What Awards *Are* Meaningful?
Rich Clark
to give it to, and there's widespread sentiment that the award isn't a
useful indicator of qualiity any more, if it ever was.
What awards -- in the arts, in science, in journalism, in <name of pursuit
here> -- *are* useful in that way?
Are Nobel Prizes always given for work that's truly significant? Should fans
of journalism make it a point to seek out and read Pulitzer-winning stories?
Can parents confidently choose Caldecott Medal-winning books for their kids
sight unseen?
And if there *are* awards processes that consistently yield results that
serve their constituencies well, can their models be used in the sf field to
create an award that might mean something?
Or does such an award exist, but nobody cares?
RichC
Eden R
Like everything there is no infallible award.
The Nobel prize for literature I believe makes the politics now being
discussed
for the Hugo like child's play :)
I have found the early Nebulas and the Booker prize the most consistent. The
Pulitzer I find not too bad
and have found authors who otherwise wouldn't get on my extensive 'to read'
list.
But having said that there are winners such as "Amsterdam" for the Booker
which I found utter crap
Cheers
Eden
"Rich Clark" <rdclar...@TRAPcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:52ydnWL8yfk...@comcast.com...
Sea Wasp
> OK, so the Best Novel Hugo went to the author that a few hundred fans wanted
> to give it to, and there's widespread sentiment that the award isn't a
> useful indicator of qualiity any more, if it ever was.
>
> What awards -- in the arts, in science, in journalism, in <name of pursuit
> here> -- *are* useful in that way?
>
> Are Nobel Prizes always given for work that's truly significant?
In general, one would say so. There are debates on occasion, but
certainly in the sciences I haven't seen a Nobel handed out for work
that wasn't very respectable indeed.
And more importantly, the Nobels come with quite substantial cash
value, which makes them more important as awards. The Hugos would
probably be deliberated on more weightily, and the authors take them
far more seriously, if $200,000 was forthcoming to the winner.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
r.r...@thevine.net
First, I think you have to break your question into two distinct sets.
Awards for art are dependant on people's opinions, and there can be a
much variance in that. So, imo, whether art awards are meaningful
really depends on how close you are to mainstream opinions. I'm not
that close, and thus find them meaningless. Those people who
religiously watched Seinfeld may find them more meaningful, if the
award is given by other people who also religously watch Seinfeld.
Awards for science are usually less controversial, especially since
there tends to be awards for the different sciences. That eliminates
the debates about whether cold fusion is more important than the cure
for cancer. On the other hand, most of us don't really care about
scientific awards. They're awards given to people in a field by other
people in that field, and don't have much of a ripple affect. For
example, I have no idea who won the last Nobel Prize in the sciences,
much less who did for the last 10 years.
Oh, and I always liked the Caldecott books and the Newberrys when I
was growing up, but I don't know what the recent ones are like. So
I'd say that parents can trust those awards.
Rebecca
Matthew Moffett
general, I check out books that win the PKD award because they often
seem to choose books that are a little offbeat from the standard
SF/Fantasy. For my taste it works well, but even still it's rare that I
would point to one as the best paperback to come out that year.
Someone else mentioned the Booker prize, which is similar. I just
finished Life of Pi, and despite the variance of subject matter it
struck me how similar it was in tone and writing style to other winners
over the past few years. I guess the trick is to find those awards that
pick things you like.
No matter who the judges are (critics, authors, fans, whatever) an award
is basically a popularity contest; as such they might miss books that
are not as well received initially but end up becoming much more
influential than something that won an award. Granity's Rainbow comes to
mind, which won the National Book Award in 1973 (I think) but then had
it rescinded because several of the judges put up a fuss about it.
OWK
> Oh, and I always liked the Caldecott books and the Newberrys when I
> was growing up, but I don't know what the recent ones are like. So
> I'd say that parents can trust those awards.
>
> Rebecca
My brother and I use the Newberry as a filter for selecting books for
my niece, (age 7). She has her own preferences for reading material
as well, but has also appreciated the books that her father has been
reading to her. Which include Harry Potter, LOTR, Rifles for Watie,
Johnny Tremain, and "Mrs. Fisbee and the Rats of NIMH".
I'm quite pleased that the bookworm meme runs in the family...
- Kurt
Rich Clark
> Oh, and I always liked the Caldecott books and the Newberrys when I
> was growing up, but I don't know what the recent ones are like. So
> I'd say that parents can trust those awards.
So why isn't there an sf award selected by a panel of judges? If there were,
would anybody care?
RichC
James Nicoll
Rich Clark <rdcla...@TRAPacnatsci.org> wrote:
>
><r.r...@thevine.net> wrote in message
>news:3f5919bb...@news.thevine.net...
>
>> Oh, and I always liked the Caldecott books and the Newberrys when I
>> was growing up, but I don't know what the recent ones are like. So
>> I'd say that parents can trust those awards.
>
>So why isn't there an sf award selected by a panel of judges?
The quick answer is 'There are'. Two that come to mind are the
John W. Campbell Memorial Award (Not to be confused with the JWC Award
for Best New Writer) and the Prometheus Award (For best Libertatian
novel (1)).
> If there were,
>would anybody care?
People care about baseball, the sport that was intended to be
watched on a VCR in fast forward mode (2).
The Campbell nominess make an interesting reading list, at any rate,
and one gets to wonder about the committee's thought processes from time to
time. Like, why _Genesis_ over _Ash_ exactly and if you are going to say
nothing from a given year is worthy of an award, is it not impolitic to then
issue second and third place prizes?
1: Written by L. Neil Smith. I joke, of course.
2: Playing baseball is interesting, mind you. First time I heard a major
leg bone break (someone else's) was in high school baseball.
--
It's amazing how the waterdrops form: a ball of water with an air bubble
inside it and inside of that one more bubble of water. It looks so beautiful
[...]. I realized something: the world is interesting for the man who can
be surprised. -Valentin Lebedev-
Captain Button
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
[ text fouled out ]
> People care about baseball, the sport that was intended to be
>watched on a VCR in fast forward mode (2).
[ text balked ]
>2: Playing baseball is interesting, mind you. First time I heard a major
>leg bone break (someone else's) was in high school baseball.
So was Abner Doubleday a time traveler or just a Cliologist?
ObSF: I can think of plenty of other sports-related SF, but nothing about
baseball is coming to mind.
--
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in
tolerance and free speech," - David Brin
Captain Button - but...@io.com
James Nicoll
Captain Button <but...@io.com> wrote:
>In article <bjag4u$ppt$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
>[ text fouled out ]
>
>> People care about baseball, the sport that was intended to be
>>watched on a VCR in fast forward mode (2).
>
>[ text balked ]
>
>>2: Playing baseball is interesting, mind you. First time I heard a major
>>leg bone break (someone else's) was in high school baseball.
>
>So was Abner Doubleday a time traveler or just a Cliologist?
>
edits his essays to remove the incorrect predictions?
>ObSF: I can think of plenty of other sports-related SF, but nothing about
>baseball is coming to mind.
_Brittle Innings_. _Iowa Baseball Confederacy_. _That One With AToms
In the Title That Was So Bad_. On and on, rather like a baseball game.
Andrea Leistra
>ObSF: I can think of plenty of other sports-related SF, but nothing about
>baseball is coming to mind.
_Brittle Innings_. _The Iowa Baseball Confederacy_. _Shoeless Joe_. A
few of the stories in _The Thrill of the Grass_. "Arthur Sternbach Brings
the Curveball to Mars". _Summerland_ (which I recommend very highly).
But then, I like baseball and have zero interest in other sports, so I
--
Andrea Leistra
Mike Schilling
"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bjapnf$4nr$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> In article <BB7E6106...@ip68-99-149-74.dc.dc.cox.net>,
> Captain Button <but...@io.com> wrote:
> >In article <bjag4u$ppt$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> >jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> >
> >[ text fouled out ]
> >
> >> People care about baseball, the sport that was intended to be
> >>watched on a VCR in fast forward mode (2).
> >
> >[ text balked ]
> >
> >>2: Playing baseball is interesting, mind you. First time I heard a
major
> >>leg bone break (someone else's) was in high school baseball.
> >
> >So was Abner Doubleday a time traveler or just a Cliologist?
> >
> Cliologist? Is that Flynn's word for a futurologist who
> edits his essays to remove the incorrect predictions?
>
> >ObSF: I can think of plenty of other sports-related SF, but nothing
about
> >baseball is coming to mind.
>
> _Brittle Innings_. _Iowa Baseball Confederacy_. _That One With AToms
> In the Title That Was So Bad_. On and on, rather like a baseball game.
>
_Shoeless Joe_ (better known as _Field of Dreams_)
Michael Stemper
>Rich Clark wrote:
>> OK, so the Best Novel Hugo went to the author that a few hundred fans wanted
>> to give it to, and there's widespread sentiment that the award isn't a
>> useful indicator of qualiity any more, if it ever was.
>>
>> What awards -- in the arts, in science, in journalism, in <name of pursuit
>> here> -- *are* useful in that way?
>>
>> Are Nobel Prizes always given for work that's truly significant?
>
> In general, one would say so. There are debates on occasion, but
>certainly in the sciences I haven't seen a Nobel handed out for work
>that wasn't very respectable indeed.
However, as I understand it, there are still bizarre politics going on
and distorting things even in the sciences. For instance, they weren't
able to give Einstein an award for relativity [1]. But, everybody felt
that he really deserved an award. So they gave him one for his work on
the photoelectric effect instead. Although the photoelectric effect is
certainly important, it's not in the same conceptual league as relativity.
I believe that the same thing has been done for Hugos and/or Nebulas.
[1] I don't know the reason. Maybe it had already been published in the UK.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
"Writing about jazz is like dancing about architecture" - Thelonious Monk
Richard Horton
>Oh, and I always liked the Caldecott books and the Newberrys when I
>was growing up, but I don't know what the recent ones are like. So
>I'd say that parents can trust those awards.
They went through a nasty phase where they tended to be given to the
most depressing, "serious", supposedly enlightening books. But recent
awards, such as the Newbery (note spelling -- sorry, it's a pet not
exactly peeve of mine) for Louis Sachar's _Holes_ seem to have been
much better.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Andrew Wheeler
>
> In article <pc36b.565$Zr2....@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
> Rich Clark <rdcla...@TRAPacnatsci.org> wrote:
> >
> ><r.r...@thevine.net> wrote in message
> >news:3f5919bb...@news.thevine.net...
> >
> >> Oh, and I always liked the Caldecott books and the Newberrys when I
> >> was growing up, but I don't know what the recent ones are like. So
> >> I'd say that parents can trust those awards.
> >
> >So why isn't there an sf award selected by a panel of judges?
>
> The quick answer is 'There are'. Two that come to mind are the
> John W. Campbell Memorial Award (Not to be confused with the JWC Award
> for Best New Writer) and the Prometheus Award (For best Libertatian
> novel (1)).
And for this group's usual definition of "sf," there's also the World
Fantasy Award, though that one's a bit more complicated. (As I recall,
the membership of the convention votes for the shortlist, and the judges
then choose the winner -- but they can also add one book themselves, so
I'm not entirely sure why that book doesn't win every single year.)
If you consider "published authors" to be equivalent to "judges,"
there's the Nebulas. (But anyone who thinks the Hugos are subject to
logrolling is well advised to stay away.)
The Sidewise Award (for best Alternate History, in long and short forms)
is also given by a jury. As is the Philip K. Dick Award (for best
SF/Fantasy book originally published in paperback).
--
Andrew Wheeler
--
Success taps softly on the back door in the middle of the
night..._never_ rings the bell...disaster comes through the living room
picture window with headlights on and SIRENS blaring!
Andrea Leistra
Michael Stemper <mste...@siemens-emis.com> wrote:
>However, as I understand it, there are still bizarre politics going on
>and distorting things even in the sciences. For instance, they weren't
>able to give Einstein an award for relativity [1]. But, everybody felt
>that he really deserved an award. So they gave him one for his work on
>the photoelectric effect instead. Although the photoelectric effect is
>certainly important, it's not in the same conceptual league as relativity.
(For "relativity", read "general relativity". The distinction is
important.)
Einstein's Nobel was formally for the photoelectric effect because
general relativity wasn't considered to be confirmed well enough --
the Nobel commitee, at least for physics, doesn't like giving prizes
for purely theoretical work. (By the time Einstein got his Nobel,
the light-bending portion of GR _had_ been experimentally tested during
a solar eclipse; apparently this was not considered sufficient.)
--
Andrea Leistra
Richard Horton
>
> The quick answer is 'There are'. Two that come to mind are the
>John W. Campbell Memorial Award (Not to be confused with the JWC Award
>for Best New Writer) and the Prometheus Award (For best Libertatian
>novel (1)).
Also the Philip K. Dick for Best SF/F Novel Published first in
Paperback, and the Theodore Sturgeon Award for Best Short Fiction.
(The last is selected by a jury from a long list generated by asking a
lot of people, myself included, for their "Best 5" of the year.)
Richard Horton
>2: Playing baseball is interesting, mind you. First time I heard a major
>leg bone break (someone else's) was in high school baseball.
I saw my brother break his ankle sliding into third base, but I didn't
hear it.
First hearing of a major bone break was a goalie in a soccer game I
was playing. He slid out to try to kick the ball away from the
forward on my team, and he put his leg right in the way of our guy's
foot. The leg lost.
Our guy looked down at the goalie writhing in pain, gave a little
shrug as if to say "What can I do?", and calmly kicked the ball into
the empty net.
(I might add that I tore up my knee pretty bad also playing soccer --
so I don't have much difficulty backing soccer as a dangerous sport.)
Thomas Womack
Rich Clark <rdcla...@TRAPacnatsci.org> wrote:
>So why isn't there an sf award selected by a panel of judges? If there were,
>would anybody care?
There's the Clarke award in England, which manages a medium level of
prestigiousness (the results make the newspaper; it takes over the
Science Museum for the award ceremony), and whose shortlist is usually
made up of really very good books. There's always dispute about the
winner - I think there's a slight perceived bias towards "difficult"
books - but it's usually worth reading the shortlist.
This year's was
M John Harrison "Light"
Elizabeth Moon "Speed of Dark"
David Brin "Kiln People"
China Mieville "The Scar"
Christopher Priest "The Separation"
Kim Stanley Robinson "Years of Rice and Salt"
which you notice overlaps strongly with the Hugo nominees.
Tom
Richard Horton
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>James Nicoll wrote
>>
>> _Brittle Innings_. _Iowa Baseball Confederacy_. _That One With AToms
>> In the Title That Was So Bad_. On and on, rather like a baseball game.
>>
_The New Atom's Bombshell_? by Karlins or something?
>
>_Shoeless Joe_ (better known as _Field of Dreams_)
>
Better known as the SOURCE of _Field of Dreams_.
Add Scott Westerfeld's story from Sci Fiction earlier this year,
"Unsportsmanlike Conduct", as well as Esther Friesner's "Jesus at the
Bat", and a couple of Turtledove stories, "Designated Hitter" and
"Batboy". And there was that issue of Asimov's that had two stories
about Fidel Castro playing baseball, "The Franchise" by John Kessel
and "Southpaw" by Bruce McAllister.
Plus, SF writer Rick Wilber is the son of major leaguer Del Wilber
(who played in St. Louis), and Rick often writes about baseball. (For
example, he has a story collection called _Where Joe Garagiola Waits
and Other Baseball Stories_.)
Mike Schilling
"Richard Horton" <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:8ib6b.5160$uO7....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 21:42:47 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >James Nicoll wrote
> >>
> >> _Brittle Innings_. _Iowa Baseball Confederacy_. _That One With AToms
> >> In the Title That Was So Bad_. On and on, rather like a baseball game.
> >>
>
> _The New Atom's Bombshell_? by Karlins or something?
> >
> >_Shoeless Joe_ (better known as _Field of Dreams_)
> >
>
> Better known as the SOURCE of _Field of Dreams_.
I thought I'd seen the book published under that title as well.
And let's not forget _Freddy and the Baseball Team from Mars_.
Karl Johanson
news:52ydnWL8yfk...@comcast.com...
wanted
> to give it to, and there's widespread sentiment that the award isn't a
> useful indicator of qualiity any more, if it ever was.
Popularity is a factor in many awards. With the Hugos, one strategy is to be
a real butt head; then if anyone votes for your works, you know it wasn't
simply that they liked you.
The only stories I've read because they had 'Hugo' awards were some "The
Hugo Winners" short story collections.
> What awards -- in the arts, in science, in journalism, in <name of pursuit
> here> -- *are* useful in that way?
>
> Are Nobel Prizes always given for work that's truly significant?
Some would say that the Nobel prizes got a good hit in the credibility
department when Kissenger got the peace prize. I wouldn't turn one down for
my discovery of the number 37 though...
>Should fans
> of journalism make it a point to seek out and read Pulitzer-winning
stories?
> Can parents confidently choose Caldecott Medal-winning books for their
kids
> sight unseen?
>
> And if there *are* awards processes that consistently yield results that
> serve their constituencies well, can their models be used in the sf field
to
> create an award that might mean something?
>
> Or does such an award exist, but nobody cares?
I've found the Aurora Awards interesting, mostly because the potential
nominies list is a great resource for seeing who's publishing what in
Canada.
Karl Johanson
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<acwh...@optonline.com> wrote:
>And for this group's usual definition of "sf," there's also the World
>Fantasy Award, though that one's a bit more complicated. (As I recall,
>the membership of the convention votes for the shortlist, and the judges
>then choose the winner -- but they can also add one book themselves, so
>I'm not entirely sure why that book doesn't win every single year.)
No, that's not quite right. The members of the convention vote, and
the top two vote-getters in each category go on the ballot.
The judges then add _three_ more in each category -- or this year we
cheated a little when we couldn't agree on three in a couple of
categories, and made it four.
Then the judges vote and choose the winners.
That's the official mechanism; the actual process can get pretty
byzantine, as the judges are often told what candidates _almost_ made
the ballot in the membership voting, which can affect choices. And
no, the judges do not all read everything, unfortunately -- there's
just too much -- so sometimes one judge will point out something
interesting to the others, and so on. The final voting is
traditionally done on a points system, but the judges are free to
change that if they want.
Sometimes something the membership voted in will win because it's what
the judges would have picked anyway.
(I'm a judge this year, in case that wasn't obvious.)
Eric Walker
[...]
>ObSF: I can think of plenty of other sports-related SF, but
>nothing about baseball is coming to mind.
The field is small, but remarkably diverse, including one of
the very best and one of the very worst speculative-fiction
tales ever written: _The New Chicago AToms_ (calling it a
brain-dead disaster would be a compliment), and Robert Coover's
astounding achievement _The Universal Baseball Association,
Inc.: J. Henry Waugh, Prop._ (successful as a mainstream book,
but lying within our fields).
Coover's book is, like any good book (but especially any good
book on baseball), about what the lamented Douglas Adams
charmingly denominated "Life, the Universe, and Everything".
You do _not_ need to know, much less love, baseball to get the
juice from this book.
_Very_ highly recommended.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, webmaster
Great Science-Fiction & Fantasy Works
http://greatsfandf.com
Thomas Lindgren
but...@io.com (Captain Button) writes:
> ObSF: I can think of plenty of other sports-related SF, but nothing about
> baseball is coming to mind.
How about BRITTLE INNINGS by Michael Bishop? Haven't read it, though I
do have it, so unsure which side of the fence it falls on.
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren
"It's becoming popular? It must be in decline." -- Isaiah Berlin
Nancy Lebovitz
Didn't Vance's _Rumfuddle_ have some baseball?
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Now, with bumper stickers
Using your turn signal is not "giving information to the enemy"
Robert Sneddon
<alei...@ptah.u.arizona.edu> writes
>
>Einstein's Nobel was formally for the photoelectric effect because
>general relativity wasn't considered to be confirmed well enough --
>the Nobel commitee, at least for physics, doesn't like giving prizes
>for purely theoretical work. (By the time Einstein got his Nobel,
>the light-bending portion of GR _had_ been experimentally tested during
>a solar eclipse; apparently this was not considered sufficient.)
>
At the end of the 19th century, there were only a flew small blots on
the scientist's worldview of physics. Everything else could be explained
by Newtonian inelastic billiard balls and an ether-like substrate.
One of the blots was the anomolous problem of the photoelectric effect.
Pump lots of light onto a selenium surface and electrons boil off. Pump
more light, more electrons. Limit the frequency to the longer
wavelengths (red and infra-red) but keep the energy levels the same and
fewer electrons boil off. Drop the frequency enough and almost no
electrons boil off no matter how hard you illuminate the surface. The
billiard-ball model couldn't explain this. Einstein did, and the quantum
theory of particles and energy came about.
His Nobel was not a substitute for relativity; perhaps he should have
got another once the observational data was considered sufficient for
relativity to be widely accepted. The gentlemen of the Swedish Academy
seem reluctant to give out a second award to an otherwise worthy winner.
--
Email me via nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.
Robert Sneddon
Nancy Lebovitz
Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix1.netaxs.com> wrote:
>In article <bjav46$421$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu>,
>Andrea Leistra <alei...@ptah.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>In article <BB7E6106...@ip68-99-149-74.dc.dc.cox.net>,
>>Captain Button <but...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>>>ObSF: I can think of plenty of other sports-related SF, but nothing about
>>>baseball is coming to mind.
>>
>>_Brittle Innings_. _The Iowa Baseball Confederacy_. _Shoeless Joe_. A
>>few of the stories in _The Thrill of the Grass_. "Arthur Sternbach Brings
>>the Curveball to Mars". _Summerland_ (which I recommend very highly).
>>
>>But then, I like baseball and have zero interest in other sports, so I
>
>Didn't Vance's _Rumfuddle_ have some baseball?
That should have been "Rumfuddle"--it's a novella or somesuch, not a novel.
James Nicoll
Thomas Lindgren <***********@*****.***> wrote:
>
>but...@io.com (Captain Button) writes:
>
>> ObSF: I can think of plenty of other sports-related SF, but nothing about
>> baseball is coming to mind.
>
>How about BRITTLE INNINGS by Michael Bishop? Haven't read it, though I
>do have it, so unsure which side of the fence it falls on.
>
huge spoiler.
John Pelan
<***********@*****.***> wrote:
>
>but...@io.com (Captain Button) writes:
>
>> ObSF: I can think of plenty of other sports-related SF, but nothing about
>> baseball is coming to mind.
>
>How about BRITTLE INNINGS by Michael Bishop? Haven't read it, though I
>do have it, so unsure which side of the fence it falls on.
>
>Best,
> Thomas
It's definitely SF as it's a sequel (of sorts) to one of the first
great SF novels... (One by Mary Shelley). ;-)
It is one of the finest novels Michael has written, which should place
it very near the top of "books you must get right now".
Cheers,
John
The Best in Classic SF & Fantasy
www.darksidepress.com
Craig Richardson
<rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>On 5 Sep 2003 13:11:58 -0400, jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
>>2: Playing baseball is interesting, mind you. First time I heard a major
>>leg bone break (someone else's) was in high school baseball.
>
>I saw my brother break his ankle sliding into third base, but I didn't
>hear it.
>
>First hearing of a major bone break was a goalie in a soccer game I
>was playing. He slid out to try to kick the ball away from the
>forward on my team, and he put his leg right in the way of our guy's
>foot. The leg lost.
>
>Our guy looked down at the goalie writhing in pain, gave a little
>shrug as if to say "What can I do?", and calmly kicked the ball into
>the empty net.
>
>(I might add that I tore up my knee pretty bad also playing soccer --
>so I don't have much difficulty backing soccer as a dangerous sport.)
Here's one I wouldn't be surprised if a Nicoll relative was involved
in: back in the days when the woodwork was, universally, wood, a
goalie leaping for a ball caught his wedding ring on a nail protruding
from the crossbar.
I've played the better part of a thousand games and only seen one
broken leg[1]. I broke a finger playing goalie, but every goalie who
plays any amount of time breaks fingers, so that's not exactly
remarkable.
--Craig
[1] The next day, I switched to the new-style "shell" shinguards.
Considering some of the bruises I've gotten even through them, I
suspect they've saved me at least one break.
--
I start to wish Bob Melvin would walk out to the mound, ask Freddy if he
was injured, and then kick him in the balls so he can call in an
emergency replacement from the bullpen --Derek Zumsteg in BP, 5/13/2003
Craig Richardson
(Andrea Leistra) wrote:
>In article <BB7E6106...@ip68-99-149-74.dc.dc.cox.net>,
>Captain Button <but...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>ObSF: I can think of plenty of other sports-related SF, but nothing about
>>baseball is coming to mind.
>
>_Brittle Innings_. _The Iowa Baseball Confederacy_. _Shoeless Joe_. A
>few of the stories in _The Thrill of the Grass_. "Arthur Sternbach Brings
>the Curveball to Mars". _Summerland_ (which I recommend very highly).
_If I Never Get Back_, "Angels In The Outfield", "Damn Yankees", and
one of the Hoka stories. Arguably _The Curious Case of Sidd Finch_.
One of my favorite Cthulhu 1920's characters was the guy Columbia U.
dropped from their team when they recruited Lou Gehrig, and he had a
complex about the man, who everybody else in the country saw as a
hero. A bat is a fine hand-to-hand weapon against minions, but it
doesn't work so well against major deities.
--Craig
Ian Montgomerie
> Rich Clark wrote:
> > Are Nobel Prizes always given for work that's truly significant?
>
> In general, one would say so. There are debates on occasion, but
> certainly in the sciences I haven't seen a Nobel handed out for work
> that wasn't very respectable indeed.
Unfortunately, the Nobels are far more reliable than literary awards
because of science being much different from literature. Scientific
theories are reproduced and verified by others - great work is not
hard to identify because it introduces some new idea which both holds
up under testing, and is used/referenced by many other scientists in
doing further work.
There is no analog for "great literature" - it comes down far more to
matters of subjective opinion, the influence of the chosen target
audience, etc. In particular, an award for fiction is really never
more than a reflection of the tastes of some subset of the population.
Captain Button
Just to be pedantic, the Nobel Prizes aren't just for science.
They also give them out for Peace and Literature.
There's also an economics one, but it looks like it isn't quite a "Nobel
Prize" strictly speaking. Plus the question of if you are counting that as
a science or not. [cue the standard flamewars!]
James Nicoll
for specific: There is a prize for best female writer in mid-
career, the Marion Engle Award. No, I don't know how they determine
how long the writer will stay in the business. I think, although
the description does not specify, that the writer must be Canadian.
There is one for the men, too.
Bill Woods
> "Rich Clark" <rdclar...@TRAPcomcast.net> wrote in message
[snip]
> > What awards -- in the arts, in science, in journalism, in <name of
> > pursuit here> -- *are* useful in that way?
> >
> > Are Nobel Prizes always given for work that's truly significant?
>
> Some would say that the Nobel prizes got a good hit in the credibility
> department when Kissenger got the peace prize. I wouldn't turn one down
> for my discovery of the number 37 though...
Awarding the Peace Prize to Menchu and Arafat didn't help either.
--
Bill Woods
"... SoBig doesn't really exploit a specific fault in Windows.
It spreads by exploiting a certain void in understanding found
between the keyboard and chair."
-- http://www.pycs.net/bbum/
Nick Ryan
"The Marian Engle Award is presented each year in memory of the Canadian
writer Marian Engle. The award goes each year to a female Canadian
novelist who is in the middle of her career. It is awarded for the
entire body of the recipient's work."
James Nicoll wrote:
> I don't about meaningful but I think I've found a winner
> for specific: There is a prize for best female writer in mid-
> career, the Marion Engle Award. No, I don't know how they determine
> how long the writer will stay in the business. I think, although
> the description does not specify, that the writer must be Canadian.
>
> There is one for the men, too.
--
Nick Ryan (MVP for DDK)
Dave Goldman
<nr...@nryan.com> wrote:
> You're not joking, are you... from Wikipedia:
>
> "The Marian Engle Award is presented each year in memory of the Canadian
> writer Marian Engle. The award goes each year to a female Canadian
> novelist who is in the middle of her career. It is awarded for the
> entire body of the recipient's work."
So not only do the judges have to determine when the novelist is halfway
through her career (as James pointed out) -- they also have to consider
the "entire body" of her work?
Must be challenging to find qualified judges. Or is it the contest
organizers who provide the time machine?
- Dave Goldman
Portland, OR
Bill Westfield
that they go to undeserving recipients, but that there are lots of DESERVING
recipients that don't get them.
Fer instance, consider the cliche' about no one remembering the SECOND
person to do something difficult. Well, why not?
BillW
Captain Button
da...@remove-this-bit-ResearchSoftwareDesign.com (Dave Goldman) wrote:
>In article <vlo3jfq...@corp.supernews.com>, Nick Ryan
><nr...@nryan.com> wrote:
>
>> You're not joking, are you... from Wikipedia:
>>
>> "The Marian Engle Award is presented each year in memory of the Canadian
>> writer Marian Engle. The award goes each year to a female Canadian
>> novelist who is in the middle of her career. It is awarded for the
>> entire body of the recipient's work."
>
>So not only do the judges have to determine when the novelist is halfway
>through her career (as James pointed out) -- they also have to consider
>the "entire body" of her work?
Do they have to be halfway, or just in the middle third?
>Must be challenging to find qualified judges. Or is it the contest
>organizers who provide the time machine?
They could just demand that you return it if you stop publishing too soon
or keep publishing too long...
Michael Stemper
Wasn't it later determined that the experimental error in those
observations (by Eddington, IIRC) was larger than the predicted
light-bending that they were supposed to be measuring?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
COFFEE.SYS not found. Abort, Retry, Fail?
James Nicoll
is that most of them come with money. Generally not quite enough to live
on above a starving student level, but I bet it goes a long way to making
it possible to live as a writer.
Randy Money
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 15:49:26 -0400, Captain Button wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>>ObSF: I can think of plenty of other sports-related SF, but
>>nothing about baseball is coming to mind.
>
>
> The field is small, but remarkably diverse, including one of
> the very best and one of the very worst speculative-fiction
> tales ever written: _The New Chicago AToms_ (calling it a
> brain-dead disaster would be a compliment), and Robert Coover's
> astounding achievement _The Universal Baseball Association,
> Inc.: J. Henry Waugh, Prop._ (successful as a mainstream book,
> but lying within our fields).
>
> Coover's book is, like any good book (but especially any good
> book on baseball), about what the lamented Douglas Adams
> charmingly denominated "Life, the Universe, and Everything".
> You do _not_ need to know, much less love, baseball to get the
> juice from this book.
>
> _Very_ highly recommended.
>
Sitting in my TBR for going on 20 years, dang it.
Okay. Pull it out, push it nearer the top, next to _The Natural_,
_Brittle Innings_, _The Iowa Baseball Confederacy_ (?) and _The
Unnatural_, which isn't baseball but may play off the Malamud novel
enough that reading Malamud will make for greater enjoyment.
Randy M.
Joe Bernstein
> person to do something difficult. Well, why not?
I have a prejudice that until something's been done twice, it hasn't
really been done at all, so I tend to think that Real Historians
have the same prejudice, but in fact they vary widely. Many are
just as bewitched by Firsts as everyone else is.
Anyway, though, there are important senses in which, for example,
Tolkien didn't create the fantasy blockbuster; Brooks and Donaldson
(or probably more accurately, Del Rey) did.
For just one, on-topic, example.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://these-survive.postilion.org/> At this address,
personal e-mail is welcome, though unsolicited bulk e-mail is unwelcome.
David Tate
>
> I have a prejudice that until something's been done twice, it hasn't
> really been done at all,
So, nobody ever really invented paper?
David Tate
Joseph Eros
> > to give it to, and there's widespread sentiment that the award isn't a
> > useful indicator of qualiity any more, if it ever was.
> >
> > here> -- *are* useful in that way?
> >
> > Are Nobel Prizes always given for work that's truly significant?
>
> certainly in the sciences I haven't seen a Nobel handed out for work
> that wasn't very respectable indeed.
There's Johannes Fibiger's 1926 Nobel in physiology and medicine--it
was based on work that turned out to be mistaken. Fibiger became
convinced that the larvae of a parasitic worm (which he named
Gognylonema neoplasticum) were the major cause of a particular type of
cancer.
However, later workers were unable to replicate Fibiger's results, and
it is now believed that a confounding factor of dietary deficiency in
the experimental group (specifically vitamin A deficiency) was a more
likely cause of the higher tumor rate.
There is no evidence that Fibiger was dishonest, though.
---
Joseph Eros
"Scientists want to know the dirt on Eros" --Boston Globe
Eric Walker
remark that at some point in the canon, Solar Pons remarks at
length to Dr. Parker about the follies of the Nobel in
literature, and cites several particular examples.
I could not quickly find the relevant passage, but a look over
the list--
http://www.nobel.se/literature/laureates/
--suggests a certain lack of depth in at least some of the
judgments (at least as compared to posterity's opinion to
date).
Steve Coltrin
> There are debates on occasion, but certainly in the sciences I
> haven't seen a Nobel handed out for work that wasn't very
> respectable indeed.
Egas Moniz comes to, uh, mind.
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org WWVBF?
"Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product."
- Ferenc Mantfeld
Samuel Lubell
via passenger pigeon:
>You're not joking, are you... from Wikipedia:
>
>"The Marian Engle Award is presented each year in memory of the Canadian
>writer Marian Engle. The award goes each year to a female Canadian
>novelist who is in the middle of her career. It is awarded for the
>entire body of the recipient's work."
>
If the winner never writes another word, at what point does she have
to give it back?
Samuel Lubell
<j...@sfbooks.com> sent via passenger pigeon:
>Anyway, though, there are important senses in which, for example,
>Tolkien didn't create the fantasy blockbuster; Brooks and Donaldson
>(or probably more accurately, Del Rey) did.
Tolkien showed that a genius could devote a lifetime's worth of work
to create a fantasy world and it will sell.
Brooks showed that any old hack writer could copy the surface elements
of Tolkien's work and it will sell.
Naturally, from the point of view of creating a genre, the latter is
more important.
Sea Wasp
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 18:06:47 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
> <j...@sfbooks.com> sent via passenger pigeon:
>
>
>>Anyway, though, there are important senses in which, for example,
>>Tolkien didn't create the fantasy blockbuster; Brooks and Donaldson
>>(or probably more accurately, Del Rey) did.
>
>
> Tolkien showed that a genius could devote a lifetime's worth of work
> to create a fantasy world and it will sell.
>
> Brooks showed that any old hack writer could copy the surface elements
> of Tolkien's work and it will sell.
Brooks is considerably better than "any old hack writer". And he
did more than just "copy surface elements"
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
bgaudet0801
What awards are meaningful?
Considering all types of activities from all feilds of human endeavour?
With the exception of the Darwin Awards, _none_ are meaningful.
Awards are an excuse for self-important people - be they writers, actors,
small businessmen, ditchdiggers or even the International Association of
Crack-Whores, to get together and say to each other; 'My, ain't we just
wonderful?!?!?'
--
'Sell your sin
Just cash in' -Jewell
David T. Bilek
True. He copied some of the sub-surface elements as well.
Very perceptive, Sea Wasp!
-David
Sea Wasp
And changed a number of major elements in radical ways.
Steve Coltrin
> [Terry Brooks] changed a number of major elements in radical ways.
Those are just toolmarks from where he filed the serial numbers off.
Sea Wasp
> begin Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> writes:
>
>
>> [Terry Brooks] changed a number of major elements in radical ways.
>
>
> Those are just toolmarks from where he filed the serial numbers off.
>
Yes, yes, and if I work hard at it I can see the Illuminati
everywhere too.
Joe Bernstein
David Tate <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
Well, please see the Harry Turtledove sub-thread buried in the
"provincial" mess if you want to see me talking about repeated
inventions Real Soon Now, but basically, fair enough. I don't
know that much about the history of particular inventions, and am
not sure I could come up with one that was incontestably and
meaningfully done only once. (Was Usenet invented only once, for
example? I'm one of the few historians of Usenet, and I sure don't
know - because I haven't come to a conclusion that satisfies *me*
yet on what exactly matters about Usenet, that would allow me to
judge whether other examples were comparable in the ways that counted.)
But you could just as easily come back with "So, nobody ever really
painted the <Mona Lisa>?" And my prejudice would be trivially proven
wrong.
Which is, of course, why it's a prejudice, and not a serious belief.
But I can turn it around. If someone invents paper in Guatemala or
France or Australia or Zimbabwe in 200 B.C., then no, nobody ever
really did invent it in those places or at that time. Because, more
to the point, it wasn't *made* more than once. Or if it was, it
wasn't made by more than one maker, or in enough quantity to affect
more than one village, or ...
My point is that I'm *deeply* suspicious of several staples of
historical talk:
1) Unique events. "This is the only time X ever happened!" Well, OK:
prove it. (Proving uniqueness, for the logic-challenged among us,
is equivalent to proving a negative. Which is why historians
should be more reluctant to make claims about uniqueness. Harumph.)
2) Unique events as evidence for broad statements. Since I study
literary history, this is one I run into a *LOT*. Chaucer as
proof that fourteenth-century England was a wonderfully civilised
and educated and advanced place. Folksongs as proof that some
literature is Really Ancient even though none of it was written
down before 1925. (Yes, both the "have" and the "have-not"
literatures are guilty of this one in roughly equal doses. From
what non-literary history I've read, it's pretty common in other
branches too: civilisations being presented as typified by their
best, the scantiest archaeological remain being presented as proof
that Mystery Area X was actually in contact with, and probably just
as advanced as, Rome or China or wherever.)
3) Unique events as signs of a trend. And this is the crucial point
where I want to have seen it more than once, see?
And the one that really kills me:
4) Unique events as more important than everything else. (If a
historian talks about X unique item because it's the only thing
there's evidence for in the relevant topic area - and that's very
often true - then OK. But they should indicate that this is why
they overrate the item in question, so that those of us who aren't
specialists can *know* that the evidence is really weak. Things
specialists say knowing that they're going out on a limb are
often enough taken up even by other scholars, let alone by those
who write for the rest of us, without any disclaimer...)
Part of what a literary historian has to do is canon formation; I
can't imagine that other branches of history are different (for
example, does the name "Crispus Attucks" matter? and if so, does
the fact that he was black matter? Enough to mention to people at
the undergrad level or below? That's canon formation). But there's
always a risk that a canon will become a data set, that false
generalisations will be constructed out of the selected examples.
Just when I was despairing of *ever* getting an ObSF into this post,
the subject line reasserts itself: Which of the canons of SF defined
by the various awards would you be satisfied with, as a data set?
That is, as What 20th-Century SF Will Forevermore Be Known By? And
will you be happy when this results in someone saying that the first
female SF writer was Anne McCaffrey, because she was (he goes out on
a limb, from a quick scan of what worldcon.org's site tells me) the
first woman to win a writing Hugo?
Justin Bacon
> Which of the canons of SF defined
>by the various awards would you be satisfied with, as a data set?
>That is, as What 20th-Century SF Will Forevermore Be Known By? And
>will you be happy when this results in someone saying that the first
>female SF writer was Anne McCaffrey, because she was (he goes out on
>a limb, from a quick scan of what worldcon.org's site tells me) the
>first woman to win a writing Hugo?
Given that criteria, none of them. The Hugo does represent the earliest extant
SF award, and it only dates back to the mid-'50s. As such, any award will fail
to take in more than 50% of the 20th century. And the Hugo (which I do believe
is the longest-running award) fails to take in roughly 25% of SF since the
first publication AMAZING STORIES. And, worse yet, that 25% is specifically
focused on the formative years of the modern genre.
So that's just a bad idea all the way around.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
David Tate
> In article <9d67e55e.03090...@posting.google.com>,
> David Tate <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
>
> > Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote in message
> > news:<bjigfn$5m8$1...@reader2.panix.com>...
>
> > > I have a prejudice that until something's been done twice, it hasn't
> > > really been done at all,
>
> > So, nobody ever really invented paper?
>
> Well, please see the Harry Turtledove sub-thread buried in the
> "provincial" mess if you want to see me talking about repeated
> inventions Real Soon Now, but basically, fair enough. I don't
> know that much about the history of particular inventions, and am
> not sure I could come up with one that was incontestably and
> meaningfully done only once. (Was Usenet invented only once, for
> example?
I'm not even sure that's the right question, since Usenet is an
instance and not a type. (Is it the only instance? You're the expert
here, but I doubt that it is.)
Paper is the best candidate I know of; not 'incontestably', but at
least 'likely' a point source. We'll probably never know whether
spoken language was invented only once, but if it was, then that's the
most important ever.
> I'm one of the few historians of Usenet, and I sure don't
> know - because I haven't come to a conclusion that satisfies *me*
> yet on what exactly matters about Usenet, that would allow me to
> judge whether other examples were comparable in the ways that counted.)
> But you could just as easily come back with "So, nobody ever really
> painted the <Mona Lisa>?" And my prejudice would be trivially proven
> wrong.
No, I don't think you have to concede that. I don't see that
individual works of art (or of craftsmanship, for that matter) are not
the proper objects of the verb "to invent". It makes no sense for da
Vinci to say "Well, I may not have invented the portrait, but I
invented *this* portrait". 'Invented' is the wrong verb for the
second clause.
As I see it, invention always involves a category, not an instance.
You can invent the idea of a thing that does X, or that does X in a
certain way.
And you're exactly right that almost everything that is invented is
invented multiple times. We say 'independently', but that
independence can be strong (as in the case for language, if language
really did arise in more than one place), or weak (as with the steam
engine and the sewing machine, where the independence relied on a
common industrial base).
> Which is, of course, why it's a prejudice, and not a serious belief.
> But I can turn it around. If someone invents paper in Guatemala or
> France or Australia or Zimbabwe in 200 B.C., then no, nobody ever
> really did invent it in those places or at that time. Because, more
> to the point, it wasn't *made* more than once. Or if it was, it
> wasn't made by more than one maker, or in enough quantity to affect
> more than one village, or ...
I think it's fair to say that if something was produced that we would
today recognize as an instance of the category -- ie. it was intended
to do X, and did X in that certain way -- then that constitutes an
independent invention, whether it ever became historically important
or not. And you're right that we can't really ever know that
something like paper *wasn't* invented independently somewhere, only
to be swallowed in the near-simultaneous arrival of the imported
descendants of the Chinese progenitor, or to fail to catch on locally.
> My point is that I'm *deeply* suspicious of several staples of
> historical talk:
>
> 1) Unique events. "This is the only time X ever happened!" Well, OK:
> prove it. (Proving uniqueness, for the logic-challenged among us,
> is equivalent to proving a negative. Which is why historians
> should be more reluctant to make claims about uniqueness. Harumph.)
A valid harumph. At the least, statments should be couched as "To the
best of our collective knowledge...".
> 2) Unique events as evidence for broad statements. Since I study
> literary history, this is one I run into a *LOT*. Chaucer as
> proof that fourteenth-century England was a wonderfully civilised
> and educated and advanced place.
Yes, this is a major source of goofiness. Interestingly, the opposite
is also a problem -- the Cult of Uniqueness applied to someone like da
Vinci, suppressing all of his connections with contemporary thought
and endeavor in order to heighten the impression of isolated genius.
> 3) Unique events as signs of a trend. And this is the crucial point
> where I want to have seen it more than once, see?
Yes, extrapolation from one data point is even sillier than
extrapolation from two.
> And the one that really kills me:
>
> 4) Unique events as more important than everything else.
Here, I think, we can cut the authors of Alternative History a bit
more slack that we're willing to allow actual historians. AH has to
focus on unique events, and treat them as if they were pivotal,
precisely in order to make their H be A. If our history was going to
happen anyway, due to similar situations brewing just over the next
hill, then what's the point of exploring the consequences of a change
in what did happen? I mean, there's no point in exploring the
consequences of killing Niklaus Otto or Elias Howe, because the
internal combustion engine and the sewing machine would have arrived
anyway, in pretty much the same time, place, and manner. (At the
other extreme, one could make a claim that offing da Vinci in his
youth probably wouldn't have made much of a difference, either,
precisely because he didn't really have much influence on anything.)
[...]
> Just when I was despairing of *ever* getting an ObSF into this post,
> the subject line reasserts itself: Which of the canons of SF defined
> by the various awards would you be satisfied with, as a data set?
> That is, as What 20th-Century SF Will Forevermore Be Known By? And
> will you be happy when this results in someone saying that the first
> female SF writer was Anne McCaffrey, because she was (he goes out on
> a limb, from a quick scan of what worldcon.org's site tells me) the
> first woman to win a writing Hugo?
Do we get to include the retrospective awards? Or shall we restrict
discussion to the last 3 decades or so?
David Tate
Justin Bacon
>I'm not even sure that's the right question, since Usenet is an
>instance and not a type. (Is it the only instance? You're the expert
>here, but I doubt that it is.)
If you define it narrowly enough, yes. If you define it in a more utilitarian
fashion, no. FidoNet and other "slow" message networks using similar or
identical protocols connected BBS systems throughout the '80s and '90s (and
continue to do so today, AFAIK). Web messageboards serve a similar function,
although I could be persuaded that their implementation is different enough not
to count.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
William December Starr
Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> said:
> One of my favorite Cthulhu 1920's characters was the guy Columbia
> U. dropped from their team when they recruited Lou Gehrig, and he
> had a complex about the man, who everybody else in the country saw
> as a hero.
Did he and Wally Pipp ever get together?
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Craig Richardson
Starr) wrote:
>In article <51pklv8kom34r9mgn...@4ax.com>,
>Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> said:
>
>> One of my favorite Cthulhu 1920's characters was the guy Columbia
>> U. dropped from their team when they recruited Lou Gehrig, and he
>> had a complex about the man, who everybody else in the country saw
>> as a hero.
>
>Did he and Wally Pipp ever get together?
Heh. I'm not afraid to borrow my origins. Little Bill was basically
muscle, frankly a thug who dealt mostly with lowlifes (pre-involvment
with the Mythos), but was surprisingly well-spoken and had a couple
academic skeletons buried in the closet. I always liked the
genre-twister, like the mercenary paymaster (who was only a
second-line fighter) or the Kidnapped Prince Who Will Return to Claim
His Birthright (who actually pulled a Gregor from <The Vor Game> -
this was after its publication date but before I read it, so it's
sadly not technically theft - and is the one man on the continent who
has no interest in returning to be King).
--Craig
--
I start to wish Bob Melvin would walk out to the mound, ask Freddy if he
was injured, and then kick him in the balls so he can call in an
emergency replacement from the bullpen --Derek Zumsteg in BP, 5/13/2003
Samuel Lubell
via passenger pigeon:
>> Tolkien showed that a genius could devote a lifetime's worth of work
>> to create a fantasy world and it will sell.
>>
>> Brooks showed that any old hack writer could copy the surface elements
>> of Tolkien's work and it will sell.
>
> Brooks is considerably better than "any old hack writer". And he
>did more than just "copy surface elements"
Perhaps in his later books, but the first Shanana book virtually
cloned most of the elements in Tolkien's work.
Samuel Lubell
via passenger pigeon:
>David T. Bilek wrote:
At best that's fiddling with the formula, not creating a new one.
Sea Wasp
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 02:01:58 GMT, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> sent
> via passenger pigeon:
>>
>> And changed a number of major elements in radical ways.
>
>
> At best that's fiddling with the formula, not creating a new one.
1) Up-front he stated he considered LOTR to be the perfect epic
fantasy, so major changes in the approach would be stupid.
2) more importantly, virtually any story written can be described as
"fiddling with the formula" if you extend "fiddling" to include "major
elements changed in radical ways" as "fiddling".