Star Wreck
Blair Leatherwood
dvdverdict.com (http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/starwreck.php). They
hated it. It's getting a DVD release in November.
The reviewer is an admitted ST fan, but apparently B5 has never appeared
on his sensor array. IIRC, the "special effects" for this fan product
were lifted from various sources, including B5--am I correct?
Anyhow, there's nary a mention of B5 in the entire review even though
there's a space station called Babel 13 and the title itself is a
reference to our beloved show.
Sheesh.
Blair
Amy Guskin
(in article <hb4mvv$8do$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
That's two B5 slights in one day. Someone just pointed me to this:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
What irked the crap out of me was finding out, through the comments, that the
reviewer has NEVER EVEN SEEN an episode of Babylon 5. Yet he criticizes it.
His opinion lost all credibility with me after finding that out.
Amy
--
Ten Thousand Questions
A Question a Day for Journaling, Self-Discovery, and Transformation
"2009 is the Year of Questions"
tenthousandquestions.com
Jan
Guskin says...
>
>
>That's two B5 slights in one day. Someone just pointed me to this:
>
>http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>
>What irked the crap out of me was finding out, through the comments, that the
>reviewer has NEVER EVEN SEEN an episode of Babylon 5. Yet he criticizes it.
>His opinion lost all credibility with me after finding that out.
>
>Amy
Heaven help me, I just gave in to temptation and posted a comment on that one.
It was a Harlan Ellison quote...
Jan
--
�Shared pain is lessened; shared joy is increased; thus do we refute entropy�
--Spider Robinson
Check out http://wedreamforjeanne.blogspot.com/ for ways to help Jeanne Robinson
fight cancer.
Dennis (Icarus)
news:0001HW.C6FBFF8F...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:25:01 -0400, Blair Leatherwood wrote
> (in article <hb4mvv$8do$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>
>> Just saw a review of Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning over on
>> dvdverdict.com (http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/starwreck.php). They
>> hated it. It's getting a DVD release in November.
>>
>> The reviewer is an admitted ST fan, but apparently B5 has never appeared
>> on his sensor array. IIRC, the "special effects" for this fan product
>> were lifted from various sources, including B5--am I correct?
>>
>> Anyhow, there's nary a mention of B5 in the entire review even though
>> there's a space station called Babel 13 and the title itself is a
>> reference to our beloved show. <<
>
> That's two B5 slights in one day. Someone just pointed me to this:
>
> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>
> What irked the crap out of me was finding out, through the comments, that
> the
> reviewer has NEVER EVEN SEEN an episode of Babylon 5. Yet he criticizes
> it.
> His opinion lost all credibility with me after finding that out.
>
Pretty clear from the "review" that he'd neveer seen it, since I thought B5
did a good job of "exploring the human condition under science fictional
circumstances."
Dennis
.
Kathryn Huxtable
>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:25:01 -0400, Blair Leatherwood wrote
> (in article <hb4mvv$8do$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>
>> Just saw a review of Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning over on
>> dvdverdict.com (http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/starwreck.php). They
>> hated it. It's getting a DVD release in November.
>>
>> The reviewer is an admitted ST fan, but apparently B5 has never appeared
>> on his sensor array. IIRC, the "special effects" for this fan product
>> were lifted from various sources, including B5--am I correct?
>>
>> Anyhow, there's nary a mention of B5 in the entire review even though
>> there's a space station called Babel 13 and the title itself is a
>> reference to our beloved show. <<
>
> That's two B5 slights in one day. Someone just pointed me to this:
>
> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>
> What irked the crap out of me was finding out, through the comments,
>that the reviewer has NEVER EVEN SEEN an episode of Babylon 5. Yet he
>criticizes it. His opinion lost all credibility with me after finding
>that out.
Yeah, and it's Charles Stross, whose writing I like quite a bit.
But it's nothing like Star Trek or Babylon 5, either one.
-K
voxwoman
> In article <0001HW.C6FBFF8F007DFFAFB01AD...@news.eternal-september.org>, Amy
> Guskin says...
>
>
>
> >That's two B5 slights in one day. Someone just pointed me to this:
>
>
> >What irked the crap out of me was finding out, through the comments, that the
> >reviewer has NEVER EVEN SEEN an episode of Babylon 5. Yet he criticizes it.
> >His opinion lost all credibility with me after finding that out.
>
> >Amy
>
> Heaven help me, I just gave in to temptation and posted a comment on that one.
> It was a Harlan Ellison quote...
>
> Jan
>
> --
> “Shared pain is lessened; shared joy is increased; thus do we refute entropy”
> --Spider Robinson
>
> fight cancer.
Please share here. I don't want to give him even my .001 cent in ad
revenue by clicking through to the link.
-Wendy
Jan
voxwoman says...
>
>On Oct 14, 11:32=A0pm, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>> In article <0001HW.C6FBFF8F007DFFAFB01AD...@news.eternal-september.org>, =
>Amy
>> Guskin says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >That's two B5 slights in one day. =A0Someone just pointed me to this:
>>
>> >http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_t...
>>
>> >What irked the crap out of me was finding out, through the comments, tha=
>t the
>> >reviewer has NEVER EVEN SEEN an episode of Babylon 5. =A0Yet he criticiz=
>es it. =A0
>> >His opinion lost all credibility with me after finding that out.
>>
>> >Amy
>>
> one.
>> It was a Harlan Ellison quote...
>>
>> Jan
>>
>> --
>tropy=94
>> --Spider Robinson
>>
>> Check outhttp://wedreamforjeanne.blogspot.com/for ways to help Jeanne Rob=
>inson
>> fight cancer.
>
>Please share here. I don't want to give him even my .001 cent in ad
>revenue by clicking through to the link.
>
>-Wendy
>
There was one poster who kept insisting that B5 should have explored and shown
all aspects of alien cultures. That (on top of reading that the blogger never
even watched the shows he 'hates') was what finally caused me to hit the 'reply'
button:
------------------begin my post-------------------
@259:
>B5 can be praised for a variety of things, but depth and variety of different
>cultures within non-Earth cultures is not one of them.
Nope. Nor should there have been any attempt to show them because they were
immaterial to the story that was being told. If it didn't further the arc or
enhance a character, it wasn't there.
Regarding 'hating' shows one has never seen, I'm reminded of a quote attributed
to Harlan Ellison that you're not entitled to your opinion, you're entitled to
your *informed* opinion.
Posted by Jan | October 15, 2009 4:27 AM | Reply
---------------end my post-------------
I recognized a few people from various B5 & SF sites chiming in as well.
Jan
--
�Shared pain is lessened; shared joy is increased; thus do we refute entropy�
--Spider Robinson
Check out http://wedreamforjeanne.blogspot.com/ for ways to help Jeanne Robinson
fight cancer.
M.J. Sammon
> In article <0001HW.C6FBFF8F...@news.eternal-september.org>, Amy
> Guskin says...
>>
>> That's two B5 slights in one day. Someone just pointed me to this:
>>
>> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>>
>> What irked the crap out of me was finding out, through the comments, that the
>> reviewer has NEVER EVEN SEEN an episode of Babylon 5. Yet he criticizes it.
>> His opinion lost all credibility with me after finding that out.
>>
>> Amy
>
> Heaven help me, I just gave in to temptation and posted a comment on that one.
> It was a Harlan Ellison quote...
>
> Jan
>
>
When, in the first paragraph, he refers to B5 as "Babylon Five", I knew this person was clueless.
Mike
SLerman
> >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:25:01 -0400, Blair Leatherwood wrote
>
>
> > Just saw a review of Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning over on
> > dvdverdict.com (http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/starwreck.php). They
> > hated it. It's getting a DVD release in November.
>
> > The reviewer is an admitted ST fan, but apparently B5 has never appeared
> > on his sensor array. IIRC, the "special effects" for this fan product
> > were lifted from various sources, including B5--am I correct?
>
> > Anyhow, there's nary a mention of B5 in the entire review even though
> > there's a space station called Babel 13 and the title itself is a
> > reference to our beloved show. <<
>
> That's two B5 slights in one day. Someone just pointed me to this:
>
>
> What irked the crap out of me was finding out, through the comments, that the
> reviewer has NEVER EVEN SEEN an episode of Babylon 5. Yet he criticizes it.
> His opinion lost all credibility with me after finding that out.
>
> Amy
> --
> Ten Thousand Questions
> A Question a Day for Journaling, Self-Discovery, and Transformation
> "2009 is the Year of Questions"
> tenthousandquestions.com
If anyone wants to waste an afternoon reading about it some more,
there was quite a lengthy discussion at Slashdot yesterday
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/09/10/13/204259/Why-Charles-Stross-Hates-Star-Trek
Amy Guskin
(in article <rKEBm.1456$pl1...@newsfe01.iad>):
Ha, I noticed that, too! The comments, in general, show much more of an
understanding of B5 than the original item. Probably because the commenters
_actually saw it_.
Mac Breck
LOL! You tell 'em, Jan! :-)
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999) - "War Zone"
Galen (to Gideon): "I've been penalized before for helping other
people. I've been trying to decide whether or not I should risk it
again."
Matt Ion
> In article<0001HW.C6FBFF8F...@news.eternal-september.org>, Amy
> Guskin says...
>>
>>
>> That's two B5 slights in one day. Someone just pointed me to this:
>>
>> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>>
>> What irked the crap out of me was finding out, through the comments, that the
>> reviewer has NEVER EVEN SEEN an episode of Babylon 5. Yet he criticizes it.
>> His opinion lost all credibility with me after finding that out.
>>
>> Amy
>
> Heaven help me, I just gave in to temptation and posted a comment on that one.
> It was a Harlan Ellison quote...
Okay, that actually inspired me to check the link out... it MUST be
something nasty for someone to sic Harlan on him!
Matt Ion
> That's two B5 slights in one day. Someone just pointed me to this:
>
> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>
> What irked the crap out of me was finding out, through the comments, that the
> reviewer has NEVER EVEN SEEN an episode of Babylon 5. Yet he criticizes it.
> His opinion lost all credibility with me after finding that out.
Okay, Jan's invocation of Ellison inspired me to follow the link... I
was prepared after the first sentence to write the guy off as simply a
sci-fi hater, until I got to the line, "this is not how I write SF."
Okay... now it just sounds like someone bent on belittling others' works
in an attempt to make his own look better. His credibility dips into
the negative regions with that.
Mac Breck
I had to reply, too. <sigh>
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html#comment-32985
God, I can't stand people like that, though I'm guilty of it a bit
regarding "Dollhouse" ...having only watched 17% of its aired first
season. I just can't take Dushku as a lead. I gave "Tru Calling" a
longer try, watching almost all, if not all of the first season. I gave
DS9 and Voyager a little over four years each, and watched all four
years of Enterprise. <shrug>
Mac Breck
BINGO!
Kathryn Huxtable
Ummm... This is Charles R. Stross we're talking about here. He's not a
pinhead. He's an established writer and I like his stuff. But it's
nothing like anything on television.
He pretty much said that when he said he doesn't like something it
doesn't mean that it's bad, just that he doesn't like it.
From reading his stuff, I don't know what he'd think of B5. He shouldn't
have judged it without seeing it, though.
I recommend his Merchant Princes novels if you like multiuniverse novels
set in the current time frame.
I also liked _Singularity Sky_ and _Iron Sunrise_ quite a bit,
especially _Iron Sunrise_. They're sort of like Vernor Vinge, I suppose.
I get the impression that he's a bit of an a**hole, rather like Harlan,
since we're mentioning him too. He perhaps exaggerates for effect.
There's a good interview that Paul Krugman had with him at at the 2008
WorldCon at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/paul-krugman-charlie-stro_n_256311.html
-K
Jan
>
>
>Ummm... This is Charles R. Stross we're talking about here. He's not a
>pinhead. He's an established writer and I like his stuff. But it's
>nothing like anything on television.
No, novels generally aren't. As JMS has pointed out, TV is external, of
necessity. Novels are internal.
>
>I get the impression that he's a bit of an a**hole, rather like Harlan,
>since we're mentioning him too. He perhaps exaggerates for effect.
>
Harlan's not an asshole. He's a Very Nice Man.
Blair Leatherwood
"it's not the way *I* would approach it, so it can't be good."
Unfortunately, there are times when the tagline or synopsis doesn't do
the episode (film, book, etc) justice. I recall a couple of TNG
episodes that made me cringe when I read the TV Guide listing (back in
the day), but the episode turned out to be rather interesting after all.
Often, you are merely told the what of something and that can be rather
silly. It's when you get to the why and how that a writer earns their keep.
Blair
Matt Ion
> Matt Ion<soun...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 14/10/2009 7:22 PM, Amy Guskin wrote:
>>
>>> That's two B5 slights in one day. Someone just pointed me to this:
>>>
>>> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>>>
>>> What irked the crap out of me was finding out, through the comments, that the
>>> reviewer has NEVER EVEN SEEN an episode of Babylon 5. Yet he criticizes it.
>>> His opinion lost all credibility with me after finding that out.
>>
>> Okay, Jan's invocation of Ellison inspired me to follow the link... I
>> was prepared after the first sentence to write the guy off as simply a
>> sci-fi hater, until I got to the line, "this is not how I write SF."
>>
>> Okay... now it just sounds like someone bent on belittling others'
>> works in an attempt to make his own look better. His credibility dips
>> into the negative regions with that.
>
> Ummm... This is Charles R. Stross we're talking about here. He's not a
> pinhead. He's an established writer and I like his stuff. But it's
> nothing like anything on television.
Sorry, but flagrantly bashing work you've never seen in what even
cursorily appears to be an attempt to promote your own work, IMHO puts
one well on the track to "pinhead" status.
It's not just "this sucks", but "this sucks, and mine is better." The
need to trot out his own credentials to back up his uninformed opinion
is low-class and amateurish. That's the problem.
Kathryn Huxtable
> In article <m2my3sh...@kathrynhuxtable.org>, Kathryn Huxtable says...
>>
>>
>>Ummm... This is Charles R. Stross we're talking about here. He's not a
>>pinhead. He's an established writer and I like his stuff. But it's
>>nothing like anything on television.
>
> No, novels generally aren't. As JMS has pointed out, TV is external, of
> necessity. Novels are internal.
>
>>
>>I get the impression that he's a bit of an a**hole, rather like Harlan,
>>since we're mentioning him too. He perhaps exaggerates for effect.
>>
>
> Harlan's not an asshole. He's a Very Nice Man.
He certainly can be. When I first met him almost 30 years ago, he seemed
like a bit of an a**hole.
-K
Blair Leatherwood
documentary was that he knows he is generally an a**hole, can't control
it, and isn't all that happy about it.
Kathryn Huxtable
That's my understanding, but I also understand that he may have changed
as he's gotten older. I know I have.
-K
Mac Breck
> Matt Ion wrote:
>> On 14/10/2009 7:22 PM, Amy Guskin wrote:
>>
>>> That's two B5 slights in one day. Someone just pointed me to this:
>>>
>>>
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>>>
>>>
>>> What irked the crap out of me was finding out, through the comments,
>>> that the
>>> reviewer has NEVER EVEN SEEN an episode of Babylon 5. Yet he
>>> criticizes it.
>>> His opinion lost all credibility with me after finding that out.
>>
>> Okay, Jan's invocation of Ellison inspired me to follow the link... I
>> was prepared after the first sentence to write the guy off as simply
>> a sci-fi hater, until I got to the line, "this is not how I write
>> SF."
>>
>> Okay... now it just sounds like someone bent on belittling others'
>> works in an attempt to make his own look better. His credibility
>> dips into the negative regions with that.
>>
> I don't think it's quite that. I got the impression that his take is,
> "it's not the way *I* would approach it, so it can't be good."
How does he know what approach "Babylon 5" took if he never watched
"Babylon 5" ?
Chris Adams
>That's my understanding, but I also understand that he may have changed
>as he's gotten older. I know I have.
In my limited experience: he hasn't.
--
Chris Adams <cma...@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Jan
>
>Blair Leatherwood <bleath...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> Kathryn Huxtable wrote:
>>> Jan <janmsc...@aol.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> In article <m2my3sh...@kathrynhuxtable.org>, Kathryn Huxtable says...
>>>>>
>>>>> since we're mentioning him too. He perhaps exaggerates for effect.
>>>>>
>>>> Harlan's not an asshole. He's a Very Nice Man.
>>>
>>> He certainly can be. When I first met him almost 30 years ago, he seemed
>>> like a bit of an a**hole.
>>>
>>> -K
>>>
>> I haven't met him personally, but the impression I got from the
>> documentary was that he knows he is generally an a**hole, can't
>> control it, and isn't all that happy about it.
>
>That's my understanding, but I also understand that he may have changed
>as he's gotten older. I know I have.
>
>-K
>
IIRC, what he said in "Dreams With Sharp Teeth" (love that title!) was that he
wishes he weren't angry so much of the time. He can be brusque, he's definitely
outspoken and he may very well say things that make people uncomfortable but I
think his reputation for being an ass is exagerated.
I certainly don't know him but I've been lurking at the Webderland for a few
years now and I can say without reservation that Harlan is a good, decent and
generous man.
Josh Hill
<kat...@kathrynhuxtable.org> wrote:
>Ummm... This is Charles R. Stross we're talking about here. He's not a
>pinhead. He's an established writer and I like his stuff. But it's
>nothing like anything on television.
>
>He pretty much said that when he said he doesn't like something it
>doesn't mean that it's bad, just that he doesn't like it.
>
>From reading his stuff, I don't know what he'd think of B5. He shouldn't
>have judged it without seeing it, though.
>
>I recommend his Merchant Princes novels if you like multiuniverse novels
>set in the current time frame.
>
>I also liked _Singularity Sky_ and _Iron Sunrise_ quite a bit,
>especially _Iron Sunrise_. They're sort of like Vernor Vinge, I suppose.
>
>I get the impression that he's a bit of an a**hole, rather like Harlan,
>since we're mentioning him too. He perhaps exaggerates for effect.
>
>There's a good interview that Paul Krugman had with him at at the 2008
>WorldCon at
>
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/paul-krugman-charlie-stro_n_256311.html
Yeah, I don't think Charlie Stross would do that. He's a fine writer
of hard sci-fi and I've never had reason to doubt his dedication to
the craft. What's more, I agree with him. I just don't agree with his
assessment of B5, and for that matter of Battlestar Galactica, which
he apparently hasn't seen. Partly that's because B5 didn't have that
flaw -- it was full of scientific what-if premises and examinations of
the consequences -- what would immortality do to humanity, say, or
telepathy, or contact with a race superior to our own. And partly it's
because I see room for a continuum of approaches, including approaches
which don't follow the "three laws of robotics" model. 1984, say, in
which the technology is essentially a backdrop for a scathing satire
of totalitarianism. Charlie's approach is highly techy, but it isn't
the only valid one. Unfortunately, most space opera shows don't take
either approach, they're just empty action-adventure shows that absent
the tetrions could just as easily be set in covered wagons or on the
streets of LA.
--
Josh
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."
- George Bernard Shaw
Carl Dershem
news:hb82jp$vhu$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
I've known Harlan for over 40 years (not a buddy, just someone I see
occasionally and get along with), and would say that anyone who
considers him an asshole has never gone past the facade he projects.
He's impatient and often brisque, but he has a lot of contact with
incedibly stupid people (Read: media executives and fans) who consider
their opinions to be superior to extablished facts, and dont respect
his love of fact and his decades of experience.
He can be ornery, but he has a very sharp and wry sense of humor, and
once you get past his facade is one of the most friendly, generous and
brilliant people I've ever known.
cd
I've only met Charlie once, and my opinion of him comes more from his
writing than from that short meeting. He's no Harlan Ellison.
And no Vernor Vinge (also an old friend).
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
John W. Kennedy
> I certainly don't know him but I've been lurking at the Webderland for a few
> years now and I can say without reservation that Harlan is a good, decent and
> generous man.
That checks with what I saw for myself at the Wrap Party (1998 London
con), with what I've heard from Eric Shanower, and, let us remember,
with what we've all heard from Unca Joe.
Wes Struebing
<bleath...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Just saw a review of Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning over on
>dvdverdict.com (http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/starwreck.php). They
>hated it. It's getting a DVD release in November.
>
>The reviewer is an admitted ST fan, but apparently B5 has never appeared
>on his sensor array. IIRC, the "special effects" for this fan product
>were lifted from various sources, including B5--am I correct?
>
>Anyhow, there's nary a mention of B5 in the entire review even though
>there's a space station called Babel 13 and the title itself is a
>reference to our beloved show.
>
>Sheesh.
>
Sheesh is right! Is the guy an idiot? (Captain Sherrypie, indeed!
<grin>)
I'll give it a miss - and that reviewer needs to be dissed...
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Homepage: www.carpedementem.org
linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wesstruebing
Wes Struebing
<ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:25:01 -0400, Blair Leatherwood wrote
>(in article <hb4mvv$8do$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>
>> Just saw a review of Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning over on
>> dvdverdict.com (http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/starwreck.php). They
>> hated it. It's getting a DVD release in November.
>>
>> The reviewer is an admitted ST fan, but apparently B5 has never appeared
>> on his sensor array. IIRC, the "special effects" for this fan product
>> were lifted from various sources, including B5--am I correct?
>>
>> Anyhow, there's nary a mention of B5 in the entire review even though
>> there's a space station called Babel 13 and the title itself is a
>> reference to our beloved show. <<
>
>That's two B5 slights in one day. Someone just pointed me to this:
>
>http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>
>What irked the crap out of me was finding out, through the comments, that the
>reviewer has NEVER EVEN SEEN an episode of Babylon 5. Yet he criticizes it.
>His opinion lost all credibility with me after finding that out.
>
You weren't supposed to notice that. (I also have a problem with the
comments that are made - must have been reading the same previous
reviews - about the crappy dialogue. I guess that sentences spoken
that actually say something confuse people...)
Wes Struebing
<snip>
>
>Regarding 'hating' shows one has never seen, I'm reminded of a quote attributed
>to Harlan Ellison that you're not entitled to your opinion, you're entitled to
>your *informed* opinion.
>
You GO, girl!
Wes Struebing
wrote:
Well, while I agree with the comments made against Stross' belittling
of B5, he doesn't have to establish his creds. He is a well-known,
and well-respected S-F author (actually leaning to the "hard" side). I
don't care for his stuff, but it's NOT because he writes badly.
He is also, err, outspoken...
Jan
>
>I guess that sentences spoken
>that actually say something confuse people...)
>
And sometimes there were more than two strung together! <gasp!>
Jeremy Nickurak
[ Your display is set for the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:22:07 -0400, Amy Guskin wrote:
> That's two B5 slights in one day. Someone just pointed me to this:
>
> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/
why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>
> What irked the crap out of me was finding out, through the comments,
> that the reviewer has NEVER EVEN SEEN an episode of Babylon 5. Yet he
> criticizes it. His opinion lost all credibility with me after finding
> that out.
The way I read it, he never criticized B5's story-telling. He simply said
he wanted the story and the technological/science elements to be more
tightly integrated. Virtually all of Babylon 5's story (I think) could
have been told in another genre, say, historical drama. The "sciencey"
bits were more or less optional.
Think 2001. It's a really interesting story, but there's really no way
you could tell it without this unthinkable-power-from-beyond-the-solar-
system angle.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
observing:
> What irked the crap out of me was finding out, through the comments,
> that the reviewer has NEVER EVEN SEEN an episode of Babylon 5. Yet he
> criticizes it. His opinion lost all credibility with me after finding
> that out.
Mind you, he has his own sci-fi to sell, and is not nearly as well known
as "Star Trek".
So he writes an anti-"Star Trek" blog post, knowing that it will get
him piles of instant hits. He's never seen B5, but he's heard of it,
so he trashes it too. He makes a point of saying "When I write SF, I
do this other thing which is way more interesting to me", thus
promoting himself to his readers.
If he gets a million readers, and 1% of them buy a book, he just sold
10,000 books. If half those people like the book enough to buy some
more, maybe he's sold 20,000 books. That he had to rubbish someone
else's work without even seeing it is a small price to pay for the
extra income.
He couldn't care less whether B5 is any good; sensible commentary was
not the point. He was trolling in hopes of getting eyeballs and maybe
selling books.
Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"All opinions are not created equal, and those based on an admitted lack
of knowledge of the subject under discussion are less equal than most."
-- Gene Ward Smith
Blair Leatherwood
*either* the storytelling or the integration since he's never seen the show.
Blair
Kathryn Huxtable
Yes, he definitely seems to be. That's not in question, at least not by me.
-K
Kathryn Huxtable
> Blair Leatherwood wrote:
>> Matt Ion wrote:
>>> On 14/10/2009 7:22 PM, Amy Guskin wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's two B5 slights in one day. Someone just pointed me to this:
>>>>
>>>>
> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What irked the crap out of me was finding out, through the comments,
>>>> that the
>>>> reviewer has NEVER EVEN SEEN an episode of Babylon 5. Yet he
>>>> criticizes it.
>>>> His opinion lost all credibility with me after finding that out.
>>>
>>> Okay, Jan's invocation of Ellison inspired me to follow the link... I
>>> was prepared after the first sentence to write the guy off as simply
>>> a sci-fi hater, until I got to the line, "this is not how I write
>>> SF."
>>>
>>> Okay... now it just sounds like someone bent on belittling others'
>>> works in an attempt to make his own look better. His credibility
>>> dips into the negative regions with that.
>>>
>> I don't think it's quite that. I got the impression that his take is,
>> "it's not the way *I* would approach it, so it can't be good."
>
> How does he know what approach "Babylon 5" took if he never watched
> "Babylon 5" ?
Maybe someone told him? I think he's painting with an overly broad brush
and is in the middle of traveling and has other things on his mind.
-K
Kathryn Huxtable
> "Amy Guskin <ais...@fjordstone.com>" wrote about this site:
>> http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html
>
> observing:
>> What irked the crap out of me was finding out, through the comments,
>> that the reviewer has NEVER EVEN SEEN an episode of Babylon 5. Yet he
>> criticizes it. His opinion lost all credibility with me after finding
>> that out.
>
> Mind you, he has his own sci-fi to sell, and is not nearly as well known
> as "Star Trek".
>
> So he writes an anti-"Star Trek" blog post, knowing that it will get
> him piles of instant hits. He's never seen B5, but he's heard of it,
> so he trashes it too. He makes a point of saying "When I write SF, I
> do this other thing which is way more interesting to me", thus
> promoting himself to his readers.
>
> If he gets a million readers, and 1% of them buy a book, he just sold
> 10,000 books. If half those people like the book enough to buy some
> more, maybe he's sold 20,000 books. That he had to rubbish someone
> else's work without even seeing it is a small price to pay for the
> extra income.
>
> He couldn't care less whether B5 is any good; sensible commentary was
> not the point. He was trolling in hopes of getting eyeballs and maybe
> selling books.
I really don't think Charles Stross would do that. He's just a very
outspoken, shoot from the hip sort of person.
-K
Kay Shapero
>
> IIRC, what he said in "Dreams With Sharp Teeth" (love that title!) was that he
> wishes he weren't angry so much of the time. He can be brusque, he's definitely
> outspoken and he may very well say things that make people uncomfortable but I
> think his reputation for being an ass is exagerated.
>
Harlan's schtick has always been the Enfant Terrible... these days
perhaps the World's Oldest Enfant Terrible. (I'm not sure there's a fan
my age or older who hasn't got a personally witnessed Harlan Ellison
obnoxity story.) It may be exaggerated... but it is, alas not
unfounded.
--
Kay Shapero
http://www.kayshapero.net
Bruce Goatly
Concurrence from me too. I didn't know you were at the Wrap Party, John - my
first-ever (and so far only) con, and what a blast it was. And both Harlan's
and Joe's generosity was clearly evident.
--
Bruce
M.J. Sammon
Having a controversial opinion is sometimes good for business!
Mike
Brian McCullough
He's canonized Roddenberry, so there's not much hope of getting fair
treatment from him (either for B5 or for "Star Wreck".)
I downloaded the movie four years ago, burned it to a DVD, and watched
it, and I don't agree with the low assessment. It's not art, certainly.
But there is some wit to it. For example, "Sherrypie" seems to respond
to every attack by making a speech; I thought that was pretty funny, as
Sheridan was known to wax oratorical from time to time.
But I think it may be hard for an American reviewer to see this the way
the guys who made the movie see it. Star Trek has been characterized
many times as an outer-space dramatization of American cultural
expansion. In 2005, two years after the start of the Iraq war, these
liberal Finns seem to have judged that cultural expansion to have a dark
side to it. So mix 3 parts Kirk to one part Picard, add a couple dashes
of Dick Cheney, and there you are ... Emperor Pirk! (They actually shot
a trailer that made this point much clearer.)
-- Brian
P.S.: IIRC, the special effects were created for the movie, but were
pretty darn cheap-looking.
Josh Hill
<nick...@ugrad.cs.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>Think 2001. It's a really interesting story, but there's really no way
>you could tell it without this unthinkable-power-from-beyond-the-solar-
>system angle.
It's called 2001: A Space /Odyssey/. And the Odyssey was written on
the order of 2400 years ago. Substitute gods for aliens and ships for
spacecraft, and 2001 could have been written in any age.
Josh Hill
<kil...@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
>He couldn't care less whether B5 is any good; sensible commentary was
>not the point. He was trolling in hopes of getting eyeballs and maybe
>selling books.
Do you have any evidence of this? Because in the absence of evidence,
that accusation is defamatory.
Amy Guskin
(in article <t3tgd5paqdp3apjfm...@4ax.com>):
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:03:34 +0000 (UTC), "Dr Nancy's Sweetie"
> <kil...@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
>
>> He couldn't care less whether B5 is any good; sensible commentary was
>> not the point. He was trolling in hopes of getting eyeballs and maybe
>> selling books.
>
> Do you have any evidence of this? Because in the absence of evidence,
> that accusation is defamatory. <<
I don't think so. I think that it's a fairly easy conclusion to draw if you
don't know anything about Stross except for that post. I mean, anyone who's
seen more than one episode of Babylon 5 knows that his conclusions were
completely unfounded shit. Personally, I think it's bad form to talk shit
about something in the guise of a critique when you haven't ever
seen/read/heard etc. it. If someone else reacted by thinking he was
trolling, personally, I can't blame them one bit. Why so hard on this
poster, Josh?
Amy
--
Ten Thousand Questions
A Question a Day for Journaling, Self-Discovery, and Transformation
"2009 is the Year of Questions"
tenthousandquestions.com
Vince M Hudd
> > > On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:28:12 -0400, Josh Hill wrote
> (in article <t3tgd5paqdp3apjfm...@4ax.com>):
> > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:03:34 +0000 (UTC), "Dr Nancy's Sweetie"
> > <kil...@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
> > > He couldn't care less whether B5 is any good; sensible commentary was
> > > not the point. He was trolling in hopes of getting eyeballs and maybe
> > > selling books.
> > Do you have any evidence of this? Because in the absence of evidence,
> > that accusation is defamatory. <<
> I don't think so. I think that it's a fairly easy conclusion to draw if
> you don't know anything about Stross except for that post. I mean, anyone
> who's seen more than one episode of Babylon 5 knows that his conclusions
> were completely unfounded shit. Personally, I think it's bad form to talk
> shit about something in the guise of a critique when you haven't ever
> seen/read/heard etc. it. If someone else reacted by thinking he was
> trolling, personally, I can't blame them one bit. Why so hard on this
> poster, Josh?
To which, I'd also add that technically the trolling claim is correct anyway
- ATEOTD Stross has a blog for the very purposes of having people read it;
it's a form of self promotion, and the more people who read it, the more
he's promoting himself (and by extension, his work).
--
Vince M Hudd
Soft Rock Software
Josh Hill
<ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:28:12 -0400, Josh Hill wrote
>(in article <t3tgd5paqdp3apjfm...@4ax.com>):
>
>> Do you have any evidence of this? Because in the absence of evidence,
>> that accusation is defamatory. <<
>
>I don't think so. I think that it's a fairly easy conclusion to draw if you
>don't know anything about Stross except for that post. I mean, anyone who's
>seen more than one episode of Babylon 5 knows that his conclusions were
>completely unfounded shit. Personally, I think it's bad form to talk shit
>about something in the guise of a critique when you haven't ever
>seen/read/heard etc. it. If someone else reacted by thinking he was
>trolling, personally, I can't blame them one bit. Why so hard on this
>poster, Josh?
Not so much my reaction to this particular poster as to the several
who have made the same accusation about Stross. I was actually kind of
concerned that the poster might get that impression and in retrospect
I should have said that. I just happened to reply to this particular
post.
And, beyond that, to a rash of accusations of that sort that have I
think been afflicting our society.
I think that the imputation of malign motive is just about the easiest
and most common and, frankly, most brainless form of defamation. It
requires no proof, no evidence, and yet it's difficult to disprove.
"She just ran in front of that truck to save the baby because she
wanted to get on the evening news."
That's not much of an exaggeration of the accusations that people make
these days. It comes I think of the excessive cynicism we boomers
absorbed during the Vietnam War years. Everyone and everything is
mistrusted and subject to attack.
I read someone saying yesterday that Obama was a corrupt Chicago pol.
Evidence?
This morning, I read that the only reason the CDC was recommending
that people get swine flu vaccine was so the drug companies could make
money off it.
Evidence?
As it happens, I don't know Charlie Stross well enough to feel certain
of his motives. I know nothing more about him than can be gleaned from
a few posts on the sci fi writing newsgroup, a brief exchange of
emails, and his books.
But most of the folks who are criticizing him here know no more, or
even less. Yet they're making a deeply unflattering assumption about
his character when there are other explanations for his post that are
at least as likely. Such as that he really doesn't like a certain type
of science fiction. Which, if you're familiar with the very hard, very
techie, very uncompromising sci fi that he writes, seems not just
plausible but likely.
In imputing motive to Stross without evidence, they're making the same
exact mistake that Stross did when he badmouthed a show he hadn't
watched. (Which, I think, may have been BSG, not B5 -- his phrasing
was as I recall ambiguous.)
So -- I'm glad to join in the criticism of Charlie's conclusions and
his sloppiness in reviewing a show without having watched it, in fact,
I did, yesterday. But I don't think it's right to impute a malign
motive to him in the absence of evidence that he had such a motive, to
suggest that he wasn't just expressing an honest opinion, an opinion
that in many cases (though not that of B5) I share. To do so I think
is to make the same mistake he did, when he criticized a show or shows
that he hadn't actually seen.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>To which, I'd also add that technically the trolling claim is correct anyway
>- ATEOTD Stross has a blog for the very purposes of having people read it;
>it's a form of self promotion, and the more people who read it, the more
>he's promoting himself (and by extension, his work).
By that reasoning, every opinion expressed by a newspaper columnist or
editorialist is nothing more than an attempt to make money, since the
writer is paid for selling papers. And every time a doctor cures a
patient, he's just doing it for the bucks.
Kathryn Huxtable
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:01:14 -0400, Amy Guskin
> <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>
>>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:28:12 -0400, Josh Hill wrote
>>(in article <t3tgd5paqdp3apjfm...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>> Do you have any evidence of this? Because in the absence of evidence,
>>> that accusation is defamatory. <<
>>
>>I don't think so. I think that it's a fairly easy conclusion to draw if you
>>don't know anything about Stross except for that post. I mean, anyone who's
>>seen more than one episode of Babylon 5 knows that his conclusions were
>>completely unfounded shit. Personally, I think it's bad form to talk shit
>>about something in the guise of a critique when you haven't ever
>>seen/read/heard etc. it. If someone else reacted by thinking he was
>>trolling, personally, I can't blame them one bit. Why so hard on this
>>poster, Josh?
>
> [...]
>
> As it happens, I don't know Charlie Stross well enough to feel certain
> of his motives. I know nothing more about him than can be gleaned from
> a few posts on the sci fi writing newsgroup, a brief exchange of
> emails, and his books.
>
> But most of the folks who are criticizing him here know no more, or
> even less. Yet they're making a deeply unflattering assumption about
> his character when there are other explanations for his post that are
> at least as likely. Such as that he really doesn't like a certain type
> of science fiction. Which, if you're familiar with the very hard, very
> techie, very uncompromising sci fi that he writes, seems not just
> plausible but likely.
>
> In imputing motive to Stross without evidence, they're making the same
> exact mistake that Stross did when he badmouthed a show he hadn't
> watched. (Which, I think, may have been BSG, not B5 -- his phrasing
> was as I recall ambiguous.)
>
> So -- I'm glad to join in the criticism of Charlie's conclusions and
> his sloppiness in reviewing a show without having watched it, in fact,
> I did, yesterday. But I don't think it's right to impute a malign
> motive to him in the absence of evidence that he had such a motive, to
> suggest that he wasn't just expressing an honest opinion, an opinion
> that in many cases (though not that of B5) I share. To do so I think
> is to make the same mistake he did, when he criticized a show or shows
> that he hadn't actually seen.
What you said. Emphatically.
-K
Vince M Hudd
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:10:07 +0100, Vince M Hudd <sp...@softrock.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > To which, I'd also add that technically the trolling claim is correct
> > anyway - ATEOTD Stross has a blog for the very purposes of having people
> > read it; it's a form of self promotion, and the more people who read it,
> > the more he's promoting himself (and by extension, his work).
> By that reasoning, every opinion expressed by a newspaper columnist or
> editorialist is nothing more than an attempt to make money, since the
> writer is paid for selling papers. And every time a doctor cures a
> patient, he's just doing it for the bucks.
Not quite - that's an apples and pears comparison; you're drawing a parellel
between the writer's self promotion and the others doing the job itself.
The apples/apples comparison with a doctor curing a patient or a newspaper
columnist writing his/her piece is Stross *writing his books*.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:10:07 +0100, Vince M Hudd <sp...@softrock.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > To which, I'd also add that technically the trolling claim is correct
>> > anyway - ATEOTD Stross has a blog for the very purposes of having people
>> > read it; it's a form of self promotion, and the more people who read it,
>> > the more he's promoting himself (and by extension, his work).
>
>> By that reasoning, every opinion expressed by a newspaper columnist or
>> editorialist is nothing more than an attempt to make money, since the
>> writer is paid for selling papers. And every time a doctor cures a
>> patient, he's just doing it for the bucks.
>
>Not quite - that's an apples and pears comparison; you're drawing a parellel
>between the writer's self promotion and the others doing the job itself.
>
>The apples/apples comparison with a doctor curing a patient or a newspaper
>columnist writing his/her piece is Stross *writing his books*.
Good point. OTOH, a doctor who wrote a book or column that fed his
practice wouldn't necessarily have that as his motivation, or distort
his findings to bring in more patients. And a columnist who appeared
on a TV roundtable discussion wouldn't necessarily be interested in
encouraging people to read his column, and even if he was, it wouldn't
necessarily affect what he said or be his motivation for saying it.
Not that some shady doctors don't do that, or columnists. But
opportunity isn't motive, and I see no evidence that most think this
way. Not to mention that if you want to make a buck, novel writing is
just about the worst field you can go into, given the ratio of talent,
effort, and risk to remuneration.
Vince M Hudd
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:09:26 +0100, Vince M Hudd <sp...@softrock.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:10:07 +0100, Vince M Hudd <sp...@softrock.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
[Stross' blog is a promotional tool]
> > Not quite - that's an apples and pears comparison; you're drawing a
> > parellel between the writer's self promotion and the others doing the
> > job itself.
> > The apples/apples comparison with a doctor curing a patient or a
> > newspaper columnist writing his/her piece is Stross *writing his books*.
> Good point. OTOH, a doctor who wrote a book or column that fed his
> practice wouldn't necessarily have that as his motivation, or distort his
> findings to bring in more patients.
No, but chances are he'd earn something from the book or column. The blog is
a part of Stross' online presence - which he pays for, rather than which he
gets paid for.
> And a columnist who appeared on a TV roundtable discussion wouldn't
> necessarily be interested in encouraging people to read his column, and
> even if he was, it wouldn't necessarily affect what he said or be his
> motivation for saying it.
Appearance fee - so being paid for that appearance.
> Not that some shady doctors don't do that, or columnists. But opportunity
> isn't motive, and I see no evidence that most think this way. Not to
> mention that if you want to make a buck, novel writing is just about the
> worst field you can go into, given the ratio of talent, effort, and risk
> to remuneration.
Quite. So the more promotional tools he uses, the better! I know - how about
a blog! And how about posting things to that blog that will increase the
number of visitors... ;)
Dave Hayslett
....
> suggest that he wasn't just expressing an honest opinion, an opinion
> that in many cases (though not that of B5) I share. To do so I think
I haven't read the blog in question and don't intend to; nor do I know
anything about this author. Perhaps I'm missing something. But given the
vacuum in which his opinion on B5 appears to have been formed, I'm not sure
how you could characterize said opinion as "honest". Opinions diverge from
there, apparently.
--
Dave (10/16/2009 1:16:38 PM)
Dam machine the g is sticked.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>I haven't read the blog in question and don't intend to; nor do I know
>anything about this author. Perhaps I'm missing something. But given the
>vacuum in which his opinion on B5 appears to have been formed, I'm not sure
>how you could characterize said opinion as "honest". Opinions diverge from
>there, apparently.
The same way I could characterize your opinion about his blog as
honest, despite the fact that you haven't read it?
Here's the beginning of the blog entry:
"Let me clarify: when I was young — I'm dating myself here — I quite
liked the original TV series. But when the movie-length trailer for
ST:TNG first aired in the UK in the late eighties? It was hate on
first sight. And since then, it's also been hate on sight between me
and just about every space operatic show on television. ST:Voyager and
whatever the space station opera; check. Babylon Five? Ditto.
Battlestar Galactica? Didn't even bother turning on the TV. I hate
them all."
His remark about not turning on the TV seems to apply to Battlestar
Galactica. So I'm really not sure how much of these shows he's seen.
It's quite possible that he watched some episodes, extrapolated from
what he'd seen, and gave up on the rest. Hell, I gave up on B5 myself,
some way into the first season, and didn't go back to it until a
friend told me it had "gotten really good."
Again, not saying that Stross was right, I think he's spot on wrong
about B5 and even the best of TNG (before the horrid post-Roddenberry
tetrion era) and BSG, which is, after all, an examination of a very
old but valid hard sci fi premise -- that our own creations turn on
us.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
I suggested that Charles Stross's anti-"Star Trek" anti-B5 rant may have
just been a troll to get attention.
"Kathryn Huxtable <kat...@kathrynhuxtable.org>" replied:
> I really don't think Charles Stross would do that. He's just a very
> outspoken, shoot from the hip sort of person.
To be clear, I do not assert that he *did*, merely that the trolling is
one possible explanation.
When someone intelligent does something really stupid -- and attacking a
work of art you don't know anything about is really stupid -- I usually
figure it's either (a) acting in a rush without thinking, or (b) having
some alternative motivation in which it's not stupid.
So I tried to think of an alternative motivation in which Mr Stross's
criticism wasn't a stupid thing to do. The best I could come up with
was "trolling".
Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"He who gives an answer before he hears,
It is folly and shame to him." -- Proverbs 18:13 (NASB)
Amy Guskin
(in article <060hd514281qmjs7r...@4ax.com>):
>
> I think that the imputation of malign motive is just about the easiest
> and most common and, frankly, most brainless form of defamation. It
> requires no proof, no evidence, and yet it's difficult to disprove. <<
It's kind of hard to ascribe _good_ motives to someone who is a professional
writer -- who therefore has more of a responsibility for what he writes --
who trashed a tv show he's never seen.
>> This morning, I read that the only reason the CDC was recommending
> that people get swine flu vaccine was so the drug companies could make
> money off it.
>
> Evidence? <<
Well, that's bullshit, plain and simple. I already know from my doctor that,
even if I _begged_ for it, I couldn't get the H1N1 vaccine. They're
reserving it for high-risk populations, and even having diabetes doesn't
qualify me because of my age (they're pretty sure people in their 20s and
younger are at the greatest risk, because older populations must have been
exposed to some form of it in years past). If it was a scam to make money
for the drug companies, they'd give it to anyone who asked.
>> As it happens, I don't know Charlie Stross well enough to feel certain
> of his motives. I know nothing more about him than can be gleaned from
> a few posts on the sci fi writing newsgroup, a brief exchange of
> emails, and his books.
>
> But most of the folks who are criticizing him here know no more, or
> even less. Yet they're making a deeply unflattering assumption about
> his character when there are other explanations for his post that are
> at least as likely. Such as that he really doesn't like a certain type
> of science fiction. Which, if you're familiar with the very hard, very
> techie, very uncompromising sci fi that he writes, seems not just
> plausible but likely. <<
And he could have implicated B5 in a way that wasn't so insulting. Maybe say
that while he hasn't seen it, his understanding is that B5 is lacking blah
blah blah and is more like a blah blah blah than he usually cares for. But
instead he made proclamations -- that were wrong, by any standards -- bashing
it, with no facts to back him up. He may be a great guy, gives piles of
money to charity, volunteers at a soup kitchen...it still doesn't change the
fact that he is, on this point at least, full of shit and a blowhard. Maybe
I should post negative reviews of his books on Amazon even though I haven't
read them? Better yet, maybe my friend who reviews books on XM/Sirius should
broadcast negative reviews of his books, never having read them. That's more
comparable to what he did.
>> In imputing motive to Stross without evidence, they're making the same
> exact mistake that Stross did when he badmouthed a show he hadn't
> watched. (Which, I think, may have been BSG, not B5 -- his phrasing
> was as I recall ambiguous.) <<
Except that everyone commenting about him here has at least read his column.
That's what we're reacting to. The facts of what he said.
>> So -- I'm glad to join in the criticism of Charlie's conclusions and
> his sloppiness in reviewing a show without having watched it, in fact,
> I did, yesterday. But I don't think it's right to impute a malign
> motive to him in the absence of evidence that he had such a motive, to
> suggest that he wasn't just expressing an honest opinion, an opinion
> that in many cases (though not that of B5) I share. To do so I think
> is to make the same mistake he did, when he criticized a show or shows
> that he hadn't actually seen. <<
I don't see this as quite the big deal that you do: when you post something
publicly on the internet, you are inviting commentary and criticism. That's
all Darren/"Dr. Nancy's Sweetie" was doing. I don't think Mr. Stross needs
the kind of protection you're endeavoring to give him.
Amy Guskin
(in article <tsahd5l7l7psit1j7...@4ax.com>):
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:17:20 -0400, Dave Hayslett <hays...@sc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I haven't read the blog in question and don't intend to; nor do I know
>> anything about this author. Perhaps I'm missing something. But given the
>> vacuum in which his opinion on B5 appears to have been formed, I'm not sure
>> how you could characterize said opinion as "honest". Opinions diverge from
>> there, apparently.
>
> The same way I could characterize your opinion about his blog as
> honest, despite the fact that you haven't read it?
>
> Here's the beginning of the blog entry:
>
> "Let me clarify: when I was young I'm dating myself here I quite
> liked the original TV series. But when the movie-length trailer for
> ST:TNG first aired in the UK in the late eighties? It was hate on
> first sight. And since then, it's also been hate on sight between me
> and just about every space operatic show on television. ST:Voyager and
> whatever the space station opera; check. Babylon Five? Ditto.
> Battlestar Galactica? Didn't even bother turning on the TV. I hate
> them all."
>
> His remark about not turning on the TV seems to apply to Battlestar
> Galactica. So I'm really not sure how much of these shows he's seen.
> It's quite possible that he watched some episodes, extrapolated from
> what he'd seen, and gave up on the rest. Hell, I gave up on B5 myself,
> some way into the first season, and didn't go back to it until a
> friend told me it had "gotten really good." <<
No, it's completely clear. You missed what he said in the comments:
>> Jonas: I haven't misunderstood Babylon 5 -- I've never bothered watching
it.<<
It goes on from there, but I don't want to quote huge gouts of his
blog/comments here.
I was going to give him a pass after reading about his eye troubles, but I
_know_ B5 has blind fans, so IMHO that's not a good reason to overlook his
criticism-without-merit.
Doug Freyburger
>
> The way I read it, he never criticized B5's story-telling. He simply said
> he wanted the story and the technological/science elements to be more
> tightly integrated. Virtually all of Babylon 5's story (I think) could
> have been told in another genre, say, historical drama. The "sciencey"
> bits were more or less optional.
To me one of the beauties of Babylon 5 was the story could be told
and the battle scenes dropped and there would be little lost in the
series. Tiny Israel struggling to get out from under the thumb of
both the Egyptian Pharoh and the Assyrian King doesn't take a high
technology but it's a very parallel story - The revelation is to stop
taking sides and focus on independence during a time when neither
power is active in international affairs.
> Think 2001. It's a really interesting story, but there's really no way
> you could tell it without this unthinkable-power-from-beyond-the-solar-
> system angle.
2001 is *about* first contact with an alien species so advanced they
go around being Bodhisatva's to planets currently lacking civilized
species. They appear and tweak evolution to favor civilization and
then require interplanetary travel to allow the next direct contact.
The AI part of the story is just scenery.
Take away the first contact aspect, and 2001 is an episode about
Landrew the computer going nuts. Okay, there's more international
intrigue than that, but the AI aspects that come to the front in 2010
are background in the first movie.
Dave Hayslett
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:17:20 -0400, Dave Hayslett <hays...@sc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I haven't read the blog in question and don't intend to; nor do I know
>>anything about this author. Perhaps I'm missing something. But given the
>>vacuum in which his opinion on B5 appears to have been formed, I'm not sure
>>how you could characterize said opinion as "honest". Opinions diverge from
>>there, apparently.
>
> The same way I could characterize your opinion about his blog as
> honest, despite the fact that you haven't read it?
Heh. That occurred to me at one point, but given that we're talking about
written words that were reproduced here, the similarity is superficial at
most.
> Here's the beginning of the blog entry:
>
> "Let me clarify: when I was young — I'm dating myself here — I quite
> liked the original TV series. But when the movie-length trailer for
> ST:TNG first aired in the UK in the late eighties? It was hate on
> first sight. And since then, it's also been hate on sight between me
> and just about every space operatic show on television. ST:Voyager and
> whatever the space station opera; check. Babylon Five? Ditto.
> Battlestar Galactica? Didn't even bother turning on the TV. I hate
> them all."
>
> His remark about not turning on the TV seems to apply to Battlestar
> Galactica. So I'm really not sure how much of these shows he's seen.
> It's quite possible that he watched some episodes, extrapolated from
> what he'd seen, and gave up on the rest.
Even if your interpretation is exactly right, I still don't see that as an
honest opinion.
--
Dave (10/16/2009 3:47:21 PM)
....and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three
days.
Josh Hill
<ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>No, it's completely clear. You missed what he said in the comments:
>
>>> Jonas: I haven't misunderstood Babylon 5 -- I've never bothered watching
>it.<<
>
>It goes on from there, but I don't want to quote huge gouts of his
>blog/comments here.
>
>I was going to give him a pass after reading about his eye troubles, but I
>_know_ B5 has blind fans, so IMHO that's not a good reason to overlook his
>criticism-without-merit.
You're right, I just got done reading through the comments and saw
that.
Josh Hill
<ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>It's kind of hard to ascribe _good_ motives to someone who is a professional
>writer -- who therefore has more of a responsibility for what he writes --
>who trashed a tv show he's never seen.
Motives, or sense? I read his objection to B5, which I didn't think
right, but he seems to have written this from the perspective of
someone who's seen a few episodes, decided he didn't like the show,
and went on to trash it. Not a good thing to do, but I confess I've
done it myself. I mean, a friend of mine is always going on about
Family Guy, and on the basis of a couple of episodes I hate Family
Guy, and I always put it down, though in theory they could have been
uncharacteristic and I'd love the series if I watched more. And I
trash Voyager, despite the fact that I gave up on it.
Again, not justifying Stross's review here, just saying that I don't
see any evidence that he has an ulterior motive such as calling
attention to himself or badmouthing the competition (if mass market TV
shows that aren't in production anymore are really competition for
hard SF).
And really, I do appreciate with and agree with his point, I hate the
technobabble in later Treks and admire TOS in large part because it
did have some intellectual depth to it. I just think it's stupid to
make that point about shows one hasn't seen.
>Well, that's bullshit, plain and simple. I already know from my doctor that,
>even if I _begged_ for it, I couldn't get the H1N1 vaccine. They're
>reserving it for high-risk populations, and even having diabetes doesn't
>qualify me because of my age (they're pretty sure people in their 20s and
>younger are at the greatest risk, because older populations must have been
>exposed to some form of it in years past). If it was a scam to make money
>for the drug companies, they'd give it to anyone who asked.
Precisely my point. Vaccine making is in fact a pretty low profit
endeavor, the real and serious problem has been convincing drug
companies to research and produce something with high liability and
low financial reward.
>And he could have implicated B5 in a way that wasn't so insulting. Maybe say
>that while he hasn't seen it, his understanding is that B5 is lacking blah
>blah blah and is more like a blah blah blah than he usually cares for. But
>instead he made proclamations -- that were wrong, by any standards -- bashing
>it, with no facts to back him up. He may be a great guy, gives piles of
>money to charity, volunteers at a soup kitchen...it still doesn't change the
>fact that he is, on this point at least, full of shit and a blowhard. Maybe
>I should post negative reviews of his books on Amazon even though I haven't
>read them? Better yet, maybe my friend who reviews books on XM/Sirius should
>broadcast negative reviews of his books, never having read them. That's more
>comparable to what he did.
Sure, but again, my point here wasn't that he was justified in doing
that, I don't think he was. Just that the fact that he did this
doesn't mean we can go on to make statements about his motives or
character that have no evidence to back them up, such as that he did
it *for money or publicity.*
>Except that everyone commenting about him here has at least read his column.
>That's what we're reacting to. The facts of what he said.
Those people I have no argument with. The people who say he did it for
money or publicity I do, insofar as they made that claim.
Really, I think that some people got upset with an unfair attack on a
show they care about, and retaliated unconsciously by developing some
unflattering preconceptions about the fellow who made them. Just as
those of us who know and admire Stross's work, e.g., Kathryn and
myself, maybe have had some personal contact with him as I also did,
felt the urge to come to his defense. Confirmation bias, if you will.
>I don't see this as quite the big deal that you do: when you post something
>publicly on the internet, you are inviting commentary and criticism. That's
>all Darren/"Dr. Nancy's Sweetie" was doing. I don't think Mr. Stross needs
>the kind of protection you're endeavoring to give him.
But then, neither does Babylon 5 . . . and, really, as I suspect you
know, I've never liked ad hominem attacks on people. On top of which,
as I mentioned in an earlier post, I think there's a very harmful
cultural phenomenon at work here which is doing far more harm to the
country than an attack on a TV show or a writer.
Charlie E.
wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:09:52 -0400, Amy Guskin
><ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>
>>No, it's completely clear. You missed what he said in the comments:
>>
>>>> Jonas: I haven't misunderstood Babylon 5 -- I've never bothered watching
>>it.<<
>>
>>It goes on from there, but I don't want to quote huge gouts of his
>>blog/comments here.
>>
>>I was going to give him a pass after reading about his eye troubles, but I
>>_know_ B5 has blind fans, so IMHO that's not a good reason to overlook his
>>criticism-without-merit.
>
>You're right, I just got done reading through the comments and saw
>that.
Well, my wife enjoys B5, if that has any bearing... ;-)
Charlie
voxwoman
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:01:14 -0400, Amy Guskin
>
I stumbled upon something today (a B5 fan group on Facebook - that I
won't be joining) arguing over whether Obama is Clark.
-Wendy
Bill
> I don't think so. I think that it's a fairly easy conclusion to draw if you
> don't know anything about Stross except for that post. I mean, anyone who's
> seen more than one episode of Babylon 5 knows that his conclusions were
> completely unfounded shit. Personally, I think it's bad form to talk shit
Oh my stars and garters! I didn't know you even knew that word, Amy ;)
Bill
voxwoman
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:17:20 -0400, Dave Hayslett <haysl...@sc.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I haven't read the blog in question and don't intend to; nor do I know
> >anything about this author. Perhaps I'm missing something. But given the
> >vacuum in which his opinion on B5 appears to have been formed, I'm not sure
> >how you could characterize said opinion as "honest". Opinions diverge from
> >there, apparently.
>
> The same way I could characterize your opinion about his blog as
> honest, despite the fact that you haven't read it?
>
> Here's the beginning of the blog entry:
>
> "Let me clarify: when I was young — I'm dating myself here — I quite
> liked the original TV series. But when the movie-length trailer for
> ST:TNG first aired in the UK in the late eighties? It was hate on
> first sight. And since then, it's also been hate on sight between me
> and just about every space operatic show on television. ST:Voyager and
> whatever the space station opera; check. Babylon Five? Ditto.
> Battlestar Galactica? Didn't even bother turning on the TV. I hate
> them all."
>
> His remark about not turning on the TV seems to apply to Battlestar
> Galactica. So I'm really not sure how much of these shows he's seen.
> It's quite possible that he watched some episodes, extrapolated from
> what he'd seen, and gave up on the rest. Hell, I gave up on B5 myself,
> some way into the first season, and didn't go back to it until a
> friend told me it had "gotten really good."
That's funny. Because I think that was me, and you got me to watch the
show in the first place, after I had missed the pilot.
-Wendy
voxwoman
wrote:
> I suggested that Charles Stross's anti-"Star Trek" anti-B5 rant may have
> just been a troll to get attention.
>
>
> > I really don't think Charles Stross would do that. He's just a very
> > outspoken, shoot from the hip sort of person.
>
> To be clear, I do not assert that he *did*, merely that the trolling is
> one possible explanation.
>
> When someone intelligent does something really stupid -- and attacking a
> work of art you don't know anything about is really stupid -- I usually
> figure it's either (a) acting in a rush without thinking, or (b) having
> some alternative motivation in which it's not stupid.
>
> So I tried to think of an alternative motivation in which Mr Stross's
> criticism wasn't a stupid thing to do. The best I could come up with
> was "trolling".
Here's another possibility: It seems Mr Stross attends a lot of
conventions and has a following of fans of his own. Perhaps there are
some significant number of them who are pestering him to "drink the
kool-ade" because they also love Trek, B5 and/or BSG. And maybe he's
tired of going 'round on this topic.
-Wendy
Josh Hill
<voxw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>That's funny. Because I think that was me, and you got me to watch the
>show in the first place, after I had missed the pilot.
Was that before or after you went back in the Great Machine?
Josh Hill
<voxw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I stumbled upon something today (a B5 fan group on Facebook - that I
>won't be joining) arguing over whether Obama is Clark.
I think that's a consequence of believing that Limbaugh is God . . .
Josh Hill
Actually, I've heard Amy say "unfounded" many times . . .
Kathryn Huxtable
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:08:19 -0700 (PDT), voxwoman
> <voxw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I stumbled upon something today (a B5 fan group on Facebook - that I
>>won't be joining) arguing over whether Obama is Clark.
>
> I think that's a consequence of believing that Limbaugh is God . . .
During the early parts of this decade I wondered whether Bush was Clark.
I got over it.
-K
Kathryn Huxtable
Amy Guskin
(in article <l5mhd5lp7qlp10bf3...@4ax.com>):
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:59:58 -0400, Amy Guskin
> <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>
>> It's kind of hard to ascribe _good_ motives to someone who is a
>> professional
>> writer -- who therefore has more of a responsibility for what he writes --
>> who trashed a tv show he's never seen.
>
> Motives, or sense? I read his objection to B5, which I didn't think
> right, but he seems to have written this from the perspective of
> someone who's seen a few episodes, decided he didn't like the show,
> and went on to trash it. Not a good thing to do, but I confess I've
> done it myself. <<
That would be one thing, but that's not the case here. He has _never seen
it_. It's in the comments. I think you've seen it already by this point,
but perhaps you posted this before you'd done so (and your reply went through
a time warp and came out twenty minutes later <g>).
>> I mean, a friend of mine is always going on about
> Family Guy, and on the basis of a couple of episodes I hate Family
> Guy, and I always put it down, though in theory they could have been
> uncharacteristic and I'd love the series if I watched more. And I
> trash Voyager, despite the fact that I gave up on it. <<
I don't like Family Guy after viewing a few eps, either. The occasional
Stewie bit is entertaining, but not worth it to put up with the other
characters, who are just awful.
>> Again, not justifying Stross's review here, just saying that I don't
> see any evidence that he has an ulterior motive such as calling
> attention to himself or badmouthing the competition (if mass market TV
> shows that aren't in production anymore are really competition for
> hard SF). <<
Perhaps not. But posting something like that opens you up to such scrutiny.
If he'd honestly viewed the show and decided he didn't like it, I really
couldn't argue with that. But at the very least, he's being dishonest. And
while I don't believe he had an ulterior motive, my point was only that I
don't think you can fault someone looking in from the outside and thinking
that, based on that post.
>> Sure, but again, my point here wasn't that he was justified in doing
> that, I don't think he was. Just that the fact that he did this
> doesn't mean we can go on to make statements about his motives or
> character that have no evidence to back them up, such as that he did
> it *for money or publicity.* <<
I'm happy to agree to disagree with you on this. Again, _I_ don't think he
had a particularly ulterior motive (besides the usual reason someone posts
outrageous stuff on a blog -- to get attention), but I also think that
critiquing something that he _didn't watch_ was dishonest, and leaves him
open to such criticism by those who don't know him well. Your strong
feelings are obviously colored by the fact that you're at least somewhat
familiar with his writing and his persona. But this wasn't a private e-mail;
it was a public entry on a blog read by a lot of fans, and likely to be
forwarded to a lot more. That means people with only a passing familiarity
with him -- or none at all -- are going to be reading it.
>> But then, neither does Babylon 5 . . . and, really, as I suspect you
> know, I've never liked ad hominem attacks on people. On top of which,
> as I mentioned in an earlier post, I think there's a very harmful
> cultural phenomenon at work here which is doing far more harm to the
> country than an attack on a TV show or a writer. <<
Sure, there's definitely a huge aspect of "hey, don't diss my favorite show!"
going on. But I also know that a lot of people don't like unfair criticism,
unfounded criticism, and being dismissed offhand -- and of course it's easier
to give voice to dissatisfaction about that when it's pointed toward one of
our beloved properties (why would I care if it was a show I don't watch?).
We fans expect that kind of ignorant dismissal from the mainstream press, but
from one of our own?
Amy Guskin
(in article <rhohd5lqoqib2hgvu...@4ax.com>):
Yes, Charlie, I was thinking of your wife, and Nicole, and others.
Amy Guskin
(in article
<79bb0197-a046-4ec5...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>):
Y'oughta drive with me on the Jersey Turnpike sometime... :-)
Wes Struebing
You're right. Cheney was always more like Clark...
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Homepage: www.carpedementem.org
linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wesstruebing
Wes Struebing
<ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:11:51 -0400, Bill wrote
>(in article
><79bb0197-a046-4ec5...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On Oct 16, 10:01 am, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>> I don't think so. I think that it's a fairly easy conclusion to draw if you
>>> don't know anything about Stross except for that post. I mean, anyone who's
>>> seen more than one episode of Babylon 5 knows that his conclusions were
>>> completely unfounded shit. Personally, I think it's bad form to talk shit
>>
>> Oh my stars and garters! I didn't know you even knew that word, Amy ;) <<
>
>Y'oughta drive with me on the Jersey Turnpike sometime... :-)
>
<grins> You must be channeling ME on Colorado roads, then...
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>In article <hb8cj...@drn.newsguy.com>, janmsc...@aol.com says...
>
>>
>> IIRC, what he said in "Dreams With Sharp Teeth" (love that title!) was that he
>> wishes he weren't angry so much of the time. He can be brusque, he's definitely
>> outspoken and he may very well say things that make people uncomfortable but I
>> think his reputation for being an ass is exagerated.
>>
>Harlan's schtick has always been the Enfant Terrible... these days
>perhaps the World's Oldest Enfant Terrible. (I'm not sure there's a fan
>my age or older who hasn't got a personally witnessed Harlan Ellison
>obnoxity story.) It may be exaggerated... but it is, alas not
>unfounded.
Only time I got up close (not personal<G>) to Harlan was at Worldcon
in 1969. While he was mostly gracious, and had quite a wit, I don't
remember what the situation was, but he eviscerated someone at a panel
I mostly attended.
Acerbic? Oh, yeah! Was that his only attribute? hardly.
caryn dunkel
"Amy Guskin" <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C6FE8ACE...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:11:51 -0400, Bill wrote
(in article
<79bb0197-a046-4ec5...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>):
> On Oct 16, 10:01 am, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>> I don't think so. I think that it's a fairly easy conclusion to draw if
>> you
>> don't know anything about Stross except for that post. I mean, anyone
>> who's
>> seen more than one episode of Babylon 5 knows that his conclusions were
>> completely unfounded shit. Personally, I think it's bad form to talk shit
>
> Oh my stars and garters! I didn't know you even knew that word, Amy ;) <<
Y'oughta drive with me on the Jersey Turnpike sometime... :-)
Amy
As someone who has driven with Amy on the Jersey Turnpike I can attest to
her um ... um...creativity (yeah that's the word) with language (and that's
all I'm sayin)
Caryn
Josh Hill
<ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:55:19 -0400, Josh Hill wrote
>(in article <l5mhd5lp7qlp10bf3...@4ax.com>):
>
>That would be one thing, but that's not the case here. He has _never seen
>it_. It's in the comments. I think you've seen it already by this point,
>but perhaps you posted this before you'd done so (and your reply went through
>a time warp and came out twenty minutes later <g>).
Not sure at this point . . . I do know that I'm still not clear on
exactly how much he's seen of B5, maybe the pilot? Because he think
that there are five monocultural planets, must have gotten that from
somewhere.
(Which I still think is erroneous on several counts. The show does
occasionally mention planetary variations, e.g., in explaining why
Londo has an accent. Also, the fact that intraplanetary ethnic
divisions aren't mentioned doesn't mean they don't exist. But --
mostly, and this is the point I made on his blog -- who's to say that
in these civilizations, national divisions won't largely be a thing of
the past? The trend on earth has been one of consolidation, of a
reduction of cultural diversity, ever since agriculture made that
possible. We've only just entered the age of intercontinental flights
and instant communications. And even so, our planetary trend seems to
be one of integration -- the UN and the League of Nations within the
last 90 years, the European Union. In B5, that trend has obviously
continued on earth, since there's a planetary government. And that's a
common assumption in science fiction.)
>I don't like Family Guy after viewing a few eps, either. The occasional
>Stewie bit is entertaining, but not worth it to put up with the other
>characters, who are just awful.
And empty. It seems to me that the show lacks the witty social satire
of The Simpsons. It's just a shock-jock version of a sitcom, the sort
of dumbed-down teevee that's popular when it's on and then pretty much
forgotten.
>I'm happy to agree to disagree with you on this. Again, _I_ don't think he
>had a particularly ulterior motive (besides the usual reason someone posts
>outrageous stuff on a blog -- to get attention), but I also think that
>critiquing something that he _didn't watch_ was dishonest, and leaves him
>open to such criticism by those who don't know him well.
Again, my objection was only to the suggestion that he had an ulterior
motive in the absence of evidence to that effect. I don't favor
reviewing things one hasn't seen.
IMO, if Stross is guilty of anything here, it may be of putting the
sort of snap judgment we all make in everyday life in print. I think
it's fair to expect that someone who is an expert in a field will be
reasonably professional when making what is in effect a review. At the
same time, I think we have to be sympathetic to the fact that someone
in his position has to meet a standard that the rest of us don't. I
mean, nobody is going to care if *I* yap about Family Guy without
having seen most of the episodes, but if I were Matt Groenig, I'd have
to be more cautious.
> Your strong
>feelings are obviously colored by the fact that you're at least somewhat
>familiar with his writing and his persona. But this wasn't a private e-mail;
>it was a public entry on a blog read by a lot of fans, and likely to be
>forwarded to a lot more. That means people with only a passing familiarity
>with him -- or none at all -- are going to be reading it.
Yes, and I can understand why people would get upset. I certainly do
when I read ignorant reviews that badmouth B5 (and I think we all know
that Stross's is hardly the first).
>Sure, there's definitely a huge aspect of "hey, don't diss my favorite show!"
>going on. But I also know that a lot of people don't like unfair criticism,
>unfounded criticism, and being dismissed offhand -- and of course it's easier
>to give voice to dissatisfaction about that when it's pointed toward one of
>our beloved properties (why would I care if it was a show I don't watch?).
>We fans expect that kind of ignorant dismissal from the mainstream press, but
>from one of our own?
True -- if anything, Stross should be supportive of B5, one of an
appallingly few successful attempts to bring real science fiction to
television. But he obviously doesn't know. B5 is such a tough show to
get people into . . .
Matt Ion
> Acerbic? Oh, yeah! Was that his only attribute? hardly.
I think acerbicness(?? acerbicity??) is often confused with
assholishness. The two are not necessarily the same thing.
Then again, the two often do go hand-in-hand...
I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.
Mac Breck
> B5 is such a tough show to get people into . . .
I know what you mean, but all it took for me was for an engineering
buddy of mine to recommend B5, and to watch "Shadow Dancing" in the
Fall~Winter 1996, and I was hooked. Then, I watched a few episodes of
Season 1 that my buddy had on tape (pretty bad VHS EP off the air
tapes), and I watched the rest of the way out to the end of Season 5
(Season 4 on FOX-53 Pittsburgh in Mono, Season 5 on TNT with better
color and in Stereo), the movies, and "Crusade." Of course, that was
coming off of "Deep Space Nine" and "Voyager," and I was a combination
of annoyed, bored and disgusted with both of those. Long before that
time of course, I'd watched both TOS (initial airing, and many times in
reruns) and TNG all the way through, 3 years and 7 years respectively,
but when it came to DS9 and then Voyager, I couldn't make it past 4
years of watching them regularly. Then, I dropped "Enterprise" at 3
years (due to the awful last few minutes of the S3 finale.) and then
went back 4 years after the show's completion to watch the last season
via Netflix.
Never had that problem with B5. To this day, I have no interest in
going back to watch DS9 or Voyager, or to ever finish those shows. In
fact, the thought, after seeing B5, kind of turns my stomach a little
bit.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999) - "War Zone"
Galen (to Gideon): "I've been penalized before for helping other
people. I've been trying to decide whether or not I should risk it
again."
Amy Guskin
(in article <l0pjd5po1pgpnv0m4...@4ax.com>):
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:30:21 -0400, Amy Guskin
> <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>
>>>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:55:19 -0400, Josh Hill wrote
>> (in article <l5mhd5lp7qlp10bf3...@4ax.com>):
>>
>> That would be one thing, but that's not the case here. He has _never seen
>> it_. It's in the comments. I think you've seen it already by this point,
>> but perhaps you posted this before you'd done so (and your reply went
>> through
>> a time warp and came out twenty minutes later <g>).
>
> Not sure at this point . . . I do know that I'm still not clear on
> exactly how much he's seen of B5, maybe the pilot? Because he think
> that there are five monocultural planets, must have gotten that from
> somewhere. <<
Seriously, dude, I cannot reiterate this strongly enough: he HASN'T SEEN THE
SHOW. Not the pilot; not any episodes. You don't have to have seen the show
to get that basic information. He could have heard it from someone who liked
the show, and who was trying to convince him to watch it. But he does make
clear the fact that he has never bothered to watch it (his words, not mine).
>> IMO, if Stross is guilty of anything here, it may be of putting the
> sort of snap judgment we all make in everyday life in print.<<
"Snap" would imply that he's seen _any_ of it.
>> I think
> it's fair to expect that someone who is an expert in a field will be
> reasonably professional when making what is in effect a review. At the
> same time, I think we have to be sympathetic to the fact that someone
> in his position has to meet a standard that the rest of us don't. I
> mean, nobody is going to care if *I* yap about Family Guy without
> having seen most of the episodes, but if I were Matt Groenig, I'd have
> to be more cautious. <<
Exactly my point. And also, if you were Matt Groening, more people would be
reading your column, including people who don't know you or know anything
about you, and thus you'd likely be subject to some harsh criticism based on
your actions rather than some deep knowledge of your underlying motivations.
I wonder if all the hubub over this will make him reconsider and give the
show a look...
Jan
Guskin says...
>
>
>I wonder if all the hubub over this will make him reconsider and give the
>show a look...
>
It seems unlikely. A poster put up a number of B5 quotes (post 315) and
Charlie's reaction was: "Loganprometheus: you see the human condition in those
quotes -- I don't; I see cheap rhetorical tricks and push-button emotional
manipulation of a rather crude variety."
Maybe it's unfair of me to judge without reading any of his books (at least one
of which I'm told is decent space opera) but I don't think I'd be likely to add
him to my list of favorite authors.
Jan
--
�Shared pain is lessened; shared joy is increased; thus do we refute entropy�
--Spider Robinson
Check out http://wedreamforjeanne.blogspot.com/ for ways to help Jeanne Robinson
fight cancer.
Vince M Hudd
> In article <0001HW.C6FF9B04...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Amy Guskin says...
> > I wonder if all the hubub over this will make him reconsider and give
> > the show a look...
> It seems unlikely. A poster put up a number of B5 quotes (post 315) and
> Charlie's reaction was: "Loganprometheus: you see the human condition in
> those quotes -- I don't; I see cheap rhetorical tricks and push-button
> emotional manipulation of a rather crude variety."
> Maybe it's unfair of me to judge without reading any of his books (at
> least one of which I'm told is decent space opera) but I don't think I'd
> be likely to add him to my list of favorite authors.
A comment which reminds me of something I thought, but didn't say, when I
first read it after Amy originally posted the link.
When Stross brings his own books into the discussion in the comments, he's
making the point that the first book of the particular series he's talking
about ran to 600 pages (IIRC - but if not, treat these numbers as arbitrary
examples), but the publishers wanted it as two books of 300 - and that his
subsequent books in the same series are to be of (split down to) a similar
size.
Someone then commented on another author who's books are considerably
bigger, and who doesn't have to split them this way.
My immediate thought was "Maybe that's because he [the other author] is a
better and more respected writer."
Not that I'd know - or really care. I've never read anything by either of
them and I probably never will.
--
Vince M Hudd
Soft Rock Software
Mac Breck
<snip>
> I wonder if all the hubub over this will make him reconsider and give
> the show a look...
If it does, I bet it will be a light sampling, and only to figure out
some ways to trash it.
Amy Guskin
(in article <hbd98...@drn.newsguy.com>):
>
> Maybe it's unfair of me to judge without reading any of his books <<
Now, Jan, if you did that, I'd have to assume that you had evil intentions,
possibly trolling to get people more interested in your nefarious agenda...
<g,d,r>
Jan
Guskin says...
>
>>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:25:49 -0400, Jan wrote
>(in article <hbd98...@drn.newsguy.com>):
>>
>> Maybe it's unfair of me to judge without reading any of his books <<
>
>Now, Jan, if you did that, I'd have to assume that you had evil intentions,
>possibly trolling to get people more interested in your nefarious agenda...
><g,d,r>
>
>Amy
AMY! Don't you go telling everybody about my Nefarious Agenda and Evil
Intentions! I've got them duped into thinking I'm harmless.
Sheesh...
Jan
sweet and innocent
voxwoman
> In article <0001HW.C6FFC8760121ED8CB01AD...@news.eternal-september.org>, Amy
> Guskin says...
>
>
>
> >>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:25:49 -0400, Jan wrote
>
> >> Maybe it's unfair of me to judge without reading any of his books <<
>
> >Now, Jan, if you did that, I'd have to assume that you had evil intentions,
> >possibly trolling to get people more interested in your nefarious agenda...
> ><g,d,r>
>
> >Amy
>
> AMY! Don't you go telling everybody about my Nefarious Agenda and Evil
> Intentions! I've got them duped into thinking I'm harmless.
It says "Mostly Harmless" in your HTTTG (I mean, wikipedia) entry.
-Wendy
Dennis (Icarus)
news:hbdoi...@drn.newsguy.com...<snip>
>
> AMY! Don't you go telling everybody about my Nefarious Agenda and Evil
> Intentions! I've got them duped into thinking I'm harmless.
>
> Sheesh...
>
> Jan
> sweet and innocent
>
Can I be a loyal henchman?
Or should that be "may"......? ;-)
Dennis
.
Wes Struebing
>In article <0001HW.C6FF9B04...@news.eternal-september.org>, Amy
>Guskin says...
>>
>>
>>I wonder if all the hubub over this will make him reconsider and give the
>>show a look...
>>
>
>It seems unlikely. A poster put up a number of B5 quotes (post 315) and
>Charlie's reaction was: "Loganprometheus: you see the human condition in those
>quotes -- I don't; I see cheap rhetorical tricks and push-button emotional
>manipulation of a rather crude variety."
>
>Maybe it's unfair of me to judge without reading any of his books (at least one
>of which I'm told is decent space opera) but I don't think I'd be likely to add
>him to my list of favorite authors.
>
How charitable. (not)
Wes Struebing
wrote:
<snip>
>
>Someone then commented on another author who's books are considerably
>bigger, and who doesn't have to split them this way.
Doesn't take away from your point, but playing pedant (it appears that
Amy "missed" this one...<G>) - it's "whose", not "who's"
(returning you to the usual mayhem, now)
Wes Struebing
>In article <0001HW.C6FFC876...@news.eternal-september.org>, Amy
>Guskin says...
>>
>>>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:25:49 -0400, Jan wrote
>>(in article <hbd98...@drn.newsguy.com>):
>>>
>>> Maybe it's unfair of me to judge without reading any of his books <<
>>
>>Now, Jan, if you did that, I'd have to assume that you had evil intentions,
>>possibly trolling to get people more interested in your nefarious agenda...
>><g,d,r>
>>
>>Amy
>
>AMY! Don't you go telling everybody about my Nefarious Agenda and Evil
>Intentions! I've got them duped into thinking I'm harmless.
>
>Sheesh...
Amy asked me to send you the chocolate...
John W. Kennedy
> In article <0001HW.C6FF9B04011746D7B01AD...@news.eternal-september.org>, Amy
> Guskin says...
>
>
>
> >I wonder if all the hubub over this will make him reconsider and give the
> >show a look...
>
> It seems unlikely. A poster put up a number of B5 quotes (post 315) and
> Charlie's reaction was: "Loganprometheus: you see the human condition in those
> quotes -- I don't; I see cheap rhetorical tricks and push-button emotional
> manipulation of a rather crude variety."
You can't fool me. "Charles Stross" is a pseudonym of Simon Lacerous.
Kathryn Huxtable
> On 17 Oct 2009 13:25:49 -0700, Jan <janmsc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <0001HW.C6FF9B04...@news.eternal-september.org>, Amy
>>Guskin says...
>>>
>>>
>>>I wonder if all the hubub over this will make him reconsider and give the
>>>show a look...
>>>
>>
>>It seems unlikely. A poster put up a number of B5 quotes (post 315) and
>>Charlie's reaction was: "Loganprometheus: you see the human condition in those
>>quotes -- I don't; I see cheap rhetorical tricks and push-button emotional
>>manipulation of a rather crude variety."
>>
>>Maybe it's unfair of me to judge without reading any of his books (at least one
>>of which I'm told is decent space opera) but I don't think I'd be likely to add
>>him to my list of favorite authors.
>>
> How charitable. (not)
Amy, I *really* recommend the Merchant Princes novels, at least the
first three or four. Start with _The Family Trade_.
-K
Vince M Hudd
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:57:59 +0100, Vince M Hudd <sp...@softrock.co.uk>
> wrote: <snip>
> > Someone then commented on another author who's books are considerably
> > bigger, and who doesn't have to split them this way.
>
> Doesn't take away from your point, but playing pedant (it appears that Amy
> "missed" this one...<G>) - it's "whose", not "who's"
Quite right. I was, er, deliberately testing Amy. She clearly failed. :p
Jo'Asia
> It seems unlikely. A poster put up a number of B5 quotes (post 315) and
> Charlie's reaction was: "Loganprometheus: you see the human condition in those
> quotes -- I don't; I see cheap rhetorical tricks and push-button emotional
> manipulation of a rather crude variety."
And added that he sees the quotes out of context, while the quotes
remembers the context, which probably changes the reception.
Jo'Asia
--
__.-=-. -< Joanna Slupek >----------------------< http://esensja.pl/ >-
--<()> -< joasia @ hell . pl >------< http://bujold.fantastyka.net/ >-
.__.'| -< My name is Olo. Hans Olo. {Stargate SG-1, Daniel Jackson} >-
Jan
>
>Jan wrote:
>
>> It seems unlikely. A poster put up a number of B5 quotes (post 315) and
>>Charlie's reaction was: "Loganprometheus: you see the human condition in those
>> quotes -- I don't; I see cheap rhetorical tricks and push-button emotional
>> manipulation of a rather crude variety."
>
>And added that he sees the quotes out of context, while the quotes
>remembers the context, which probably changes the reception.
>
>Jo'Asia
>
The part you mention was a post prior to the one I quoted.
Jan
Amy Guskin
(in article <m28wf9i...@kathrynhuxtable.org>):
Thanks for the recommendation, but it wasn't me who said that: it was Jan.
Kathryn Huxtable
>>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:44:19 -0400, Kathryn Huxtable wrote
> (in article <m28wf9i...@kathrynhuxtable.org>):
>
>> Wes Struebing <str...@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 17 Oct 2009 13:25:49 -0700, Jan <janmsc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <0001HW.C6FF9B04...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> Amy
>>>> Guskin says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if all the hubub over this will make him reconsider and give the
>>>>> show a look...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems unlikely. A poster put up a number of B5 quotes (post 315) and
>>>> Charlie's reaction was: "Loganprometheus: you see the human condition in
>>>> those
>>>> quotes -- I don't; I see cheap rhetorical tricks and push-button emotional
>>>> manipulation of a rather crude variety."
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it's unfair of me to judge without reading any of his books (at
>>>> least one
>>>> of which I'm told is decent space opera) but I don't think I'd be likely
>>>> to add
>>>> him to my list of favorite authors.
>>>>
>>> How charitable. (not)
>>
>> Amy, I *really* recommend the Merchant Princes novels, at least the
>> first three or four. Start with _The Family Trade_. <<
>
> Thanks for the recommendation, but it wasn't me who said that: it was Jan.
Oops! I misread the quote levels.
-K