERGER <lang...@itlabs.umn.edu> wrote:
>However, the definition I got of sci-fi was that it needed to fit 4
>criteria:
>
Short Story) does NOT have advanced technology.
>2) it must have alien creatures
Fiction) does NOT have alien creatures.
>3) it must have some sort of social commentary
Fiction) does NOT have social commentary.
>4) it must have a strong central character or leader
Novel) does NOT have a strong central character.
You -might- have a definition for some "Sci-Fi", but you sure do
NOT have a definition for *Science Fiction*.
Robin E. Cook
In <01bbfd6e$c2768e00$3c84...@lasher.netwave.net> "Lasher"
<las...@maui.netwave.net> writes:
>
>>
>> It rubs YOU the wrong way? I am the one who is thought of as a
>proffesional
>> flamer because I choose to disagree with the undeserving adulation
poured
>> on DS9 by its fans.
In other words, you don't like it when people like things you don't
like? Huh? Just remember, DS9 is undeserving by *your standards,* not
theirs.
>
Keith Adams
"Lasher" <las...@maui.netwave.net> possibly posted this:
>>
>> It rubs YOU the wrong way? I am the one who is thought of as a
>proffesional
>> flamer because I choose to disagree with the undeserving adulation poured
>> on DS9 by its fans. I mean I love DS9 and all but the seeming
>unwillingnes
>> of its fans to bend an iota is ridiculous. I get so tired of hearing how
I like the Visitor. I didn't like Rapture so much. But it was
better than most episodes.
> So....what's really irritating you is that everyone else is being as
>inflexible about "The Visitor" and "Rapture" as you are? I know how it
>feels, I personally think "Independence Day" (which isn't any more sci-fi
>than Trek is) was one of the worst movies of last year, and I haven't found
>one person who agrees with me yet.
You didn't read the ST:FC posts did you?
Comparasions of ID4 seem to run along the lines of (despite FC's
being somewhat mediocre) "It's like comparing Plan 9 From Outer
Space to Hamlet".
--
Keith Adams (ja...@cwo.com/www.cwo.com/~janus/)
"Do you know what they DO to people in California?"
The Joker
In article <01bbfdd4$180fbfc0$790392cf@default>, mal...@worldnet.att.net
says...
>The biggest problem I have are facts that SIsko found this city that noone
>on Bajor could find for 5000 years, they pushed the reset button in a way
>that I find unforgivabe AND his performance was worse than usual
True; it's like they needed a boost for the new spring season, so they gave
themselves the old "Polish strike." Kai Winn and Kira are now on the same
team, Sisko is REALLY the emissary, and there's a WAR coming...
Am I the ONLY one who's getting sensations of Deja Vu? They forshadow
things which CONSTANTLY leave us asking "what about ------?" so they can
throw us a bone of plot advancement to draw the audience back whenever the
phone-in, boring, run-of-the-mill sci-fi hackery starts to wear thin.
STAR TREK: DEEP FAT FRY!
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> But the truth is, Frank and his ilk have become, well, boring. They
> basically say the same thing over and over.
As do you. It is a retread of the same argument over and over and over
again. And you are still wrong
Seems to me that they've
> forgotten that there are other things more deserving of their hatred
> and rage: like maybe poverty, racism, nuts with guns, reactionary
> politicians. Whenever I'm subjected to the online equivalent of
> hysterical temper tantrums, I want to shout, "It's a TELEVISION SHOW!"
Call it what you will but do not call it SF
Robin E. Cook
In <5b0m6l$s...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert
flamers. I for one enjoyed "Rapture." I do have a question: where was
Shakaar? Bajor's about to be admitted to the Federation and the First
Minister is nowhere to be found? Whuh?
But the truth is, Frank and his ilk have become, well, boring. They
basically say the same thing over and over. Seems to me that they've
Gharlane of Eddore
In <5b0mqs$1...@epx.cis.umn.edu>
lang...@itlabs.umn.edu (TUFFY LANGENBERGER) writes:
>
> Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
>
> <snippage>
>
> : Most modern Trek ain't Science Fiction
>
> Granted, DS9 isn't the best sci-fi *ever* (I don't think anything still
> in production fills that description).
Excuse me, but Cronan *specifically* said "Science Fiction."
YOU appear to be discussing "sci-fi."
DS9, while certainly "Sci-Fi," does not qualify as "Science Fiction."
Please note the definitions below, which are standard defaults in
informed News topics not ruled by thundering hordes of drooling,
unwashed, subliterate TrekkieFen:
"It's Science Fiction if, presuming technical competence on the part
of the writer, he genuinely believes it could happen; otherwise,
it's Fantasy." ---John W. Campbell, Jr., 1937
"'Sci-Fi' is Fantasy with Science Fiction props."
---Forrest J. Ackerman, the *inventor* of the term "Sci-Fi."
If you're insisting on discussing something else, that fits the definition
you cite below, please give us a referential term to use for it which
does not conflict with standard usages and terminology.
> However, the definition I got of sci-fi was that it needed to fit 4
> criteria:
>
> 1) it must have advanced technology
> 2) it must have alien creatures
> 3) it must have some sort of social commentary
> 4) it must have a strong central character or leader
> Star Trek: Deep Space 9 fits those 4 easily.
Nope. "DS9" doesn't have "advanced technology." It has *MAGIC*.
Neither Science Fiction nor Sci-Fi nor Fantasy depends on the presence
of alien creatures.
Your stipulation that some sort of social commentary and a strong
central character or leader are necessary are *literary* conceits,
unrelated to SF, Sci-Fi, or Fantasy, any of which can be created
without "alien creatures," "social commentary," or a "strong central
character." (Although, to be honest, I prefer a bit of both
#3 and #4, as do most fans; however, the presence of these factors
has nothing to do with the genre of the story.)
SCIENCE FICTION deals with something that COULD happen, but probably
hasn't. It's a rigorous extrapolation of known science and technology,
although one specific presumption, like FTL drive or telepathy, is
allowable if the rest of the effort is consistent and coherent.
FANTASY is something the writer does *not* believe could happen, or
is set against an environment or technology known, or believed with
good cause, to be impossible.
> If you want to get less technical, to be science fiction a show needs
> to have science and fiction. Again, DS9 fits both categories.
Wrong. DS9 has space ships and ray guns, and occasionally consistent
magic wands. It has zero scientific content, and your inability to
differentiate DS9 Fantasy from actual SF is, while typical of Trekkies
and Trek senior production staff, disheartening.
> I'm not sure what the Snotty Artistic Interperatation(TM) of sci-fi is,
> but DS9 and Voyager fit every other definition I can think of.
(If we were being snotty, we wouldn't be responding to an entry that
displayed such imaginative spelling... OBSP: "interpretation.")
"'Sci-Fi' is Fantasy with Science Fiction props." Remember?
And DS9 and Voyager definitely fit the definition of "Sci-Fi."
The difference is that DS9 is occasionally good Fantasy, sometimes
even interesting, while Voyager is not, and apparently never will be
with the current senior production staff involved.
If Paramount wanted to make a gazillion, they'd put "VOYAGER" out
of production and buy the screen rights to "THE LORD OF THE RINGS,"
and let Taylor do *that*. She could handle classic Fantasy, given
that much detailed background and coherent milieu to work with, so
she wouldn't have to recycle faded carbon copies of prior scripts
and novels.... and it might keep her from doing Anne Rice novels as
SkiFfy scripts, or ham-handed remakes of "ALIENS" like "MACROVERSE."
(And they could send Brannon Braga to Germany to work with that
marvelous staff that ruined "STAR COMMAND;" he'd fit right in
with them, be hailed as a genius, and never come back to bother us.
Of course, Germany might start World War III in retaliation, but at
least THIS time they'd be justified...)
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| A Science Fiction writer should never violate known scientific |
| laws by accident. ---- Frederik Pohl |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
jse...@ime.net
:
Are you sure you're right in blasting DS9's fans, then? While
most folks liked the show, most all the reviews and posts criticized
Kassidy Yates' appearance, and those same folks that consider DS9 the
best Trek yet often say they're disappointed that the amount of Bajoran
and Cardassian stories has dropped in recent years. And you should have
heard these same people 2.5 years ago when TPTB tried to make DS9 into
TNG. Not pleased.
: > By now, most of DS9's fans aren't obsessed about it being the best
: > Trek yet: The time for obsession is long passed; we're convinced.
:
: Well thanks for confirming my theory
How'd I do that? Simply based on looking at the evidence, DS9's
fans have become convinced that it's the best show. We don't _need_ to
be obsessed to believe it, because it makes a fairly convincing argument
on its own
: I'd
: > be interested in what you mean by people who are obsessed with DS9 being
: > the best Trek ever; DS9's fans seem to be a fairly quiet lot.
:
: DS9 fans seem to be a fairly closed minded lot. I find, to my chagrin, that
: Voyager fans are better at critizing their show.
Voyager has fans? :-) I think Trek fans are more willing to let
Voyager have it in the critical department because Voyager is so godawful
on a regular basis. When DS9 produces a stinker ("Let He Who Is Without
Sin", for example), folks do attack with both barrells; it just doesn't
happen nearly as often.
Gardner D. Underhill 3rd
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
<...snipped bulk of post of Cronan blasting a lame poster...>
> Obviously you aren't making the distinction between Sci-Fi and Science
> Fiction .
> No SAI for me just a definiton of Science Fiction(not scifi): simple
> understanding and application if science in a believeable setting that
the
> reasonably competent writer believes can conceivably happen. DS9, TNG and
> Voyager do not fit that rather loose but far more accurate . It may be
> SciFi but not Science Fiction
I remember the good old days, late 70's, very early 80's, when scifi was
just the short hand way of saying science fiction. I did not know that
scifi became its own word with a seperate meaning. What Cronan is defining
as scifi is what I would call science fantasy. But Cronan is right. Science
fiction does not have anything to do with 1) advanced tech, 2)aliens, 3)
social commentary, 4) a strong central character or leader. Those are plot
devices used by good and bad authors to tell stories. And telling stories
is what it is all about. Hopfully, we get more good than bad stories, but
as a wise man once said "90% of everything is shit". This includes Star
Trek.
--
"MOM! DAD! DON'T TOUCH IT'S EVIL!!!"
Kevin, "Time Bandits"
GDU3rd
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> Geez, are you actually expecting to find people who don't like
> DS9 in the DS9 newsgroup?
I expect people to critical of a show no matter how much they like it.
> I don't understand your change of opinion on "Rapture". From
> what I can tell from your message, you liked it, watched it again after
> you heard other people liked it, and decided you didn't like it.
Nope. I thought it was mediocre. Watched it again and more faults appeared
that I hadn't notice on my first viewing
What
> changed your mind;
The thing that really changed my mind was the scene near the end when Sisko
was mourning the loss of his powers to see the future. When I read a review
that actually praised this scene as "one of DS9's best" I almost fell out
of my chair.
> did you just not want to agree (in direction, if not degree) with the
rank-and-file fans of DS9.
I am not stating my opinon just to be different. I hate that. People who
make the descion to be a rebel. Morons and self contradictory twits, the
lot of'em
> And striking a chord is a perfectly good reason for The Visitor
> to be considered one of Trek's best: There's little enough on television
> that connects at an emotional level like "The Visitor" did for a lot of
> people, and modern Trek in particular has been deficient in that area.
Yeah whatever. I can name 3 episodes of B5, 1 of Voyager and 20 from TNG
and TOS that out class this episode in the chord department. ALthough Tony
Todd tried his damndest to salvage this episode Brooks' sabotaged them by
giving the best perfromace he could muster. Which is dammn near awful.
> By now, most of DS9's fans aren't obsessed about it being the best
> Trek yet: The time for obsession is long passed; we're convinced.
Well thanks for confirming my theory
I'd
TUFFY LANGENBERGER
: The "Snotty Artistic Interpretation" of science fiction is the one
: though -- it's far too strict. Neal Stephenson's novel _Snow Crash,_ for
: example, fails it, as does Frank Herbert's _Dune_. DS9 fails it in
: spades, of course.
You know, I really don't give a rat's ass what science fiction or sci-fi
are defined as.
The point is, saying that any current version of Star Trek *isn't*
in the science fiction genre makes me wonder just what science
fiction is supposed to be. How is it different from everything else?
What puts 2001 in the science fiction genre but excludes Star Trek?
*Thats's* the part I don't understand.
Robert H. Wolfe
In <5b1q2q$p...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com> reco...@ix.netcom.com(Robin E.
Cook) writes:
> I for one enjoyed "Rapture." I do have a question: where was
>Shakaar? Bajor's about to be admitted to the Federation and the First
>Minister is nowhere to be found? Whuh?
As I previously posted, Shakaar was cut from the script for production,
not story, reasons. I think the actor may have been in Canada, but I
don't remember the exact reason. We probably should have inserted an
excuse into dialogue, but I guess we got a little sloppy (or decided to
duck the entire issue).
I know that's not the most satisfying answer, but it's the truth.
Robert
Max Exter
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much) (mal...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Obviously you aren't making the distinction between Sci-Fi and Science
: Fiction .
This has been bothering me for some time. What *IS* the difference? I had
always assumed that Sci-Fi was simply a short form of Science Fiction.
My best guess on the matter, is that Sci-Fi is supposed to represent Science
Fantasy, or something to that effect. (IE, while it may be set in the
future, the science has no realism to it)
Science Fiction, would therefore be anything that has plausible science,
with a Fictional aspect to it.
Can someone clear this up for me? Tell me if I'm right, wrong or close?
: but SciFi. SciFi has a much loser definiton.
I wonder if the spelling of looser was intentional?
: having visions, transporters, The Prophets, Q, photorps/phasers, and Phased
: cloaking devices have a scientific base? This is the result of someone
Some of it does, but would require a massive amount of energy. I don't
think the transporters would work. And as for Q... hehe. I believe the
phasers are theoretically possible.
Trek tends to fit the Science Fantasy catagory, as far as I can tell.
- ME -
Franklin Hummel
In article <5b335r$o...@epx.cis.umn.edu>,
TUFFY LANGENBERGER <lang...@itlabs.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>You know, I really don't give a rat's ass what science fiction or sci-fi
>are defined as.
discussion in rec.arts.sf.tv is "Science Literacy of the Audience". The
irony of reading this thread along with a lot of these "I don't care what
Science Fiction is!" posts coming from the Trek groups is very amusing.
Gharlane of Eddore
In <5b335r$o...@epx.cis.umn.edu>
lang...@itlabs.umn.edu (TUFFY LANGENBERGER) writes:
>
...<deletia>
>
> The point is, saying that any current version of Star Trek *isn't*
> in the science fiction genre makes me wonder just what science
> fiction is supposed to be. How is it different from everything else?
> What puts 2001 in the science fiction genre but excludes Star Trek?
>
> *Thats's* the part I don't understand.
>
Arthur C. Clarke remarked, concerning "2001:ASO," something to the
effect of "MGM have just footed the bill for the first ten-million-
dollar religious movie, and don't realize it."
"2001" looks like "hard" SF most of the way in, and then makes the
statement, or implication, that our existence is the result of
purposeful tampering by an alien Elder Race, which has come back
to patch the emergency patch job they did the first time around,
when they gave humans the wherewithal to survive long enough to
progress a bit.
Specifically, Clarke asserts that although they have godlike powers,
their powers are limited; they couldn't just change us into an
advanced race, all they could do was help out a bit, and know they'd
have to do some direct-intervention patchwork later on.
Thus, Clarke is *not* imputing some sort of "godhood" to the elder
race, since they are fallible, and limited.... but he *is* saying
that races have the capacity to evolve into something akin to
godhood.
Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan did something wonderfully similar in their
book, "CONTACT." (The idea had first been explored seriously by
Frederik Pohl, but their book is better known.) The idea is that
our entire *universe* is a construct created to afford a salubrious
environment for intelligent races..... by *previous* intelligent races...
and that Everything We Need To Know is hidden deep inside certain
physical constants that were determined at the creation of the universe.
Consequently, I tend to think of "2001" and "CONTACT," and other
works of that ilk, as expressions of personal philosophy, rather
than SF. There's a hazy demarcation, of course......
Junsok Yang
In article <5b21tu$c...@news.csus.edu>, ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu says...
>Excuse me, but Cronan *specifically* said "Science Fiction."
>YOU appear to be discussing "sci-fi."
>DS9, while certainly "Sci-Fi," does not qualify as "Science Fiction."
>Please note the definitions below, which are standard defaults in
>informed News topics not ruled by thundering hordes of drooling,
>unwashed, subliterate TrekkieFen:
>"It's Science Fiction if, presuming technical competence on the part
> of the writer, he genuinely believes it could happen; otherwise,
> it's Fantasy." ---John W. Campbell, Jr., 1937
>"'Sci-Fi' is Fantasy with Science Fiction props."
> ---Forrest J. Ackerman, the *inventor* of the term "Sci-Fi."
>If you're insisting on discussing something else, that fits the definition
>you cite below, please give us a referential term to use for it which
>does not conflict with standard usages and terminology.
I hate to go against John Campbell (or Gharlane for that matter since he
has shown consistently that he does have an encyclopedic knowledge of the
field, especially the "Golden Age" SF), and admittedly Muffy's definition is
full of holes, but the problem is that Campbell's definition has substantial
problems with it as well. For example, Issac Asimov before his death,
disavowed psychohistory, and stated he thought such a science will never be
possible. Thus, by Campbell's definition, "The Foundation Trilogy" cannot
be SF.
Other problems are any stories which deal with time travel or faster than
light transportation. Except for a very few works being published NOW,
based on new wormhole type physics (which I don't know anything about -
though I just bought a book on it, "Hyperspace" by M. Kaku, and guess what?
It uses the wormhole from DS9 as an example of a wormhole.) time travel and
FTL transportation are impossible. That rules out a slew of "SF" works,
since anyone with competent technical training cannot accept how time travel
and FTL works in many of those works.
There's also works like "The Martian Chronicles" by Ray Bradbury (or most
of Bradbury's work for that matter) which ignores real science almost
completely (though he certainly has "sense of wonder" in spades). Would
Bradbury's work be NOT considered SF? (Yep, Bradbury is sort of a critical
hot button with "SF" purists. The debate has been going on for ages.)
Finally, (this is way before my time, so I only write what I read from
both supporters and detractors of Campbell) Campbell played that definition
of SF fast and loose himself in the 50s, when he favored psi-power stories.
Campbell did not have technical competence in that area, and accepted
stories from people who did not. Appearently Campbell believed that
psi-powers and some of the more unorthodox parapsychology theories were real
when neither he nor the writers who submitted them had enough knowledge in
those fields. It was one of the minor reasons why some of his Golden Age
giants left for other magazines or other fields. (The more important
reasons being literary freedom and higher pay.)
I can't think of anyplace other than Analog where the Campbell definition
is used currently as the default definition, and even the Analog editors
seem to refer to it and the stories based on that definition as the
sub-genre of "hard" SF. (Of course this brings up the problem of a sizable,
intelligent minority of SF readers who thinks that the entire field has been
corrupted, but that conversation belongs in rec.arts.sf.written or
elsewhere.)
So what *is* a decent definition of SF? I haven't come across one yet
that satisfies me. The closest I can come to is Damon Knight's
"definition:" (Knight was one of the earliest real critic in the SF field)
"... the term 'science fiction' is a misnomer, that trying to get two
enthusiasts to agree on a definition of it leads only to bloody knuckles;
... and that it will do us no particular harm if we remember that, like 'The
Saturday Evening Post', it means what we point to when we say it."
(Quotation from "In Search of Wonder" chapt. 1 excerpted in "Visions of
Wonder" ed. by D. Hartwell and M. Wolf)
>Nope. "DS9" doesn't have "advanced technology." It has *MAGIC*.
>SCIENCE FICTION deals with something that COULD happen, but probably
>hasn't. It's a rigorous extrapolation of known science and technology,
>although one specific presumption, like FTL drive or telepathy, is
>allowable if the rest of the effort is consistent and coherent.
Which, of course, is not part of Campbell's original definition. It's a
fix-up which came later after it became more clear (to SF writers if not to
scientists) that scientific theory would not allow for FTL or psi-powers.
It's interesting to note that this interpretation is similar to Asimov's
definition of "hard" SF, though not SF in general.
>FANTASY is something the writer does *not* believe could happen, or
>is set against an environment or technology known, or believed with
>good cause, to be impossible.
>DS9 has space ships and ray guns, and occasionally consistent
>magic wands. It has zero scientific content, and your inability to
>differentiate DS9 Fantasy from actual SF is, while typical of Trekkies
>and Trek senior production staff, disheartening.
>And DS9 and Voyager definitely fit the definition of "Sci-Fi."
>+----------------------------------------------------------------+
>| A Science Fiction writer should never violate known scientific |
>| laws by accident. ---- Frederik Pohl |
>+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Now, by playing with Campbell or even the modified Campbell definition
above, by my recollection there has NEVER been a "SF" work on TV or on
screen (except perhaps a few isolated episodes in an anthology series and
perhaps 2001). That includes "Twilight Zone" "Dr. Who" "Star Trek (any
incarnation)" "Babylon 5" "Star Wars" "Forbidden Planet" "Blade Runner"
"E.T." "12 Monkeys" and so on.
Going away from the Campbell definition, the following quotes from Issac
Asimov may be of interest. (From "Yours, Issac Asimov." Both in that book
and in "Inside Star Trek", they point out that Asimov initially gave a
lukewarm review of ST: TOS because its science was wrong. However, after
correspondances with Roddenberry, Asimov became a fan of Trek and one of its
vocal supporters.) The quotes mostly concerns TOS, though he has stated
elsewhere that he liked TNG quite a bit as well. Of course, he died before
DS9 or VOY made its appearence, though *my guess* is that he would have
enjoyed both.
"Star Trek has been enduring because it was the first and continuing piece
of visual science fiction to be true science fiction and to depend upon
intelligence rather than upon shoot-'em-up special effects." (paperback
edition p.180 - letter written in 1990)
"... 'sci-fi' is now widely used by people who don't read science fiction.
It is used particularly by people who work in movies and television. This
makes it, perhaps, a useful term. We can define 'sci-fi' as trashy material
sometimes confused, by ignorant people, with s.f. Thus, Star Trek is s.f.,
while Godzilla Meets Mothra is sci-fi." (paperback edition p.97 letter
written in 1985.)
--
**************************************************************************
Year, n. A period of three hundred and sixty-five disappointments.
...Ambrose Bierce "The Devil's Dictionary"
Junsok Yang (yan...@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu)
(yan...@minerva.cis.yale.edu)
Gharlane of Eddore
In <5b3p7d$q...@cliff.island.net> mex...@island.net (Max Exter) writes:
>
...<deletia>
>
> Trek tends to fit the Science Fantasy catagory, as far as I can tell.
>
While I have no objectionss to the concepts and categorizations (note
spelling) in your entry, I do feel called upon to point out that
using the terms "Science" and "Fantasy" in the same phrase, or the
same title, appears a bit contradictory. In point, I have a problem
with it... if it's Fantasy, it's Fantasy. It can't, by definition,
be "Science." My considered opinion, for what miniscule amount
it's worth, is that "Science Fantasy" is a term better replaced
with the term "Sci-Fi." Since we've already got a phrase for Fantasy
with SF props, why not use it?
I wouldn't have a problem with something like "Pseudo-Scientific Fantasy,"
but that's getting a bit unwieldy.
=========================================================================
=========================================================================
Excerpt from the InterNet I.Q. Test for AOL Subscribers:
#001. Find your way through the maze. (Three attempts allowed.)
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| (+) 0 |
+--|------------------------------------------------------|--+
| |
begin end
#001(a). Reduced difficulty maze, for subscribers named "KACHMAR."
(Ten attempts allowed.)
+---------+
| |
begin here ---|--> 0 <--|--- end here.
| |
+---------+
=========================================================================
=========================================================================
Specially constructed 3-D stereograph .sig file, created this day,
9 Jan 97, to accurately explicate my feelings toward people who labor
under the delusion that mail-bombing my ISP with fabricated complaints
about me is a sensible way to expend their lifespan.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
\|/ _\/_ \|/ \|/ \/__ \|/ \|/ _\/_ \|/ \|/ \/__ \|/ \|/ _\/_ \|/
@~/ Oo \~@ @~/Oo \~@ @~/ Oo \~@ @~/Oo \~@ @~/ Oo \~@
/_( \__/ )_\ /_(\__/ )_\ /_( \__/ )_\ /_(\__/ )_\ /_( \__/ )_\
\__U_/ \_U__/ \__U_/ \_U__/ \__U_/
_ _
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 1997, goe
Robin E. Cook
>: Gharlane keeps posting. I don't think it's a very good definition,
>: though -- it's far too strict. Neal Stephenson's novel _Snow
Crash,_ for
>: example, fails it, as does Frank Herbert's _Dune_. DS9 fails it in
>: spades, of course.
>
sci-fi
>are defined as.
>
>in the science fiction genre makes me wonder just what science
>fiction is supposed to be. How is it different from everything else?
>What puts 2001 in the science fiction genre but excludes Star Trek?
>
>*Thats's* the part I don't understand.
Well, it's what you define as science fiction. I don't believe that
strict (read: snotty) artistic interpretations of science fiction are
necessarily held by everyone as gospel. Some say, for example, that
Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein," could be regarded as a seminal sci-fi
work; some people might say "Frankenstein" is not in any way sci-fi.
It really is all subjective.
Robin E. Cook
In <01bbfdf8$01eac360$ae0492cf@default> "Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond
my years. That ain't sayin' much)" <mal...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>> But the truth is, Frank and his ilk have become, well, boring. They
>> basically say the same thing over and over.
>
>again. And you are still wrong
Oh, grow up. I'm voicing my opinion. Who appointed you arbiter of
others' opinions?
>
> Seems to me that they've
>> forgotten that there are other things more deserving of their hatred
>> and rage: like maybe poverty, racism, nuts with guns, reactionary
>> politicians. Whenever I'm subjected to the online equivalent of
>> hysterical temper tantrums, I want to shout, "It's a TELEVISION
SHOW!"
>
>Call it what you will but do not call it SF
IMHO, it is.
Robin E. Cook
Do you ever read Phil Farrand's Nitpicker's Guides? (Mr. Farrand is
now working on a Nitpicker's Guide for X-Philes, so you are safe for a
bit. :) )
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> Are you sure you're right in blasting DS9's fans, then? While
> most folks liked the show, most all the reviews and posts criticized
> Kassidy Yates' appearance, and those same folks that consider DS9 the
> best Trek yet often say they're disappointed that the amount of Bajoran
> and Cardassian stories has dropped in recent years. And you should have
> heard these same people 2.5 years ago when TPTB tried to make DS9 into
> TNG. Not pleased.
Yeah all fine and well. But those were all when the majority agreed. When
someone disagrees.....Let heaven protect them
> How'd I do that? Simply based on looking at the evidence, DS9's
> fans have become convinced that it's the best show.
The majority is convinced
We don't _need_ to
> be obsessed to believe it, because it makes a fairly convincing argument
> on its own
You are right. Ia msorry for saying you are obsessed. Instead you are
sheep. Willing to follow the shepard of the Cliff
> Voyager has fans? :-) I think Trek fans are more willing to let
> Voyager have it in the critical department because Voyager is so godawful
> on a regular basis. When DS9 produces a stinker ("Let He Who Is Without
> Sin", for example), folks do attack with both barrells; it just doesn't
> happen nearly as often.
Another example of the majority agreeing. You. Never see Ds9 fans split
evenly over an episode. Why? Because they follow the majority
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> You know, I really don't give a rat's ass what science fiction or sci-fi
> are defined as.
Really? Thats good. Cause you don't have clue
> The point is, saying that any current version of Star Trek *isn't*
> in the science fiction genre makes me wonder just what science
> fiction is supposed to be.
If you have to ask you'll never know
How is it different from everything else?
> What puts 2001 in the science fiction genre but excludes Star Trek?
>
> *Thats's* the part I don't understand.
That is the problem isn't it.
Keith Adams
"Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)"
Having seen that Cronan has not provided examples, I decided to
provide them.
>> However, the definition I got of sci-fi was that it needed to fit 4
>> criteria:
>>
>> 1) it must have advanced technology
>Not a criteria for Science Fiction. Science Fiction can a unique
>application of an old technology. The science contained therein can be
>anthropolgy of archealogy. It needn't be
Lensman - Vacuum Tubes formed the basis for the technology.
>> 2) it must have alien creatures
>Again not a criteria for Science Fiction. This is the POV of a person who
>only knows Trek. If you had a broader base from which to draw you would see
>that SF does not require aliens involved.
2001: Space Odyssey didn't involve aliens in any signifigant way.
Dune is considered Sci-Fi, or fairly close. It's sort of
sci-fantasy. How many truly *alien* races were in Dune? They were
variants, but not inhuman form what I recall.
>> 3) it must have some sort of social commentary
>This not nessecary. It is good to have but nessecary
It generally has relevance to the human condition and
technologies impact, which, if you stretch, fits social
commentary.
>> 4) it must have a strong central character or leader
>Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit You just defined what is nessecary to make a
>Trek show not Science Fiction. Science Fiction does not require any of your
>criteria.
It's more than BS. It could be about anyone. It could be about
the evolution of a somehow intelligent amobeba, or just "days in
the lives of" - a vision of the future. A realistic vision.
Somewhat.
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> This has been bothering me for some time. What *IS* the difference? I
had
> always assumed that Sci-Fi was simply a short form of Science Fiction.
I will give you the one that was given me by the great Gharlane:
> My best guess on the matter, is that Sci-Fi is supposed to represent
Science
> Fantasy, or something to that effect. (IE, while it may be set in the
> future, the science has no realism to it)
That is correct
>
> Science Fiction, would therefore be anything that has plausible science,
> with a Fictional aspect to it.
Again, correct
> Can someone clear this up for me? Tell me if I'm right, wrong or close?
Very close
> : but SciFi. SciFi has a much loser definiton.
>
> I wonder if the spelling of looser was intentional?
Perhaps subconcious
<<snipped>>
> Trek tends to fit the Science Fantasy catagory, as far as I can tell.
100% correct
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> <...snipped bulk of post of Cronan blasting a lame poster...>
More like pathetic
> I remember the good old days, late 70's, very early 80's, when scifi was
> just the short hand way of saying science fiction.
Really? I was born right around then. My birth changed lots of things
I did not know that
> scifi became its own word with a seperate meaning.
Neither did I until the Mr. Hummel corrected me
What Cronan is defining
> as scifi is what I would call science fantasy.
As would I. But appearently the word Sci/fi encompasses that which uses
science a too fantastic way. Like ST
But Cronan is right. Science
> fiction does not have anything to do with 1) advanced tech, 2)aliens, 3)
> social commentary, 4) a strong central character or leader. Those are
plot
> devices used by good and bad authors to tell stories.
Thanks. IT is good to have people actually agree with you once in a while
And telling stories
> is what it is all about.
Which is fine. If people would just get over thefact that Ds9 is not SF it
would be fine
Hopfully, we get more good than bad stories, but
> as a wise man once said "90% of everything is shit". This includes Star
> Trek.
How true. Although I did like the Ds9 episode The Darkness and the Light
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> Having seen that Cronan has not provided examples, I decided to
> provide them.
Thanks.
> Lensman - Vacuum Tubes formed the basis for the technology.
Is this also a book? I have seen the anime.
> 2001: Space Odyssey didn't involve aliens in any signifigant way.
> Dune is considered Sci-Fi, or fairly close. It's sort of
> sci-fantasy. How many truly *alien* races were in Dune? They were
> variants, but not inhuman form what I recall.
Blood Music by Greg Bear. Neuromancer is probably my all time favorite SF
novel
<<snipped>>
> It's more than BS. It could be about anyone. It could be about
> the evolution of a somehow intelligent amobeba, or just "days in
> the lives of" - a vision of the future. A realistic vision.
> Somewhat.
Well at least I'm not in the minority this time.
Wes Taylor
Max Exter wrote:
>Cronan Thompson wrote:
>
>: Obviously you aren't making the distinction between Sci-Fi and Science
>: Fiction .
>
>always assumed that Sci-Fi was simply a short form of Science Fiction.
>
It is Science Fiction if the Writer, assming technical competence, believes it
is possible. It is Science Fantasy if it looks like SF but a technically
competent writer could not see it as possible. It is Sci-Fi (prononced skiffy)
if it looks, walks and talks like science fantasy but stinks like a bad story.
Sci-Fi is a derogatory term to most older fans. It means bad or psuedo SF.
Star Trek is more often than not Sci-Fi.
Star Wars is mostly Science Fantasy.
There is very little cinematic SF out there.
Wes
> - ME -
>
Junsok Yang
In article <01bbfec0$97a26980$f70492cf@default>, mal...@worldnet.att.net
says...
>> Lensman - Vacuum Tubes formed the basis for the technology.
>Is this also a book? I have seen the anime.
Gharlane probably knows the books intimately. The Lensman series were
written in (I believe) the 1930s by "Doc" E. E. Smith, and is considered one
of the best examples of SF from that era. Personally, I've heard that the
series is very dated now, and I don't particularly have the desire to read
them since I read and watch SF purely for fun.
As far as I know, the anime is completely different from the books.
>> 2001: Space Odyssey didn't involve aliens in any signifigant way.
>> Dune is considered Sci-Fi, or fairly close. It's sort of
>> sci-fantasy. How many truly *alien* races were in Dune? They were
>> variants, but not inhuman form what I recall.
>Blood Music by Greg Bear. Neuromancer is probably my all time favorite SF
>novel
The problem is that Neuromancer by Campbell (Gharlane)'s definition
[which Cronan seems to be using] is NOT "Science Fiction." When William
Gibson wrote the book, he had virtually no experience (pun only
halfheartedly intended) in how computers and internet worked. In fact it
was only after he wrote the book that he actually bought a personal
computer; and as far as I know, he didn't really seek out technical help.
Thus he fails the technical proficiency test. In fact, I understand that
Gibson is often taken to task by the current generation of hard SF writers
such as Benford, Bear and Brin.
Greg Bear is an interesting case. He writes (as far as I can tell,
anyway) rigorous "hard" SF, but whether he is technically proficient is
questionable. If I recall his bio correctly, he graduated college as a
liberal arts major and he originally started out as a SF illustrator and not
a writer. Of course he takes particular care to get the science right,
consults various scientists, and by now he probably has enough knowledge to
be a great "SF" writer, but if we go by the pure definition, his
qualification (technical proficiency) is questionable. [Also, as a side
note, Bear wrote a Star Trek novel in the early 80s.]
And to *completely* screw things up, it was John W. Campbell who first
published the first part of Dune in Analog as "Dune World"; and also the
first part of Anne McCaffrey's first "Dragons of Pern" novel as "Dragon
Weyr." Since Campbell tried to restrict the stories in Analog to SF and not
"sci-fi" or "science fantasy" (as he saw it, anyway), Campbell must have
believed that Dune (at least the first part of it) and McCaffrey's Pern
(again the part that he published, at least) were SF and not "science
fantasy".
Lesson: I don't think much about the precise definition of SF anymore. I
just read what I feel like reading, and if it feels like SF to me, then
it's SF.
Robin E. Cook
In <E3rJs...@world.std.com> hum...@world.std.com (Franklin Hummel)
writes:
sci-fi
>>are defined as.
>
>
>discussion in rec.arts.sf.tv is "Science Literacy of the Audience".
The
>irony of reading this thread along with a lot of these "I don't care
what
>Science Fiction is!" posts coming from the Trek groups is very
amusing.
>
fiction is.
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
<<snipped>>
> The problem is that Neuromancer by Campbell (Gharlane)'s definition
> [which Cronan seems to be using] is NOT "Science Fiction." When William
> Gibson wrote the book, he had virtually no experience (pun only
> halfheartedly intended) in how computers and internet worked. In fact it
> was only after he wrote the book that he actually bought a personal
> computer; and as far as I know, he didn't really seek out technical help.
> Thus he fails the technical proficiency test. In fact, I understand that
> Gibson is often taken to task by the current generation of hard SF
writers
> such as Benford, Bear and Brin.
Well I wonder, what we are to consider competency? Should we consider braga
competent although he writes episodes where everyone devolves into spiders
when his education is most certainly greater than mine? I would like to
think that, inspite of my relative youth,my knowledge of science is
sufficent to understand, enjoy, and possibily write SF. Although I may need
to consider getting help from someone who has more experience in the
particular science that my fiction is about. That is perhaps Trek's biggest
failing. They may have science consultants but they don't listen to them
> Greg Bear is an interesting case. He writes (as far as I can tell,
> anyway) rigorous "hard" SF, but whether he is technically proficient is
> questionable. If I recall his bio correctly, he graduated college as a
> liberal arts major and he originally started out as a SF illustrator and
not
> a writer. Of course he takes particular care to get the science right,
> consults various scientists, and by now he probably has enough knowledge
to
> be a great "SF" writer, but if we go by the pure definition, his
> qualification (technical proficiency) is questionable. [Also, as a side
> note, Bear wrote a Star Trek novel in the early 80s.]
I think the compenticy issue is the hardest part of this to argue. Am I
incompetent?
> And to *completely* screw things up, it was John W. Campbell who first
> published the first part of Dune in Analog as "Dune World"; and also the
> first part of Anne McCaffrey's first "Dragons of Pern" novel as "Dragon
> Weyr." Since Campbell tried to restrict the stories in Analog to SF and
not
> "sci-fi" or "science fantasy" (as he saw it, anyway), Campbell must have
> believed that Dune (at least the first part of it) and McCaffrey's Pern
> (again the part that he published, at least) were SF and not "science
> fantasy".
>
> Lesson: I don't think much about the precise definition of SF anymore.
I
> just read what I feel like reading, and if it feels like SF to me, then
> it's SF.
Good definition. But then again are you competent to stand trial ?:)
--
Cronan Thompson, The man of 1000 names
First Officer of the USS Megadittos
Any response to this posting requires
forfiture of your soul. Please mail to:
mal...@worldnet.att.net
Any misspellings in the abuve ritings
are halusinasions. Egnore dem!!!
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> Oh my.. you really ARE 17.
Yup. Jesus knew more than all the wise men in the temple by my age.
> Opinions can't be WRONG. Grow up
If it is your opinion that the sky is blue it is probably green. Since you
say "Opinions can't be WRONG," I say you are wrong and my opinion is the
one you need follow
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> Oh, grow up. I'm voicing my opinion. Who appointed you arbiter of
> others' opinions?
God
> IMHO, it is.
Then your opinion is wrong
Robert H. Wolfe
In <5b4dl0$s...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> reco...@ix.netcom.com(Robin E.
Cook) writes:
>
>Do you ever read Phil Farrand's Nitpicker's Guides?
I've looked at them. Pretty funny sometimes.
R
TUFFY LANGENBERGER
Franklin Hummel (hum...@world.std.com) wrote:
: In article <5b335r$o...@epx.cis.umn.edu>,
: TUFFY LANGENBERGER <lang...@itlabs.umn.edu> wrote:
: >
: >You know, I really don't give a rat's ass what science fiction or sci-fi
: >are defined as.
:
: Interesting comment, given one of the subjects currently in
: discussion in rec.arts.sf.tv is "Science Literacy of the Audience". The
: irony of reading this thread along with a lot of these "I don't care what
: Science Fiction is!" posts coming from the Trek groups is very amusing.
What it is and what it's defined as being are often two different things.
So far, the only thing I can figure out is that true "science fiction"
is anything that doesn't have the word "Trek" in the title.
TUFFY LANGENBERGER
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much) (mal...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
<snippage>
: No SAI for me just a definiton of Science Fiction(not scifi): simple
: understanding and application if science in a believeable setting that the
: reasonably competent writer believes can conceivably happen. DS9, TNG and
: Voyager do not fit that rather loose but far more accurate . It may be
: SciFi but not Science Fiction
That definition is quite exclusive, really. Anything involving
faster-than-light travel is immediately excluded from being science fiction.
It can't conceivably happen, right?
As for accuracy, this one seems just as vague as the last one. It just
seems more elitist than most.
And finally, as for my dictionary, when I put in "sci-fi" I get:
% webster sci-fi
[science fiction]
:of, relating to, or being science fiction <a scifi story>
Maybe I'm just not enough of a snob to care about the difference.
Maytree
On 10 Jan 1997 07:52:08 GMT, elw...@teleport.com (Wes Taylor) wrote:
>>This has been bothering me for some time. What *IS* the difference? I had
>>always assumed that Sci-Fi was simply a short form of Science Fiction.
>>
>
>It is Science Fiction if the Writer, assming technical competence, believes it
>is possible. It is Science Fantasy if it looks like SF but a technically
>competent writer could not see it as possible. It is Sci-Fi (prononced skiffy)
>if it looks, walks and talks like science fantasy but stinks like a bad story.
> Sci-Fi is a derogatory term to most older fans. It means bad or psuedo SF.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I know I'm going to regret this, but I'm going to put in my two
credits anyway...
Part of the problem with this thread is that certain folks in it don't
realize (or aren't acknowledging) that their use of terms like
"Sci-Fi", pronounced "skiffy", is restricted to the subculture of
literary SF fans. Most Trek watchers are not a part of this subculture
and should *not* be expected to understand its slang.
In other words, if you're a Trek watcher and you don't get the subtle
distinctions between "Science Fiction,", "Fantasy", "Science
Fantasy", "Speculative Fiction", and "Skiffy" -- don't sweat it! It's
jargon. Anyone trying to make you feel ignorant because you don't use
the "right" term is an arrogant snob and should be disregarded.
-- Jen
Literary SF fan and Trek watcher
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Hawthorne
j...@rio.com
jennifer....@sierra.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mayhew snorted. "Your forward momentum is going to lead all your followers
over a cliff someday." He paused, beginning to grin. "On the way down,
you'll convince 'em all they can fly." He stuck his fists in his armpits,
and waggled his elbows. "Lead on, my lord. I'm flapping as hard as I can."
-- Lois McMaster Bujold, The Warriors Apprentice
Nyrath the nearly wise
:
: Is this also a book? I have seen the anime.
A series of books, actually. The anime is a pathetic hatchet job
that has little to do with the books save the names of the characters.
The Lensman series is considered to be truly classic science fiction
by many. Especially by our esteemed Gharlane of Eddore, who had
a lot of his biography incorporated into the series by the
First Historian.
On the web you can learn more at
http://168.150.253.1/~zlensman/lensfaq.html
If you are into RPG's, Steve Jackson games had a game supplement
called GURPS:LENSMAN that was actually pretty good. The author,
Sean Barrett, did his homework. I'm not sure if it is still in print,
but check
http://io.com/sjgames/
and see.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| WINCHELL CHUNG http://www.clark.net/pub/nyrath/home.html |
| Nyrath the nearly wise nyr...@clark.net |
+---_---+---------------------[ SURREAL SAGE SEZ: ]--------------------------+
| /_\ | Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is |
| <(*)> | right. |
|/_/|\_\| |
| //|\\ | |
+///|\\\+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Michael Allan Thomson
Oh my.. you really ARE 17.
Opinions can't be WRONG. Grow up
Mike
David Hines
In article <5b69s4$a...@access5.digex.net>,
Jonathan Blum <jb...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
[regarding Cronan Thompson]
>
>Man, I just want to lock this guy and Theron Fuller in a room together and
>let 'em fight over which show's fans are sheepier...
They're locked in my killfile together, and that's good enough for me.
(Actually, I think Cronan is the anti-Ford: control of English,
friendliness, and attitude are about the same. Matter of fact, I
think Ford's more polite than Cronan. He's certainly less prolific.)
David Hines
dzh...@midway.uchicago.edu
jse...@ime.net
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
:
: > Are you sure you're right in blasting DS9's fans, then? While
: > Kassidy Yates' appearance, and those same folks that consider DS9 the
: > best Trek yet often say they're disappointed that the amount of Bajoran
: > and Cardassian stories has dropped in recent years. And you should have
: > heard these same people 2.5 years ago when TPTB tried to make DS9 into
: > TNG. Not pleased.
:
: Yeah all fine and well. But those were all when the majority agreed. When
: someone disagrees.....Let heaven protect them
No, actually, it's when someone disagrees in an obnoxious,
immature, or condescending manner. Then, I admit, DS9's fans often
display a tendency to give the twerp a thorough tongue-lashing, so to
speak. But in my experience, level-headed criticism has been welcomed.
: > How'd I do that? Simply based on looking at the evidence, DS9's
: > fans have become convinced that it's the best show.
:
: The majority is convinced
The majority of what? Not Star Trek fans - most sentimentally
cling to the claim that TOS or TNG is the best of the series. I'll admit
I missed a word or two writing that; I should have said "many of DS9's
fans...". I don't know if the majority of DS9's fans are convinced it's
the best of the Trek series, but a lot have.
: We don't _need_ to
: > be obsessed to believe it, because it makes a fairly convincing argument
: > on its own
:
: You are right. Ia msorry for saying you are obsessed. Instead you are
: sheep. Willing to follow the shepard of the Cliff
Now you're just being unnecessarily insulting. If DS9's fans
were sheep we'd be fawning all over Voyager; it's the program with the
strongest promotional push behind it. Is it so difficult to believe that
DS9's fans are actually sincere?
: > Voyager has fans? :-) I think Trek fans are more willing to let
: > Voyager have it in the critical department because Voyager is so godawful
: > on a regular basis. When DS9 produces a stinker ("Let He Who Is Without
: > Sin", for example), folks do attack with both barrells; it just doesn't
: > happen nearly as often.
:
: Another example of the majority agreeing. You. Never see Ds9 fans split
: evenly over an episode. Why? Because they follow the majority
How about "Looking For Par'Mach In All The Wrong Places"? There
seemed to be a pretty even split between people who thought it was
excellent light comedy and people who thought it was sophomoric crap in
the discussions afterward.
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> What it is and what it's defined as being are often two different things.
>
> So far, the only thing I can figure out is that true "science fiction"
> is anything that doesn't have the word "Trek" in the title.
There is actually very little TV or cinematic SF. Plenty of SciFi. Babylon
5, Trek, Space: 1999,etc,... are all space operas. Not SF.
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> Point of view Cronan.. Do you really know what someone else can see?
Yes. I am given that right by God almighty, remmeber? She has yet to let me
down. You do of course realize that God is a fat, black, lesbian named
Delilah?
> Think?
Yes. Telepathy is one of my gifts
> Understand?
I don't understand all but that is because I am a god in training.
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> A series of books, actually. The anime is a pathetic hatchet job
> that has little to do with the books save the names of the characters.
Well it was a good anime. Even if it didin't adhere to the book it was
still well animated and had a decent story
> The Lensman series is considered to be truly classic science fiction
> by many. Especially by our esteemed Gharlane of Eddore, who had
> a lot of his biography incorporated into the series by the
> First Historian.
Really? I like his taste. I believe I will see about those books. Are they
in print?
David Hines
In article <5b62je$1...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>,
Robert H. Wolfe <rhw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Science Fiction is like the ocean, a vast and all-encompasing genre
>with all sorts of interesting eddies and flows. Anyone who looks at a
>single branch of the genre (say "Hard" science fiction) and says "THIS
>is the only acceptable science fiction" is in my opinion expressing a
>very narrow and self-limiting point of view. It's like an ancient
>Greek pointing to a world map that barely covers the Mediterranean and
>saying "This is the world." Hell, it's like naming the Mediterranean
>the Mediterranean. A little ignorant and short-sighted.
Not really. I agree with the way Stanley Schmidt, SF writer and
current editor of Analog, described the differences between science
fiction and fantasy and the speculative fiction genre as a whole.
As I remember it, Dr. Schmidt remarked something along the lines
of, "There *is* a large gray area, but that doesn't invalidate the
separation of science fiction and fantasy. To give an analogy, just
because there's twilight doesn't mean there's neither light nor dark."
(For the record, Schmidt and I *both* enjoy good fantasy; we just
recognize the fact that they're different games. I especially like
stuff that *really* plays with the line between 'em until you're
not sure *what* the heck it is; Jerry Oltion's "Abandon in Place,"
which'll be getting a Hugo nomination from me, is a great example.
It's about the ghost of the U.S. space program.)
It doesn't particularly bother me that lots of spec-eff TV isn't
straight science fiction. Mind you, I'd love to see some on TV,
but I'm perfectly willing to watch well-done fantasy or skiffy.
(See the rec.arts.sf.tv FAQ, just posted, for some more discussion
on this topic; I should have posted it earlier, but I wanted to
put up the WWW version first.)
I think one problem that many SF fans have with skiffy TV is that
it isn't internally consistent, and writers often don't think
through the most basic implications of the series format. For
SF readers and writers, that's a capital crime, because it's
laziness.
So, briefly: while the problems many SF fans have with SFTV aren't
directly due to the fact that SFTV shows aren't, strictly speaking,
SF, I think the problems are *linked* to that fact indirectly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| David Hines d-h...@uchicago.edu |
| http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/dzhines |
| Barbarous as it may seem to us now, mankind was at that time |
| divided into three groups: those who disbelieved in werewolves; |
| those who hated and feared werewolves; and, of course, those who |
| were werewolves. -- Anthony Boucher, "The Ambassadors." |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
R. Tang
In article <01bbff48$45005b00$5a8e92cf@default>,
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much) <mal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Well it was a good anime. Even if it didin't adhere to the book it was
>still well animated and had a decent story
Ick. That one movie has been the reason the Lensman books have
been out of print for two decades.
>> The Lensman series is considered to be truly classic science fiction
>> by many. Especially by our esteemed Gharlane of Eddore, who had
>> a lot of his biography incorporated into the series by the
>> First Historian.
>
>Really? I like his taste. I believe I will see about those books. Are they
>in print?
Go to the source material; it's the essence of Golden Age SF.
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue:
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gwangung/TC.html
Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
Junsok Yang
In article <01bbfefb$411d3460$c18f92cf@default>, mal...@worldnet.att.net
says...
><<snipped>>
>> >> 2001: Space Odyssey didn't involve aliens in any signifigant way.
>> The problem is that Neuromancer by Campbell (Gharlane)'s definition
>> [which Cronan seems to be using] is NOT "Science Fiction." When William
>> Gibson wrote the book, he had virtually no experience (pun only
>> halfheartedly intended) in how computers and internet worked. In fact it
>> was only after he wrote the book that he actually bought a personal
>> computer; and as far as I know, he didn't really seek out technical help.
>> Thus he fails the technical proficiency test. In fact, I understand that
>> Gibson is often taken to task by the current generation of hard SF
>writers
>> such as Benford, Bear and Brin.
>Well I wonder, what we are to consider competency? Should we consider braga
>competent although he writes episodes where everyone devolves into spiders
>when his education is most certainly greater than mine? I would like to
>think that, inspite of my relative youth,my knowledge of science is
>sufficent to understand, enjoy, and possibily write SF. Although I may need
>to consider getting help from someone who has more experience in the
>particular science that my fiction is about. That is perhaps Trek's biggest
>failing. They may have science consultants but they don't listen to them
I'd have to agree that Trek needs to listen to its science advisors (both
official - Boramis - and scores of unofficial ones that they could call on
with a phone call), though I doubt if their production schedule will allow
that. However, it is a failing shared with ALL SF TV series ever made.
Movies have a tougher time defending themselves since they work on a looser
schedule.
As for "technical competency", there's appearently a whole slew of
statements Campbell made defining what technical competency is. I've never
seen it since it is rarely quoted anymore (as opposed to the short
definition which is often cited and rebuted.) Appearently it boils down to
a hard science degree of M.Sc or above, or specialized knowledge in the
area you are writing in. If not, you need to check with somebody who does.
By that definition, it is likely that neither you nor I are qualified to
write SF by ourselves as Campbell defined it. Of course, one of the
examples cited in the previous post, "Neuromancer" in no way fits the
criteria since Gibson didn't really have any concrete knowledge about how
the computer and the internet worked. Isn't that what this thread (and the
Wolfe thread) is about?
[Part about Bear clipped.]
>I think the compenticy issue is the hardest part of this to argue. Am I
>incompetent?
I don't know what degrees in science you have, or how much science
background you have, but *given* your age and the books you cite, I'd have
to say you are. (Very few teenagers have science degrees.) But then, of
course, so am I, and I'm almost twice as old as you are.
>> And to *completely* screw things up, it was John W. Campbell who first
>> published the first part of Dune in Analog as "Dune World"; and also the
>> first part of Anne McCaffrey's first "Dragons of Pern" novel as "Dragon
>> Weyr." Since Campbell tried to restrict the stories in Analog to SF and
>not
>> "sci-fi" or "science fantasy" (as he saw it, anyway), Campbell must have
>> believed that Dune (at least the first part of it) and McCaffrey's Pern
>> (again the part that he published, at least) were SF and not "science
>> fantasy".
>> Lesson: I don't think much about the precise definition of SF anymore.
> I
>> just read what I feel like reading, and if it feels like SF to me, then
>> it's SF.
>Good definition. But then again are you competent to stand trial ?:)
Well, that's a definition offered (though not actively advocated) by Damon
Knight who was, and is, a well respected critic in the field. Also, given
that I've been reading SF for about as long as you have been alive, and have
read hundreds of books in the field, I'd say I can at least give a fair
defense at the trial.
As for the *specific* charge dealing with Gharlane's definition, I don't
really have to do much original analysis. That definition has been brought
to task for nearly four decades. The general consensus (as I see it) is
that it is a useful definition of "hard" SF, but from the way the field has
grown since the 1950s (both due to Campbell's misuse of the definition and
the growth of other fields) it is only useful now as some kind of a
benchmark on how much a particular book stray from the core "hard" SF. Of
course in the end, it's all just mincing words anyway, as most attempts to
coin a definition usually are.
Robert H. Wolfe
In <5b4dp8$c...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> reco...@ix.netcom.com(Robin
E. Cook) writes:
>Well, it's what you define as science fiction. I don't believe that
>strict (read: snotty) artistic interpretations of science fiction are
>necessarily held by everyone as gospel. Some say, for example, that
>Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein," could be regarded as a seminal sci-fi
>work; some people might say "Frankenstein" is not in any way sci-fi.
>
>It really is all subjective.
Interestingly, while at UCLA I took an upper division class in "Science
Fiction Literature" taught by a very respected academic and scholar of
the field (and personal friend to Ray Bradbury and many other respected
authors). The class was no mick. Among the books we read were
CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWITZ, RIDDLEY WALKER (winner of the National Book
Award for 1984 or so and one of the most difficult books I've ever
read), LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS, PUPPET MASTERS (which the professor
hated), THE TIME MACHINE, and, yes... FRANKENSTEIN. That's a pretty
diverse group of books if you ask me.
Science Fiction is like the ocean, a vast and all-encompasing genre
with all sorts of interesting eddies and flows. Anyone who looks at a
single branch of the genre (say "Hard" science fiction) and says "THIS
is the only acceptable science fiction" is in my opinion expressing a
very narrow and self-limiting point of view. It's like an ancient
Greek pointing to a world map that barely covers the Mediterranean and
saying "This is the world." Hell, it's like naming the Mediterranean
the Mediterranean. A little ignorant and short-sighted.
Oh, in case, anyone's wondering, I got an "A"
Robert Wolfe
ST: DS9
Merete
No, you guys have it backwards--the question should be "What is
reality?" Just about anything else qualifies as science fiction to
someone.
And of course, the answer is
"Reality is a crutch for the science fictionally impaired"
k
Jonathan Blum
In article <01bbfeb6$6539a440$f70492cf@default>,[bashing at DS9 fans snipped]
>You are right. Ia msorry for saying you are obsessed. Instead you are
>sheep. Willing to follow the shepard of the Cliff
Man, I just want to lock this guy and Theron Fuller in a room together and
let 'em fight over which show's fans are sheepier...
Baaaaaa humbug,
Jon Blum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of
chess... when it was just me playing solitaire!"
D O C T O R W H O : T I M E R I F T
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> Man, I just want to lock this guy and Theron Fuller in a room together
and
> let 'em fight over which show's fans are sheepier...
Both shows have hive herd mentalities. Unfortunately the group of DS9 fans
who are fanatically anti-whatever is growing faster than the same group of
B5. I guess Ds9 really is popular
Michael Allan Thomson
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much) wrote:
>
> > Oh my.. you really ARE 17.
>
>
>
> say "Opinions can't be WRONG," I say you are wrong and my opinion is the
> one you need follow
Point of view Cronan.. Do you really know what someone else can see?
Think? Understand?
Mike
Robin E. Cook
In <01bbfeb6$9b1d1ce0$f70492cf@default> "Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond
my years. That ain't sayin' much)" <mal...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>
>> You know, I really don't give a rat's ass what science fiction or
sci-fi
>> are defined as.
>
>
Cronan, are you talking to yourself again?
;)
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> Cronan, are you talking to yourself again?
No no. See you are confused. I was talking about the lack of science
literacy amongst Trekkers and the result. That being a failure to
understand science fiction
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> They're locked in my killfile together, and that's good enough for me.
That's good. I won't have to deal with your pathetic responses and you
pitiable understanding of SF. You are not worthy.
> (Actually, I think Cronan is the anti-Ford: control of English,
My grasp of the language is not at question. My typing skill is.
> friendliness,
To those who have actually approached me with a point worthy of my
attention have found me more than willing to change my views and apologize
> and attitude are about the same.
not true. Buford is a fool. I am no fool. An asshole? yes. Immature?
sometimes. Impatient? Definently. Abusive? occassionally. But above all
stylish.
Matter of fact, I
> think Ford's more polite than Cronan.
Buford needs to be more polite than I. He is has far from firm grasp on
reality whereas I bend reality on a whim
> He's certainly less prolific.)
Becasue he has less to say.
Gharlane of Eddore
In <01bbfec0$97a26980$f70492cf@default>, mal...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
AL> Lensman - Vacuum Tubes formed the basis for the technology.
>
> Is this also a book? I have seen the anime.
>
There were *four* books in the basic series; "GALACTIC PATROL,"
"GRAY LENSMAN," "SECOND STAGE LENSMAN," and "CHILDREN OF THE LENS."
(In that order.)
Those are the important four in the series; more got pasted on later,
as afterthoughts and sales boosters.
See:
http://168.150.253.1/~zlensman/lensfaq.html
for the FAQ, a whole flock of details about the "Lensman" series.
But I really think it's necessary to read them before you're ten or
so, to properly enjoy them; chances are you're too old and jaded now.
In <5b4uqj$b...@news.ycc.yale.edu>
yan...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Junsok Yang) writes:
>
> Gharlane probably knows the books intimately. The Lensman series were
> written in (I believe) the 1930s by "Doc" E. E. Smith, and is considered
> one of the best examples of SF from that era. Personally, I've heard
> that the series is very dated now, and I don't particularly have the
> desire to read them since I read and watch SF purely for fun.
There is some considerable truth in this; the styles were very different
in those days, and most pulp-fiction adventure writing was aimed at
adolescent males.... and E.E. Smith's characters speak the way he and
his friends spoke, conversational style that has been out of vogue
for over half a century. But there is great majesty of concept
and execution in E.E. Smith's books, and I hope they stay in at least
limited print forever....
>
> As far as I know, the anime is completely different from the books.
>
The only thing the completely-trashed anime has in common with the
books is the title and a few character names.
(The Japanese thought the "Van" in Van Buskirk's name was a first
name.... he became "Buskirk." The Red Lensman became a Brown-haired
gal with brown eyes, and had to be continuously rescued from monsters,
instead of acting like someone of her rank. (It was bad enough that
she was a nurse instead of a doctor, in the original books. They
didn't have to make her into an Anime Rescue Doll to boot.)
AL> Blood Music by Greg Bear. Neuromancer is probably my all time
AL> favorite SF novel.
>
....<deletia>
>
> Greg Bear is an interesting case. He writes (as far as I can tell,
> anyway) rigorous "hard" SF, but whether he is technically proficient is
> questionable. If I recall his bio correctly, he graduated college as a
> liberal arts major and he originally started out as a SF illustrator and
> not a writer. Of course he takes particular care to get the science
> right, consults various scientists, and by now he probably has enough
> knowledge to be a great "SF" writer, but if we go by the pure definition,
> his qualification (technical proficiency) is questionable. [Also, as a
That's why(*) he married into a family containing one of the half-dozen
greatest writers of our century, a man gifted with a tremendous range
of interests and capacities, and superbly able to help out on tech
problems if and when Greg Bear experiences them. (Greg Bear is
Poul Anderson's son-in-law, you see.) ((( (*) Some sources insist
that Bear's proposal had something to do with Ms. Anderson's personality
and looks, of course.)))
> side note, Bear wrote a Star Trek novel in the early 80s.]
We all have our off days, and our closet perversions. (Actually,
it wasn't too bad.)
> And to *completely* screw things up, it was John W. Campbell who first
> published the first part of Dune in Analog as "Dune World"; and also the
> first part of Anne McCaffrey's first "Dragons of Pern" novel as "Dragon
> Weyr." Since Campbell tried to restrict the stories in Analog to SF and
Uh, no. The first part of the book was "WEYR SEARCH," October 1967.
Campbell was delighted to print it, and was fully aware that there
was more material, some immediately available, and some pending.
McCaffrey knew she had a winner, and so did Campbell, which was why
he printed the *REST* of that first novel as a serial, "DRAGONRIDER,"
in December 1967 and January 1968 issues. There is some reason to
believe that McCaffrey lost the Best Novel Hugo Award because she'd
already received a Hugo for "WEYR SEARCH," all by itself.... but
she was certainly high in the voting.
> not "sci-fi" or "science fantasy" (as he saw it, anyway), Campbell
> must have believed that Dune (at least the first part of it) and
"DUNE" was originally envisioned as a Big Book, and grew into a
trilogy in the telling. Campbell chose to break it up into
separate serials, so there'd be time for people to rest up in
between, and for Herbert to do the rewrite work Campbell required.
"DUNE WORLD," the first third, appeared in December 1963 and
January and February of 1964; "THE PROPHET OF DUNE," the second
third, appeared in Jan-Feb-Mar-Apr-May of 1965. (A *five*-part
serial!) Campbell felt that most of the technology in those two
books was reasonably legitimate, and Frank Herbert had spent years
putting together the background of the ecology and sociology
of Arrakis. While Herbert was developing the material, he set
several short stories and novellas in different parts of the
"Dune" universe, or carbon copies, without any overt links.
Those first two "DUNE" serials were concatenated and printed by
Chilton as "DUNE," and won a slew of awards. By this time,
the outline for the third book had become a series, a long
series, and for various reasons, (depending on source) the
next "Dune" book was not printed in "ANALOG." (Much to its
detriment; it's a sterling demonstration of how much positive
effect Campbell had on the books he edited.) "Dune" didn't
come back to "ANALOG" until some time in the mid-seventies.
> McCaffrey's Pern (again the part that he published, at least) were
> SF and not "science fantasy".
*BIG* grin. I was in the "ANALOG" offices, one day, when Campbell and
one of the two greatest SF illustrators of that decade, John Schoenherr,
were debating dragons. The result of their conversation, which included
air-pressure calcs, wing-loading per surface area, and metabolic
requirements to *drive* such wings, resulted in the conclusion that the
dragons were just psionically gifted, and capable of levitation... that
the wings were just propulsory and steering airfoils. Schoenherr
was laughing when he said, "Do you think they'll buy it?" and Campbell
said, "Hell no. But we're going to print it anyway, it's a great story."
The furor in the "ANALOG" letters column that arose over Dragons In The
Magazine was amusing and vehement; some subscribers actually cancelled
their subscriptions, in fact. Campbell just laughed; he knew there
was a Hugo Award there, and whenever someone gave him static over it,
he just laughed some more, and apologized, explaining "Yes, but you
see, I've always just *liked* Dragons..." (And once he phrased it
as "Well, I just *like* dragons, actually...." )
I feel that McCaffrey's books rate as "Sci-Fi." *GOOD* "Sci-Fi," but
not Science Fiction. (The orbital dynamics of the Pern system, all
by themselves, are not something up with which one can put.
Please note that the "Dragon-Runners Guild" was first publicized in
the pages of "ANALOG," and that Gordy Dickson's article on the
founding of the Guild was also printed there.
("THE PRESENT STATE OF IGNEOS RESEARCH," January 1975. It includes
a full quotation of the actual history derived from the painstakingly
restored vellum manuscript found in the U.K, the verse version of
"Ye Prentice And Ye Dragon." It's been reprinted in a lot of
places, so it's easy to find. Only a few pages, but every SERIOUS
student of the Igneos field should have it memorized.)
I'd like to point out that Poul Anderson's "Adzel" had been around
for years, too.
> Lesson: I don't think much about the precise definition of SF anymore.
> I just read what I feel like reading, and if it feels like SF to me,
> then it's SF.
Nope. Then it's a Book You Like. (And probably a book I like, as well!)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specially constructed 3-D stereograph .sig file, created 9 Jan, 1997,
to accurately explicate my feelings toward people who labor under the
delusion that mail-bombing my ISP with fabricated complaints about me
is a sensible way to expend their lifespan.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
\|/ _\/_ \|/ \|/ \/__ \|/ \|/ _\/_ \|/ \|/ \/__ \|/ \|/ _\/_ \|/
@~/ Oo \~@ @~/Oo \~@ @~/ Oo \~@ @~/Oo \~@ @~/ Oo \~@
/_( \__/ )_\ /_(\__/ )_\ /_( \__/ )_\ /_(\__/ )_\ /_( \__/ )_\
\__U_/ \_U__/ \__U_/ \_U__/ \__U_/
_ _
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> That definition is quite exclusive, really. Anything involving
> faster-than-light travel is immediately excluded from being science
fiction.
> It can't conceivably happen, right?
You just porved you science literacy is roughly equalt to that Wiley E.
Coyote. It is more than pheasable. It has been theorized about for quite a
while now by several major physicists, Including Hawking. The Star Trek FTL
isn't the most likely method mind you.
> As for accuracy, this one seems just as vague as the last one. It just
> seems more elitist than most.
So taste = elitism? Great. I am glad you explained that
> And finally, as for my dictionary, when I put in "sci-fi" I get:
>
> % webster sci-fi
> [science fiction]
> :of, relating to, or being science fiction <a scifi story>
As Gharlane said, "Any dictionary you can hold in one hand doesn't mean
squat."(not an exact quote)
Look throughout this thread for a real SF definition. Most of the time it
is with a
> Maybe I'm just not enough of a snob to care about the difference.
If snobbery = using entertaiment for mind expansion instead of brain cell
destruction. you sure do have a great sense
Keith Adams
lang...@itlabs.umn.edu (TUFFY LANGENBERGER) possibly posted
this:
>What it is and what it's defined as being are often two different things.
>So far, the only thing I can figure out is that true "science fiction"
>is anything that doesn't have the word "Trek" in the title.
Babylon 5, Trek, Space Vikings, Lensman, Uplift, are considered
Space Opera's - fantasies in space. Humanx Commonwealth, Space
Odyssey:2001, and to a lesser extent something like Childhood's
End are Science Fiction - they have to do with what technology or
the results of technology have on human life. Frankenstien is a
horror, but has some Science Fiction.
--
Keith Adams (ja...@cwo.com/www.cwo.com/~janus/)
"Do you know what they DO to people in California?"
Keith Adams
"Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)"
>> How'd I do that? Simply based on looking at the evidence, DS9's
>> fans have become convinced that it's the best show.
>The majority is convinced
I think it's the best Trek, but I haven't seen that much TOS.
I don't watch much drama, but most of what I do is better than
DS9: Law & Order, X Files, Homicide, ER, and a few others.
IMEIAO.
> We don't _need_ to
>> be obsessed to believe it, because it makes a fairly convincing argument
>> on its own
>You are right. Ia msorry for saying you are obsessed. Instead you are
>sheep. Willing to follow the shepard of the Cliff
Have you been watching Pulp Fiction recently?
I'm having flashes of Samuel Jackson in the restraunt scene.
>> on a regular basis. When DS9 produces a stinker ("Let He Who Is Without
>> Sin", for example), folks do attack with both barrells; it just doesn't
>> happen nearly as often.
>Another example of the majority agreeing. You. Never see Ds9 fans split
>evenly over an episode. Why? Because they follow the majority
In LHWIWS, there wasn't much good about it in anyone's view, even
your's. The key dissenters come near the top - you, ummm,
Travers, and a few others. You don't believe the episodes people
believe are really good are as good as the people claim.
Aaron Bergman
In article <5b4uqj$b...@news.ycc.yale.edu>, yan...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
(Junsok Yang) wrote:
: Lesson: I don't think much about the precise definition of SF anymore. I
:just read what I feel like reading, and if it feels like SF to me, then
:it's SF.
You know, this threads reminds me of some fun debates on alt.atheism. You
people are talking right past eachother. You are arguing over definitions.
These sort of arguements never get anywhere. Frankly, it really doesn't
matter whether a show is SF, skiffy, sci-fi, science fiction, spec-eff, or
whatever. What matters is the quality of the show. The problem I have with
ST and stuff is the unnecessary violation of known science. If ST wanted
to bill itself as science taking place in a different world where people
could devolve into spiders, it could. It better give a good reason for
doing so other than a single episode plot, though. The ST universe is
supposed to be fairly close to ours and yet it is riddled with
inconsistincies, implausibilities and just plain silliness. This is what I
object to--not the fact that ST isn't science ficiton. It's the lack of
any self-consistency or exploration of the results of their changes that
bugs me the most. Take the episode where they became young via the
transporter. Not even a mention of the _obvious_ implications of this.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://pantheon.yale.edu/~abergman/>
Smoke a cigarette. Slit your throat. Same concept.
Gharlane of Eddore
In <5b62je$1...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe) writes:
>
> Interestingly, while at UCLA I took an upper division class in "Science
> Fiction Literature" taught by a very respected academic and scholar of
> the field (and personal friend to Ray Bradbury and many other respected
> authors). The class was no mick. Among the books we read were
> CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWITZ, RIDDLEY WALKER (winner of the National Book
> Award for 1984 or so and one of the most difficult books I've ever
> read), LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS, PUPPET MASTERS (which the professor
> hated), THE TIME MACHINE, and, yes... FRANKENSTEIN. That's a pretty
> diverse group of books if you ask me.
Not really. They're all required reading in a high-school SF class
I put together some time ago; along with a number of other books.
The last time I taught the course, we spread it over two semesters;
reading, analysis, and discussion in the fall semester, and writing
in the spring semester. Two members of the class sold stories to
national magazines that spring, and a third scored her first sale
that summer. (The magazine she'd submitted her piece to had a *deep*
slushpile.)
You should have asked your professor what SF stories he had written
and published before you took an SF class from him; remember that
English is one of the few disciplines where you can get an advanced
degree without ever having done any original work in the field,
just criticism. The only time UCLA has had a qualified instructor
in SF on the staff has been when Ellison was teaching there.
I'm happy that you got an "A" in your UCLA course, but frankly,
shouldn't you have taken some courses in Physics and Math, if
you really wanted to be an SF writer when you grew up?
B.T.W., I believe there's still a copy of one of my Master's Theses
tucked away on a shelf somewhere at UCLA..... it was a multi-hundred-
page analysis of "THE PRISONER." (246 pages, if I remember right.
Written about a quarter-century back, as a literary joke, but the best
work I could do at the time. *guffaw*)
> Science Fiction is like the ocean, a vast and all-encompasing genre
You mean "Speculative Fiction," since you're not equipped to cope with
"Science Fiction." (typo presumed, but it's "encompassing.")
> with all sorts of interesting eddies and flows. Anyone who looks at a
> single branch of the genre (say "Hard" science fiction) and says "THIS
> is the only acceptable science fiction" is in my opinion expressing a
> very narrow and self-limiting point of view. It's like an ancient
No one in this topic has said anything of that nature. Every regular
poster to this discussion tends to enjoy Speculative Fiction in all
varieties; we just have a slightly more refined awareness of the field
and its sub-genres than people who don't know much about it.
> Greek pointing to a world map that barely covers the Mediterranean and
> saying "This is the world." Hell, it's like naming the Mediterranean
> the Mediterranean. A little ignorant and short-sighted.
>
> Oh, in case, anyone's wondering, I got an "A"
Congratulations. I know people who've gotten PhD's, and summa cum laude
undergrad degrees, and who can't be trusted to drive a car. Similarly,
having earned an "A" in an undergraduate college lit course taught by a
prof who didn't even realize that "THE PUPPET MASTERS" was gutted prior
to publication doesn't make you qualified to discuss the field.
Your prof was insufficiently experienced in the world and literature to
recognize the essential validity of the politics and ethos discussed in
"THE PUPPET MASTERS," and its importance to the genre.
Now, if you'd WRITTEN some actual S.F. and sold it, instead of just
taking a slop survey course taught by a man who doesn't like modern
SF, we might be a bit more disposed to respond to your comments with
something besides a loud horse-laugh.
Note: Randall Garrett sold his first SF story at age 14. You don't
have to be completely brilliant, or particularly formally educated;
you just have to have some respect for, and background in, the genre.
> Robert Wolfe ST: DS9
By the by, "FRANKENSTEIN: Or A Modern Prometheus Unbound," was written
by a gal named Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin. Her publication credits
were retconned after she finally got around to marrying Shelley,
and eviscerated in the first movie, when the book was credited at
the movie opener as having been written "by Mrs. Percy B. Shelley."
....a considerable discourtesy to the memory of a woman whose work
was far more important than her husband's.
Most of us regard it as "Sci-Fi," on the edge of "Science Fiction,"
since the actual capacity of electricity to revitalize the dead
was suspected as a possibility at the time; MWG had asked a lot of
technical questions of her pet M.D., one Dr. John W. Polidori,
during the writing of the book; thus, we might regard Polidori as
the first-ever SF technical advsor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specially constructed 3-D stereograph .sig file, created 9 Jan 1997,
Jose Gonzalez
On 10 Jan 1997, Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin'
much) wrote:
> Another example of the majority agreeing. You. Never see Ds9 fans split
> evenly over an episode. Why? Because they follow the majority
This happened just recently. The episode? "Looking For Par'Mach In All
The Wrong Places" Split right down the middle, with some hating and some
adoring it.
And if you make an argument that is in the minority opinion, you're
*going* to have people disagreeing with you. The tone of those
counter-arguments are often, though not always, dictated by the tone of
the original.
-
Jose Gonzalez
Junsok Yang
In article <5b6t9b$3...@news.csus.edu>, ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu says...
[Article slightly rearranged to bring up the more important point first.]
>> And to *completely* screw things up, it was John W. Campbell who first
>> published the first part of Dune in Analog as "Dune World"; and also the
>> first part of Anne McCaffrey's first "Dragons of Pern" novel as "Dragon
>> Weyr." Since Campbell tried to restrict the stories in Analog to SF and
>Uh, no. The first part of the book was "WEYR SEARCH," October 1967.
>Campbell was delighted to print it, and was fully aware that there
>was more material, some immediately available, and some pending.
I should have caught the error. I had a copy of "The Ascent of Wonder" in
the other room which republishes the particular novella in question, and I
could have gotten the correct title. I'm getting entirely too lazy
nowadays. (I did read the first three books in the Pern series, but my
willingness to read the series sort of fell off while reading them.)
>> not "sci-fi" or "science fantasy" (as he saw it, anyway), Campbell
>> must have believed that Dune (at least the first part of it) and
[snip]
> Campbell felt that most of the technology in those two
>books was reasonably legitimate, and Frank Herbert had spent years
>putting together the background of the ecology and sociology
>of Arrakis.
[snip]
>> McCaffrey's Pern (again the part that he published, at least) were
>> SF and not "science fantasy".
>*BIG* grin. I was in the "ANALOG" offices, one day, when Campbell and
>one of the two greatest SF illustrators of that decade, John Schoenherr,
>were debating dragons. The result of their conversation, which included
>air-pressure calcs, wing-loading per surface area, and metabolic
>requirements to *drive* such wings, resulted in the conclusion that the
>dragons were just psionically gifted, and capable of levitation... that
>the wings were just propulsory and steering airfoils. Schoenherr
>was laughing when he said, "Do you think they'll buy it?" and Campbell
>said, "Hell no. But we're going to print it anyway, it's a great story."
Reminds me of the Larry Niven story on what would happen between Superman
and Lois Lane on their first night if the physics were accurate. Suffice to
say it would be rated X, but NOT for the reason you'd think. (I'd include
the title here, but my copy of the book N-Space is back home, and I don't
want to screw up the titles again.) :)
>The furor in the "ANALOG" letters column that arose over Dragons In The
>Magazine was amusing and vehement; some subscribers actually cancelled
>their subscriptions, in fact. Campbell just laughed; he knew there
>was a Hugo Award there, and whenever someone gave him static over it,
>he just laughed some more, and apologized, explaining "Yes, but you
>see, I've always just *liked* Dragons..." (And once he phrased it
>as "Well, I just *like* dragons, actually...." )
>I feel that McCaffrey's books rate as "Sci-Fi." *GOOD* "Sci-Fi," but
>not Science Fiction. (The orbital dynamics of the Pern system, all
>by themselves, are not something up with which one can put.
Fair enough. (Since I probably couldn't calculate the orbital dynamics of
Pern anyway.)
>> Lesson: I don't think much about the precise definition of SF anymore.
>> I just read what I feel like reading, and if it feels like SF to me,
>> then it's SF.
>Nope. Then it's a Book You Like. (And probably a book I like, as well!)
I'd agree somewhat with that; though I don't like Campbell's definition,
and I think there are more than enough cases out there where established
"SF" works do not fit into the criteria (e.g "Neuromancer", "Foundation") or
where Campbell played somewhat fast and loose with the definition himself to
substantially weaken the case.
But going back to the fundamentals of the thread here, from the past
postings it's obvious that Gharlane likes B5 better than DS9. (I've never
really gotten a handle on whether he *likes* DS9 or not. There's
contradictory evidences. There's a difference between liking the show but
believing it is not the best; and disliking or even hating a show [or
anything else for that matter]). I, obviously, do believe DS9 is the
superior product.
For the most part, (not always in my opinion) Gharlane has consistently
stuck to the position that both B5 and DS9 are "sci-fi" and to see which
show is better, we have to examine the fundamentals of the shows themselves.
Fair enough; though I personally think Gharlane came down too roughshod over
Robert Wolfe.
Some other posters have staked the position that B5 is superior to DS9
because B5 is "SF" (or is liked by "SF fans") while DS9 is "sci-fi." (which
is liked by idiots who know nothing about SF) which is what got me started
on this rant to begin with many months ago. I take exceptions to at least
two aspects of that:
1): Using any consistent definition of SF, B5 and DS9 must be lumped in
the same category. Just about the only way you can specify B5 as "SF" and
DS9 as "sci-fi" is if you define "SF" as meaning "What B5 does" and "sci-fi"
as "What DS9 does." Both shows are somewhat inconsistent when using science
(though I grant B5 does a slightly better job - but then it doesn't have 30
years of Trek history to fall back on. Both aspects have pros and cons.
Sometimes, self-reference is a *good* thing: e.g. Heinlein's "Future
History.") and both have problems with believability aside from science
(economics, politics, sociology, religion, character development, what have
you).
2): "SF (as defined by Campbell)" is superior to "sci-fi"; from the
standpoint of accurate science, it is. But if all we wanted in a story was
accurate science, then we'd be reading science textbooks and journal
articles instead of reading SF. [Part of the problem is that "sci-fi" has
some bad connotations associated with it such as the Bug Eyed Monsters of
the 50s movies. If you use the term purely for definitional purposes, then
fine. But some people drag along value comparisons with it that really
should not belong in there *IF* you are only using the term "sci-fi" for
definitional purposes.]
For all other aspects of comparison (not just with B5 and Trek, but with
any work of "sf" (whatever its definition) is concerned, all aspects of the
story should be considered as well. [Or at least the poster should be
specific in saying which area s/he is considering.]) Sometimes the audacity
of assumptions or the sheer ability in storytelling is able to overcome some
of the inaccruacies in scientific accuracy. By Campbell's definition, the
story is no longer "SF." But *does it make it an inferior "SF" (widely
defined) story?* (I offer as examples Alfred Bester's two novels: "Stars
My Destination (Tiger, Tiger)" and "The Demolished Man.")
>AL> Blood Music by Greg Bear. Neuromancer is probably my all time
>AL> favorite SF novel.
>....<deletia>
>> Greg Bear is an interesting case. He writes (as far as I can tell,
>> anyway) rigorous "hard" SF, but whether he is technically proficient is
>> questionable. If I recall his bio correctly, he graduated college as a
>> liberal arts major and he originally started out as a SF illustrator and
>> not a writer. Of course he takes particular care to get the science
>> right, consults various scientists, and by now he probably has enough
>> knowledge to be a great "SF" writer, but if we go by the pure definition,
>> his qualification (technical proficiency) is questionable. [Also, as a
>That's why(*) he married into a family containing one of the half-dozen
>greatest writers of our century, a man gifted with a tremendous range
>of interests and capacities, and superbly able to help out on tech
>problems if and when Greg Bear experiences them. (Greg Bear is
>Poul Anderson's son-in-law, you see.) ((( (*) Some sources insist
>that Bear's proposal had something to do with Ms. Anderson's personality
>and looks, of course.)))
Since I've never been really interested in the fandom aspects of SF, I've
only heard (read, actually) rumors about Mrs. Poul Anderson's appearences in
the cons in the old days and how her daughter inherited some of her mother's
more desirable DNA [never seen any pictures of either though :) ] but
regardless, as long as Bear keeps cranking out good work, who cares?
Franklin Hummel
>In <5b62je$1...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
>rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe) writes:
>>
>> Interestingly, while at UCLA I took an upper division class in "Science
>> Fiction Literature" taught by a very respected academic and scholar of
>> the field (and personal friend to Ray Bradbury and many other respected
>> authors). The class was no mick. Among the books we read were
>> CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWITZ, RIDDLEY WALKER (winner of the National Book
>> Award for 1984 or so and one of the most difficult books I've ever
>> read), LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS, PUPPET MASTERS (which the professor
>> hated), THE TIME MACHINE, and, yes... FRANKENSTEIN. That's a pretty
>> diverse group of books if you ask me.
or so (RIDDLEY WALKER had not been written yet, I believe), no need to
be assigned them by a teacher. At that point in time, I was reading
about a book every two days (thus about 150+ books a year): mostly SF,
but also pure science, mystery, and random others.
I've read several hundred mystery books (including all the Perry
Mason novels) but never think of myself knowledgable about that genre.
Learning about and especially understanding SF requires a lot
more that a class or three. It might be a place to start, but that's it.
-- Franklin Hummel [ hum...@world.std.com ]
--
* NecronomiCon. 3rd Edition: The Cthulhu Mythos Convention *
August 15-17, 1997 - Providence, Rhode Island
David Hines
In article <5b46rv$k...@news.csus.edu>,
Gharlane of Eddore <ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>I wouldn't have a problem with something like "Pseudo-Scientific Fantasy,"
>but that's getting a bit unwieldy.
For a while, I described the *very* technobabble-laden episodes of
Trek that present double-talk as more important than characters, plot,
or drama as "Fantasy 'Science.'"
Now, of course, I just call 'em bad. *Grin*
David Hines
In article <5b8nv0$n...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
Junsok Yang <yan...@minerva.cis.yale.edu> wrote:
GOE>>Schoenherr
GOE>>was laughing when he said, "Do you think they'll buy it?" and Campbell
GOE>>said, "Hell no. But we're going to print it anyway, it's a great story."
>
> Reminds me of the Larry Niven story on what would happen between Superman
>and Lois Lane on their first night if the physics were accurate. Suffice to
>say it would be rated X, but NOT for the reason you'd think. (I'd include
>the title here, but my copy of the book N-Space is back home, and I don't
>want to screw up the titles again.) :)
"Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex." Funny, *funny* piece of work.
(If someone reading this hasn't read it, do; you'll bust a gut
laughing. It's also available in the anthology _Alien Sex_.)
My favorite bit: it's noted that Superman would, logically enough,
ejaculate at super-speed, with force enough to penetrate walls.
Niven dryly notes that it's a wonder the pubescent Lana Lang didn't
notice the many holes in the roof of the Kents' Smallville home...
*GRIN*
[snip]
> Some other posters have staked the position that B5 is superior to DS9
>because B5 is "SF" (or is liked by "SF fans") while DS9 is "sci-fi." (which
>is liked by idiots who know nothing about SF) which is what got me started
>on this rant to begin with many months ago.
I've only seen one person say that B5 is Campbellian SF. I don't
agree with him. *grin*
> I take exceptions to at least
>two aspects of that:
>
> 1): Using any consistent definition of SF, B5 and DS9 must be lumped in
>the same category.
[snip]
Yup.
>
> 2): "SF (as defined by Campbell)" is superior to "sci-fi"; from the
>standpoint of accurate science, it is. But if all we wanted in a story was
>accurate science, then we'd be reading science textbooks and journal
>articles instead of reading SF. [Part of the problem is that "sci-fi" has
>some bad connotations associated with it such as the Bug Eyed Monsters of
>the 50s movies. If you use the term purely for definitional purposes, then
>fine. But some people drag along value comparisons with it that really
>should not belong in there *IF* you are only using the term "sci-fi" for
>definitional purposes.]
Speaking for myself, I use SF as a value-free definition; for me, it's
a genre like comedy or drama. Nevertheless, there's something else to
consider.
> For all other aspects of comparison (not just with B5 and Trek, but with
>any work of "sf" (whatever its definition) is concerned, all aspects of the
>story should be considered as well. [Or at least the poster should be
>specific in saying which area s/he is considering.]) Sometimes the audacity
>of assumptions or the sheer ability in storytelling is able to overcome some
>of the inaccruacies in scientific accuracy. By Campbell's definition, the
>story is no longer "SF." But *does it make it an inferior "SF" (widely
>defined) story?* (I offer as examples Alfred Bester's two novels: "Stars
>My Destination (Tiger, Tiger)" and "The Demolished Man.")
_The Demolished Man_ isn't Campbellian SF, but it's a magnificent story.
Dunno if that answers your question.
For me, the larger issue is of general consistency: of character, of
plot, of universe, of story. While I can recognize talent in a story
that's poetically told, it bugs the hell out of me if it's otherwise
nonsensical; it makes me think that people aren't bothering to proofread
their work. I think SF's emphasis on making it all hang together tends
to prevent such mistakes; Campbellian SF is *not* for the lazy. I
think that lack of any attention to scientific consistency allows
laziness, and may serve to open the door to more of it. If the science
is inconsistent and wrong, then the technology doesn't have to be
consistent, and the society doesn't have to, and hey, neither do the
characters...
*shrug* The problems of SFTV aren't directly due to the fact that
the programs aren't Campbellian SF. Aren't due to that fact at all,
in fact. But the real problem -- laziness of writers and lack of
attention to consistency -- is sort of related. That's the way I see
it, anyway. I'd like to see straight SF on the tube, but I don't
reject non-SF out of hand.
And, on the subject of SF fandom and B5 - I think the reason B5 has
a rabid following in SF fandom and among SF writers (including,
incidentally, Larry Niven) is that its long-term consistency brings
something to television that has been present only in print. It's
like when TOS took the most mature approach to SFTV up to the time
in the 60s; both bring the screen a little closer in methodology
to the printed stuff. I dunno what the next variation of this will
be, but I know there will be one.
Keith Adams
aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Aaron Bergman) possibly posted
this:
>In article <5b4uqj$b...@news.ycc.yale.edu>, yan...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
>(Junsok Yang) wrote:
>: Lesson: I don't think much about the precise definition of SF anymore. I
>:just read what I feel like reading, and if it feels like SF to me, then
>:it's SF.
>You know, this threads reminds me of some fun debates on alt.atheism. You
>people are talking right past eachother. You are arguing over definitions.
>These sort of arguements never get anywhere. Frankly, it really doesn't
>matter whether a show is SF, skiffy, sci-fi, science fiction, spec-eff, or
>whatever. What matters is the quality of the show. The problem I have with
Well, the general thing is whether ST counts as Science Fiction.
I think it's neccesary to differentiate Science Fiction and Space
Fantasy.
>ST and stuff is the unnecessary violation of known science. If ST wanted
>to bill itself as science taking place in a different world where people
>could devolve into spiders, it could. It better give a good reason for
>doing so other than a single episode plot, though. The ST universe is
>supposed to be fairly close to ours and yet it is riddled with
>inconsistincies, implausibilities and just plain silliness. This is what I
>object to--not the fact that ST isn't science ficiton. It's the lack of
>any self-consistency or exploration of the results of their changes that
>bugs me the most. Take the episode where they became young via the
>transporter. Not even a mention of the _obvious_ implications of this.
What about the miracle curing of diseases with the transporter?
What about the fact that drugs apparently work for all species?
And the Universal Translator affects unknown species?
And the ever changing abilities of ships?
Then there's the episode where you can replace someone's whose
DNA has acclerated their aging, stick an old DNA strand in, and
get the younger person.
Gardner D. Underhill 3rd
Space opera is a sub-generia (sp) of SF. One of the earliest in fact.
--
"MOM! DAD! DON'T TOUCH IT'S EVIL!!!"
Kevin, "Time Bandits"
GDU3rd
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
<mal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<01bbff47$375fb280$5a8e92cf@default>...
> > What it is and what it's defined as being are often two different things.
> >
> > So far, the only thing I can figure out is that true "science fiction"
> > is anything that doesn't have the word "Trek" in the title.
>
> There is actually very little TV or cinematic SF. Plenty of SciFi. Babylon
> 5, Trek, Space: 1999,etc,... are all space operas. Not SF.
>
>
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> Space opera is a sub-generia (sp) of SF. One of the earliest in fact.
You mean Speculative Fiction right?
Ashley E. Miller
In article <5b8lm3$1...@news.csus.edu>, ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu
(Gharlane of Eddore) wrote:
>In <5b62je$1...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
>rhw...@ix.netcom.com(Robert H. Wolfe) writes:
>>
>> Interestingly, while at UCLA I took an upper division class in "Science
>> Fiction Literature" taught by a very respected academic and scholar of
>> the field (and personal friend to Ray Bradbury and many other respected
>> authors). The class was no mick. Among the books we read were
>> CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWITZ, RIDDLEY WALKER (winner of the National Book
>> Award for 1984 or so and one of the most difficult books I've ever
>> read), LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS, PUPPET MASTERS (which the professor
>> hated), THE TIME MACHINE, and, yes... FRANKENSTEIN. That's a pretty
>> diverse group of books if you ask me.
>
>Not really.
[self-aggrandizement snipped]
Okay...so you put together a two-semester course that featured a
not-particularly diverse collection of books. And your point is what?
That one class does not make one an expert? Fine. Given, in fact. But
that wasn't the point of the post, now was it?
>
; remember that
>English is one of the few disciplines where you can get an advanced
>degree without ever having done any original work in the field,
>just criticism.
Unfortunately, my friend, works of literary criticism are original works
(by definition). Remember that English is more than the production of
literature, it is the *study* of literature. To suggest that critical
works are somehow inferior because they are not "original" a) demonstrates
ignorance of what literary citicism actually is (although I'm surprised
that this would come from you...I may not agree with a giant chunk of what
you say, but this is a real shocker) and b) flies in the face of reason.
The only time UCLA has had a qualified instructor
>in SF on the staff has been when Ellison was teaching there.
I find that ironic, given that Ellison -- excepting the possibility that I
missed something significant or that I am experiencing a "brain fart" --
has always considered himself a writer of "speculative fiction", vice
"hard" science-fiction.
>
>I'm happy that you got an "A" in your UCLA course, but frankly,
>shouldn't you have taken some courses in Physics and Math, if
>you really wanted to be an SF writer when you grew up?
Why stop at Physics and Math? Why not Biology and Chemistry, Geology and
Meteorology? Why not Engineering or Electronics or Computer Science? Why
not medicine? Why not a billion different things, none of which are
germane to the discussion of genre?
>> Science Fiction is like the ocean, a vast and all-encompasing genre
>
>You mean "Speculative Fiction," since you're not equipped to cope with
>"Science Fiction." (typo presumed, but it's "encompassing.")
A spelling-flame is beneath you, Gharlane. And you still haven't
addressed the central question: what is Science-Fiction? You've merely
suggested counter-definitions. That doesn't win you any points.
>
>> with all sorts of interesting eddies and flows. Anyone who looks at a
>> single branch of the genre (say "Hard" science fiction) and says "THIS
>> is the only acceptable science fiction" is in my opinion expressing a
>> very narrow and self-limiting point of view. It's like an ancient
>
>No one in this topic has said anything of that nature.
Ridiculous. Frank says it every five minutes, but he never even bothers
to propose a definition of any kind, counter or otherwise.
Every regular
>poster to this discussion tends to enjoy Speculative Fiction in all
>varieties; we just have a slightly more refined awareness of the field
>and its sub-genres than people who don't know much about it.
Ah, yes. The "we are the Elite and you are a piece of flotsam" argument.
When in doubt, revert to pomposity.
>
>> Greek pointing to a world map that barely covers the Mediterranean and
>> saying "This is the world." Hell, it's like naming the Mediterranean
>> the Mediterranean. A little ignorant and short-sighted.
>>
>> Oh, in case, anyone's wondering, I got an "A"
>
>Congratulations. I know people who've gotten PhD's, and summa cum laude
>undergrad degrees, and who can't be trusted to drive a car.
[condescension snipped]
For the love of Pete...you can't recognize a wink when you see one? You
have to insist on personal attacks against the poster, attacks that are
peppered with wild assumptions about the positions and opinions of
third-parties who can't even speak for themselves? How intellectual of
you. Truly, I am cowed by your wisdom.
>
>Now, if you'd WRITTEN some actual S.F. and sold it, instead of just
>taking a slop survey course taught by a man who doesn't like modern
>SF, we might be a bit more disposed to respond to your comments with
>something besides a loud horse-laugh.
Oh, you are clever. Personal attacks are so much fun. I'm sure you feel
better about yourself now. I'm sure it makes you feel warm and secure to
live in the knowledge that you are the final arbiter of taste and
quality. I'm sure it gives your life meaning to feel personally
responsible for bearing the one, true definition of an ill-defined genre
in the entire pantheon of literary works. You must be very proud of
yourself, Gharlane. You are a whole and complete human being.
We all bow to the superior intellect.
PS: The "alt.dev.null" trick continues to impress me with a) its
originality and b) its cleverness. You really keep us on our toes, out
here in the boondocks! Shucky-darn.
Gardner D. Underhill 3rd
To me SF, Speculative Fiction, Science Fiction, Sci-Fi, scifi are all different
names for the same damn thing. I am not a professional writer. I am not a
teacher or professor of English. I did not take courses in Science Fiction in
either high school or college. But, I have read it since I was 8 years old. I
am now 34, soon to be 35, you do the math. When I started reading it, it was
called Science Fiction. When I got into high school I began reading books about
the field of Science Fiction and discovered that it was also called Speculative
Fiction when it first started out. Science Fiction proved the more popular of
the two names and that is the one that this field of fiction is best known as.
The rest; SF,Sci-Fi, scifi were just various abbrevations (sp) for Science
Fiction or Speculative Fiction and mean the same thing to me.
--
"MOM! DAD! DON'T TOUCH IT'S EVIL!!!"
Kevin, "Time Bandits"
GDU3rd
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
<mal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<01bc0066$876a8320$378e92cf@default>...
Robert Holland
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much) wrote:
>
> > A series of books, actually. The anime is a pathetic hatchet job
> > that has little to do with the books save the names of the characters.
>
> Well it was a good anime. Even if it didin't adhere to the book it was
> still well animated and had a decent story
>
> > The Lensman series is considered to be truly classic science fiction
> > by many. Especially by our esteemed Gharlane of Eddore, who had
> > a lot of his biography incorporated into the series by the
> > First Historian.
>
> Really? I like his taste. I believe I will see about those books. Are they
> in print?
I think you can buy them from Gharlane, who knows about some special
reprint.
Other than that, these stories were so popular you can't find them
anywhere...
--RH
Keith Adams
Michael Allan Thomson <Jtho...@fox.nstn.ca> possibly posted
this:
>Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much) wrote:
>>
>> If it is your opinion that the sky is blue it is probably green. Since you
>> say "Opinions can't be WRONG," I say you are wrong and my opinion is the
>> one you need follow
>Point of view Cronan.. Do you really know what someone else can see?
>Think? Understand?
Prove to me another person can see, think, or understand.
Opinions can be explicitly contradicted with facts. You might
hold the opinion "The President of the United States is Abraham
Lincoln" and you would be wrong.
--
Keith Adams (ja...@cwo.com/www.cwo.com/~janus/)
"We are going to confront an ancient nightmare
of the Universe."
"And where are you going to drop us off?"
Dave Roy
On Tue, 14 Jan 1997 05:17:19 GMT, ja...@cwo.com (Keith Adams) wrote:
>Michael Allan Thomson <Jtho...@fox.nstn.ca> possibly posted
>this:
>
>>Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much) wrote:
>>>
>>> If it is your opinion that the sky is blue it is probably green. Since you
>>> say "Opinions can't be WRONG," I say you are wrong and my opinion is the
>>> one you need follow
>
>>Point of view Cronan.. Do you really know what someone else can see?
>>Think? Understand?
>
>Prove to me another person can see, think, or understand.
>Opinions can be explicitly contradicted with facts. You might
>hold the opinion "The President of the United States is Abraham
>Lincoln" and you would be wrong.
Opinion of quality can never be wrong, though, Cronan. What one
person loves, another person can hate and find no quality in it
whatsoever. Neither person is wrong. They just have different
tastes.
Dave Roy
Gharlane of Eddore
In <5b38ko$9...@news.ycc.yale.edu>
yan...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Junsok Yang) writes:
>
> I hate to go against John Campbell (or Gharlane for that matter since he
> has shown consistently that he does have an encyclopedic knowledge of the
> field, especially the "Golden Age" SF), and admittedly Muffy's definition
> is full of holes, but the problem is that Campbell's definition has
> substantial problems with it as well. For example, Issac Asimov before
> his death, disavowed psychohistory, and stated he thought such a science
> will never be possible. Thus, by Campbell's definition, "The Foundation
> Trilogy" cannot be SF.
The real reason "The Foundation Trilogy" can't be "SF" is that it's a
patchwork of good-to-excellent "Sci-Fi" and a bit of SF pasted together
into three books after the fact, and then *called* a "trilogy." It
was not conceived as a set of books, it was not written as a set of
books, and it certainly doesn't hold up as a set of books.
(Don't get me wrong here; I love 'em, I own first-edition hardbacks
printed in the early fifties, and I recommend them to anyone who
will hold still to listen; but "the greatest SF series of all time,"
they are *not*. )
As for Asimov's "disavowal," the man was old, and tired, and sick, and
hurting, and did a number of things in his later years that didn't
really fit. (Renting out his name to be pasted onto Rene Laloux'
"LIGHT YEARS," turning the title into "ISAAC ASIMOV'S 'LIGHT YEARS'"
is an example of one such lapse of judgement; since he hadn't written
it, hadn't scripted it, and only briefly looked at the translation
for the English dub, putting his name on it is about the same kind
of thing as leaving his name on an SF magazine which is basically
"Gardner Dozois' SF Magazine" in reality.)
There is considerable reason to believe that "psychohistory,"
"psychodynamics," and "sociodynamics" may eventually be subject
to actual objective analysis and prediction. (Right now, we
can even predict accurately who will win national elections....
i.e. whoever the networks SAY is going to win, due to the effect
of east-coast reporting on west-coast voter apathy....)
Note that during this same period Asimov also decided that he had
created the infamous "Three Laws of Robotics," although up to nearly
1970, he insisted in print and in person that they were handed to
him by Campbell, who'd said they were inherent in one of Asimov's
robot stories. (they were not, but Campbell saw a loose, slippery,
pseudological frame that could be used to generate some *great*
stories, so he handed it to I.A.).... despite his vaunted memory,
Asimov was quite capable of editing history, and changing his mind,
not always in beneficial ways.
>
....<deletia>
>
> There's also works like "The Martian Chronicles" by Ray Bradbury (or most
>of Bradbury's work for that matter) which ignores real science almost
>completely (though he certainly has "sense of wonder" in spades). Would
>Bradbury's work be NOT considered SF? (Yep, Bradbury is sort of a critical
>hot button with "SF" purists. The debate has been going on for ages.)
No. Bradbury has written very little SF, and "THE MARTIAN CHRONICLES"
is not part of that very little. Worth your money, you betcha... but
not SF. For my money, "FAHRENHEIT 451," originally "THE FIREMAN" in
"GALAXY" in 1952, is his best SF.
>
> Finally, (this is way before my time, so I only write what I read from
>both supporters and detractors of Campbell) Campbell played that definition
>of SF fast and loose himself in the 50s, when he favored psi-power stories.
>Campbell did not have technical competence in that area, and accepted
>stories from people who did not. Appearently Campbell believed that
Yep. He was trying to get people to study the field seriously, and
kept publishing articles on hardware like the Drown Machine, the De La
Warre Machine, and the Hieronymous Machine, for about a decade. He
felt that he was getting repeatable evidence in his garage experiments,
and used his position to proselytize for further investigation.
A lot of folks followed through on it, but we still don't have psi
amplifiers, much less techniques for training telepathy.
>
....<deletia>
>
> I can't think of anyplace other than Analog where the Campbell definition
>is used currently as the default definition, and even the Analog editors
>seem to refer to it and the stories based on that definition as the
>sub-genre of "hard" SF. (Of course this brings up the problem of a sizable,
>intelligent minority of SF readers who thinks that the entire field has been
>corrupted, but that conversation belongs in rec.arts.sf.written or
>elsewhere.)
>
Nope. The field hasn't been "corrupted," it's *grown*. But because it
now encompasses more than just Science Fiction, we have to call the field
"SPECULATIVE Fiction," and keep track of the sub-genres in it... it's
like being a stock breeder. Each purebred stockline is good for something
specific, but if you start mixing them up, you don't necessarily get
something that's good for anything. (You *can* get lucky, and get a
Morgan Horse like Garrett's "LORD DARCY," but those are few and far
between.)
..... Knight's Definition deleted.
>
.....<deletia>
>
> Now, by playing with Campbell or even the modified Campbell definition
>above, by my recollection there has NEVER been a "SF" work on TV or on
>screen (except perhaps a few isolated episodes in an anthology series and
>perhaps 2001). That includes "Twilight Zone" "Dr. Who" "Star Trek (any
>incarnation)" "Babylon 5" "Star Wars" "Forbidden Planet" "Blade Runner"
>"E.T." "12 Monkeys" and so on.
Take a look at "MEN INTO SPACE," or the better arc sequences on "DOOMWATCH,"
some time. "SCIENCE FICTION THEATER" did a few classy episodes, and so
did "DIMENSION X," both on radio and TV. Heck, "PLAYHOUSE 90" did a couple
of good SF scripts. (Wish to Ghu I had a videotape of "THE SOUND OF A
DIFFERENT DRUMMER," the "Playhouse 90" adaption of Bradbury's "THE FIREMAN.")
> Going away from the Campbell definition, the following quotes from Issac
>Asimov may be of interest. (From "Yours, Issac Asimov." Both in that book
>and in "Inside Star Trek", they point out that Asimov initially gave a
>lukewarm review of ST: TOS because its science was wrong. However, after
>correspondances with Roddenberry, Asimov became a fan of Trek and one of its
That's because Roddenberry could sell blocks of ice to Inuit, and
sand by the bushel to Tuaregs; and because Asimov was, first, last,
and always, a *SHOWMAN*. He was happy to climb aboard the bandwagon,
since it gave him access to a bigger audience.
>vocal supporters.) The quotes mostly concerns TOS, though he has stated
>elsewhere that he liked TNG quite a bit as well. Of course, he died before
>DS9 or VOY made its appearence, though *my guess* is that he would have
>enjoyed both.
>
> "Star Trek has been enduring because it was the first and continuing piece
>of visual science fiction to be true science fiction and to depend upon
>intelligence rather than upon shoot-'em-up special effects." (paperback
>edition p.180 - letter written in 1990)
>
> "... 'sci-fi' is now widely used by people who don't read science fiction.
>It is used particularly by people who work in movies and television. This
>makes it, perhaps, a useful term. We can define 'sci-fi' as trashy material
>sometimes confused, by ignorant people, with s.f. Thus, Star Trek is s.f.,
>while Godzilla Meets Mothra is sci-fi." (paperback edition p.97 letter
>written in 1985.)
>
Since Asimov had a vested interest in "STAR TREK"'s respectability,
his declamations and pronunciamentos concerning ST's validity as SF
are not entirely valid; he'd had a number of advisory checks from
the Franchise, screen credit, and a good many wonderful parties,
prior to his writing of those excerpts you cite.
(I saw Ellison and Asimov on a discussion panel at an SF convention
once, arguing over whether "TREK" was SF, during the course of which
Ellison called Asimov a "Sell-out!" and challenged him to attain
objectivity by re-assigning all residuals and royalties he was
getting from "TREK" to some worthy charity. Asimov just laughed
and said, "As soon as YOU do!" Note that they *WERE* friends,
and very very good ones, who cared deeply for each other.)
Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)
> Opinion of quality can never be wrong, though, Cronan.
Yes, they can. If you, for example, believe that a book is well-written in
spite of glaring plot holes, poor characters, and is printed on pieces of
toilet tissue that were found under an outhouse then you would be wrong.
What one
> person loves, another person can hate and find no quality in it
> whatsoever.
You are mistaking quality and value. The intrinsic value of a thing is an
opinion that can never be wrong.
Neither person is wrong. They just have different
> tastes.
Some people are firmly of the opinion that all non-white peoples are of no
value and should be burnt, hung or whatever. Are they wrong?
Scott Boyd
Lasher wrote:
>
> >
> > It rubs YOU the wrong way? I am the one who is thought of as a
> proffesional
> > flamer because I choose to disagree with the undeserving adulation poured
> > on DS9 by its fans. I mean I love DS9 and all but the seeming
> unwillingnes
> > of its fans to bend an iota is ridiculous. I get so tired of hearing how
>
> So....what's really irritating you is that everyone else is being as
> inflexible about "The Visitor" and "Rapture" as you are? I know how it
> feels, I personally think "Independence Day" (which isn't any more sci-fi
> than Trek is) was one of the worst movies of last year, and I haven't found
> one person who agrees with me yet.
>
> This week, you're in the minority. Disagree all you want, but don't get
> so irked about it.
> --
>
> Lasher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> /=================================================\
> The preceding contained adult material and/or
> dangerous ideas. If you want to read it again,
> discretion is advised.
> \ ================================================/
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< las...@maui.netwave.net
I agree "Independence Day" was one of the worst movies of 1996. Kind
of like Death Star in SW. A forceshield from a distant object was
somehow disabled and then the bad guys were killed by one bomb due to
the super weakpoint. Lucky US...haven't seen that plot before...yeah
right. ;{
Gharlane of Eddore
Concerning the "LENSMAN" books,
In <32DAD6...@wco.com> Robert Holland <rhol...@wco.com> writes:
>
AL> Really? I like his taste. I believe I will see about those books.
AL> Are they in print?
>
> I think you can buy them from Gharlane, who knows about some special
> reprint.
Wrong. I don't print, or sell, books.
Michael J. Walsh, a small-press publisher and printer, is producing a
new print run of the "LENSMAN" books this year.
You can find details at
http://168.150.253.1/~zlensman/lensfaq.html
...where one of the sub-pages contains ordering addresses and info.
I have no real connection with Michael J. Walsh or "Old Earth Books,"
his vest-pocket publishing empire. I can report that the books I've
bought from him are well and solidly bound, well-printed, and made
on *good* acid-free stock.
For a lower price, I've been told that the books are being reprinted in
the U.K., in mass-market paperback form this year, or at least "soon."
> Other than that, these stories were so popular you can't find them
> anywhere...
This is because copies that make it into second-hand bookstores get
snapped up, and kept. There haven't been any new paperback printings
in the U.S. since around 1983, and the supplies are running a *bit*
low....
Steve Patterson
[Followups set to rec.arts.sf.tv]
In article <5bemdm$9...@news.csus.edu>, ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore) says:
>
>In <5b38ko$9...@news.ycc.yale.edu>
>yan...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Junsok Yang) writes:
>>
>> Now, by playing with Campbell or even the modified Campbell definition
>>above, by my recollection there has NEVER been a "SF" work on TV or on
>>screen (except perhaps a few isolated episodes in an anthology series and
>>perhaps 2001). That includes "Twilight Zone" "Dr. Who" "Star Trek (any
>>incarnation)" "Babylon 5" "Star Wars" "Forbidden Planet" "Blade Runner"
>>"E.T." "12 Monkeys" and so on.
>
>Take a look at "MEN INTO SPACE," or the better arc sequences on "DOOMWATCH,"
>some time. "SCIENCE FICTION THEATER" did a few classy episodes, and so
>did "DIMENSION X," both on radio and TV. Heck, "PLAYHOUSE 90" did a couple
>of good SF scripts. (Wish to Ghu I had a videotape of "THE SOUND OF A
>DIFFERENT DRUMMER," the "Playhouse 90" adaption of Bradbury's "THE FIREMAN.")
... and don't forget the late, lamented BBC series "STAR COPS". If it didn't
fit the Campbellian definition of SF, then it only missed by a whisker.
Anyone know if the Beeb has released tapes of "STAR COPS" yet? And if there
are NTSC versions lying about? (Legal ones, please. Bandito copies give
me the willies.)
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Note: My "from:" address has been altered to foil mailbots.
Please use the corrected address appearing below.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Steven J. Patterson spatt...@wwdc.com
W.O.R.L.D.'S....S..L..O..W..E..S..T....W...R...I...T...E...R
"Men may move mountains, but ideas move men."
-- M.N. Vorkosigan, per L.M. Bujold
Keith Adams
hi...@earthlink.net (Dave Roy) possibly posted this:
>On Tue, 14 Jan 1997 05:17:19 GMT, ja...@cwo.com (Keith Adams) wrote:
>>Prove to me another person can see, think, or understand.
>>Opinions can be explicitly contradicted with facts. You might
>>hold the opinion "The President of the United States is Abraham
>>Lincoln" and you would be wrong.
>Opinion of quality can never be wrong, though, Cronan. What one
Check the attirubtions again.
I'm not Cronan.
I thought the sig would give it away.
>person loves, another person can hate and find no quality in it
>whatsoever. Neither person is wrong. They just have different
>tastes.
I can just claim that's your opinion (such as Dole being
President, not a matter of taste) and it is wrong. This could
literally go on forever. Anything you say I can claim is your
opinion, and is wrong. It can't be proven that taste-opinion
can't be wrong.
Tod Abbott
In article <01bc0251$62ec6f80$c48f92cf@default>, "Cronan Thompson (Wise
beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much)" <mal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Opinion of quality can never be wrong, though, Cronan.
>
> Yes, they can. If you, for example, believe that a book is well-written in
> spite of glaring plot holes, poor characters, and is printed on pieces of
> toilet tissue that were found under an outhouse then you would be wrong.
>
> What one
> > person loves, another person can hate and find no quality in it
> > whatsoever.
>
> You are mistaking quality and value. The intrinsic value of a thing is an
> opinion that can never be wrong.
>
Just a small point. There can, logically, be no such thing as "intrinsic
value" as you use it. For something to have value requires that someone
value it, so that the value is in the relationship between them rather
than an element of the thing itself. So value is relative to a valuer, and
what one person finds of "intrinsic" value another finds to be garbage.
Tod Abbott.
Junsok Yang
Warning: Probably of no real interest to people in this newsgroup
*except* those who have an unusual interest in how to define things. :)
There's a couple of points I want to reply on, and the previous post has
been liberally snipped for length (and posting) considerations.
In article <5bemdm$9...@news.csus.edu>, ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu says...
>In <5b38ko$9...@news.ycc.yale.edu>
>yan...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Junsok Yang) writes:
>> I hate to go against John Campbell (or Gharlane for that matter since he
>> has shown consistently that he does have an encyclopedic knowledge of the
>> field, especially the "Golden Age" SF), and admittedly Muffy's definition
>> is full of holes, but the problem is that Campbell's definition has
>> substantial problems with it as well. For example, Issac Asimov before
>> his death, disavowed psychohistory, and stated he thought such a science
>> will never be possible. Thus, by Campbell's definition, "The Foundation
>> Trilogy" cannot be SF.
>The real reason "The Foundation Trilogy" can't be "SF" is that it's a
>patchwork of good-to-excellent "Sci-Fi" and a bit of SF pasted together
>into three books after the fact, and then *called* a "trilogy." It
>was not conceived as a set of books, it was not written as a set of
>books, and it certainly doesn't hold up as a set of books.
>(Don't get me wrong here; I love 'em, [snip]
> but "the greatest SF series of all time,"
> they are *not*. )
Umm... the Campbell defintion cited was that the technically competent
author believes that his story (or the background set for his story) is
possible. By that defintion, of course, since Asimov did not believe in the
background he set up, it cannot be "SF" *by the definition offered.*
The definition offered said nothing about coherence of the story as
"books". While I certainly agree that the term "trilogy" has problems,
(being actually four and a half short stories and four novellas) it has
little to do with Campbell's definition. By Campbell's definition, we
should be arguing whether it is a *great* sci-fi or not-so-great sci-fi; not
whether it is "sci-fi" or Science Fiction.
>As for Asimov's "disavowal," the man was old, and tired, and sick, and
>hurting, and did a number of things in his later years that didn't
>really fit. (Renting out his name to be pasted onto Rene Laloux'
>"LIGHT YEARS," turning the title into "ISAAC ASIMOV'S 'LIGHT YEARS'"
>is an example of one such lapse of judgement; since he hadn't written
>it, hadn't scripted it, and only briefly looked at the translation
>for the English dub, putting his name on it is about the same kind
>of thing as leaving his name on an SF magazine which is basically
>"Gardner Dozois' SF Magazine" in reality.)
For whatever it's worth, while I do also subscribe to Analog (and F&SF),
the magazine I look most forward to is "Gardner Dozois' SF Magazine." This
may or may not explain my prejudices. :) But when Asimov lent his name to
the magazine (mid to late '70s, if I remember correctly) he was somewhat
old, but I don't believe he was tired and sick.
As for renting his name out, he had done it at least once before when he
was younger and in his mental prime: "Fantastic Voyage" (the novelization)
in the early 70s. [There's also scores of anthologies which he co-edited
with others in the early 80s.] Since I did not know the man personally,
(only through his works) I hope I'm not inferring too much.
>There is considerable reason to believe that "psychohistory,"
>"psychodynamics," and "sociodynamics" may eventually be subject
>to actual objective analysis and prediction. (Right now, we
>can even predict accurately who will win national elections....
>i.e. whoever the networks SAY is going to win, due to the effect
>of east-coast reporting on west-coast voter apathy....)
Doing graduate work in economics, (for better or worse), and since in my
(not-so-humble) opinion (or prejudices; take your pick), economics (even
with *all* its faults) comes closest currently to psychohistory as described
in "Foundation", I was considerably disappointed that Asimov disavowed
psychohistory (and indeed stated in an article that he generally had lack of
faith in economics as a science; though the examples he used in that
editorial were things that a good undergraduate student in economics could
easily refute.)
However, as always, it goes back to the definition originally offered:
That the author is technically qualified, and s/he believes that the
background *is* possible. Gharlane and I probably believe that some form of
psychohistory is possible in the future; however, in the case of
"Foundation", the *author* did not (though in my [again, not-so-humble]
opinion, Asimov's psychohistory does exactly what best plot devices in SF
are supposed to do: use a possible "scientific" advance to evoke sense of
wonder and use it as a central point in entertaining and thought provoking
stories).
An aside: One of the professors here has an equation (based on regression
of data) which has been accurate about 75% of the time in predicting the
Presidents in the 20th century (though it also predicted Bush would win
against Clinton.) Of course there are pundits who do better, but the neat
thing about this equation is that it is a *simple* equation (which I would
write down here but I threw away the sheet with the equation on it) and it
involves very few, simple variables: inflation, unemployment rate,
incumbency and the political party. (I think that's *all* the variables.)
>> There's also works like "The Martian Chronicles" by Ray Bradbury (or
>>most
>>of Bradbury's work for that matter) which ignores real science almost
>>completely (though he certainly has "sense of wonder" in spades). Would
>>Bradbury's work be NOT considered SF?
>No. Bradbury has written very little SF, and "THE MARTIAN CHRONICLES"
>is not part of that very little. Worth your money, you betcha... but
>not SF. For my money, "FAHRENHEIT 451," originally "THE FIREMAN" in
>"GALAXY" in 1952, is his best SF.
[snip]
> The field hasn't been "corrupted," it's *grown*. But because it
>now encompasses more than just Science Fiction, we have to call the field
>"SPECULATIVE Fiction," and keep track of the sub-genres in it... it's
>like being a stock breeder. Each purebred stockline is good for something
>specific, but if you start mixing them up, you don't necessarily get
>something that's good for anything. (You *can* get lucky, and get a
>Morgan Horse like Garrett's "LORD DARCY," but those are few and far
>between.)
The problem (as I see it) is as follows: A definition should clarify, but
how much do you have to pare down before a definition becomes so specialized
that it offers no effective content?
Now, my knowledge of the history of the field starts becoming hazy here,
but I believe the term science fiction (or scientifiction) was coined before
the definition offered by John Campbell. Should he have appropriated the
term in such a way that it excluded so much of how other writers and editors
(and readers for that matter) were viewing the term?
Also, for better or worse, "speculative fiction" as a term never really
caught on, (I remember a sentence by Harlan Ellison from "Dangerous Visions"
[I think]: "What I call speculative fiction; what you call science fiction,
and what the clods call sci-fi") and for most of the population, the meaning
of the three terms are almost synonymous (while also for many, the term
sci-fi has a value connotation that should not be referred to for
definitional purposes.) In my opinion, when the definition may actually
hinder comprehension, the definition should be re-examined (or at least
clarified.) I think the current usage justifies referring to Campbell's
definition as a definition for "hard" SF, and leave the term "science
fiction" for the larger field.
Another aside: In certain branches of economics, "investment" and "money"
(among others) have specific meaning which differs somewhat from the common
usage of the term, and we have a devil of a problem in trying to get the
students to use the correct term, or worse, not be confused by the
differences in the term as used in the discipline and as used in the
population at large. When graduate students and professors talk amongst
ourselves, we (for the most part) know which definition we are talking about
when we are using those words but whenever talking with others, we have to
make extra effort to get the people to know exactly what we are talking
about. Almost every economist I know wishes there were other terms we could
use, but at this stage, it seems they are pretty much set.
>Since Asimov had a vested interest in "STAR TREK"'s respectability,
>his declamations and pronunciamentos concerning ST's validity as SF
>are not entirely valid; he'd had a number of advisory checks from
>the Franchise, screen credit, and a good many wonderful parties,
>prior to his writing of those excerpts you cite.
Financially, I believe he said the only on-screen credit and financial
check he received directly for ST was as technical advisor for the first
Trek movie; (though he advised Roddenberry informally since the TOS days,
and I'm sure he basked in the attention he got from Trek and its fans.)
>(I saw Ellison and Asimov on a discussion panel at an SF convention
> once, arguing over whether "TREK" was SF, during the course of which
> Ellison called Asimov a "Sell-out!" and challenged him to attain
> objectivity by re-assigning all residuals and royalties he was
> getting from "TREK" to some worthy charity. Asimov just laughed
> and said, "As soon as YOU do!" Note that they *WERE* friends,
> and very very good ones, who cared deeply for each other.)
Umm... I don't think Ellison is exactly a paragon of objectivity in the
subject either where it concerns Trek. Comparing the chapter of "Inside
Star Trek" with the introduction of "City on the Edge of Forever"; while
Roddenberry certainly gave Ellison some problems, Ellison also glossed over
the problems which came from himself. (example: Inside ST as well as the
old Making of ST states Ellison was very slow in coming up with the
rewrites, and caused some problems in production - though they both agree
that Ellison inconvenienced himself greatly to make sure his script's
rewrites came out *right* - but in the introduction to the "City" he
acknowledges and dismisses the problem in about two sentences to the effect
that "yeah, I was late, but no more late than lots of other writers working
at the time.")
[I guess I should also point out that I like Ellison's stories quite a
bit, and one of my favorite possessions is a signed copy of the "Essential
Ellison" hardcover; a copy I bought even though I already owned most of the
stories contained in it.]
Any factual corrections are, of course, welcome; as for opinions, I will
not guarentee replies since I have a paper to try to finish. :)
recook77
Keith Adams <ja...@cwo.com> wrote in article
<5bf4j4$f...@news.xmission.com>...
> Michael Allan Thomson <Jtho...@fox.nstn.ca> possibly posted
> this:
>
> >Cronan Thompson (Wise beyond my years. That ain't sayin' much) wrote:
> >>
> >> If it is your opinion that the sky is blue it is probably green. Since
you
> >> say "Opinions can't be WRONG," I say you are wrong and my opinion is
the
> >> one you need follow
>
> >Point of view Cronan.. Do you really know what someone else can see?
> >Think? Understand?
>
> Prove to me another person can see, think, or understand.
> Opinions can be explicitly contradicted with facts. You might
> hold the opinion "The President of the United States is Abraham
> Lincoln" and you would be wrong.
You're talking about *facts,* not *opinions.* It is a fact that the
current president of the U.S. is *not* Abe Lincoln. If you are talking
about whether or not Lincoln was a good president, you're stating an
*opinoin.*