Monster Hunter International (Correia) vs. The Laundry (Stross)

[Ahasuerus]

The last couple of threads about Correia and Stross got me thinking
about their first novels, _Monster Hunter International_ and _The
Atrocity Archive_. The latter was also published in _The Atrocity
Archives_, which collects _tAA_ and the novella "The Concrete Jungle".

There are quite a few similarities between the two universes, which are
listed after...

SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING
SPOILER WARNING

1. They are first (published) novels.

2. The universes are explicitly Lovecraftian.

3. They are both secret histories.

4. They are aimed at a particular target audience: gun nuts and
computer geeks respectively.

5. The Lovecraftian horrors want to invade Earth and take over.

6. The protagonists are in their mid-twenties, male, very good at what
they do and have a “problem with authority”. (They also pursue and get
the girl, but that’s not exactly uncommon.)

7. The protagonists are Mary Sues with some minor flaws: obesity in
_MHI_ and alcohol abuse in _tAA_.

8. In addition to the Lovecraftian horrors, there is other magic afoot:
vampires, werewolves, etc in _MHI_ and Hands of Glory/gorgons/geasa in
_tAA_.

9. The laws of physics still apply, but are “expanded” to allow for magic
and such.

10. The Lovecraftian horrors are opposed by two teams: “The Good Guys”
and “The Bad Guys”. The “Bad Guys” are government bureaucracies: the
jackbooted thugs from an FBI clone in _MHI_ and some parts of the Laundry
bureaucracy in _tAA_.

11. Pretty much everyone is at least moderately unpleasant. You know it’s
bad when you are tempted to start rooting for the nameless horrors from
beyond space and time.


And here are some of the differences:

1. Stross has a lot more balls in the air: Dilbert, Deighton,
Lovecraft, Stephenson, the works.

2. Correia’s protagonist is a much bigger Mary Sue, often annoyingly so.

3. Stross makes some errors in the history/espionage area. I didn’t
notice any gun-related mistakes in _MHI_ (which doesn’t necessarily mean
that there aren’t any.)

4. Stross’s protagonist grows during the course of the novel while
Correia’s doesn’t.

5. Correia does a better job of describing battles and keeping the
reader interested in what’s going on. Stross writes better and more
interesting sentences. He also uses present tense, which is often
annoying, but isn’t too bad in this case.

6. _MHI_ is too long while _The Atrocity Archive_ (the novel rather than
the collection) is, if anything, possibly a tad too short.

7. Correia’s universe suffers from the “enormous top secret conspiracy
that everyone and his brother know about” problem. Stross’s universe has
the same problem in “The Concrete Jungle”, which was reportedly retconned
later.

8. Correia’s supporting characters are bland and/or interchangeable.
Stross’s characters, except for the Bad Guys, tend to use the same type
of humor. They also tend to launch into long tirades when the fate of
the world is in the balance.

9. Correia has a harder time (permanently) killing any of his Good Guys.

10. Stross’s book tries to be funny, but the humor failed spectacularly
in my case. Apparently it worked better for others.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 10/4/13 2:45 AM, Ahasuerus wrote:
> The last couple of threads about Correia and Stross got me thinking
> about their first novels, _Monster Hunter International_ and _The
> Atrocity Archive_. The latter was also published in _The Atrocity
> Archives_, which collects _tAA_ and the novella "The Concrete Jungle".
>
> There are quite a few similarities between the two universes, which are
> listed after...
>

Interesting comparison. A couple nits...

> SPOILER WARNING
> SPOILER WARNING
> SPOILER WARNING
> SPOILER WARNING
> SPOILER WARNING
> SPOILER WARNING
> SPOILER WARNING
> SPOILER WARNING
> SPOILER WARNING
> SPOILER WARNING
> SPOILER WARNING
> SPOILER WARNING
> SPOILER WARNING
> SPOILER WARNING
> SPOILER WARNING
> SPOILER WARNING
> SPOILER WARNING
> SPOILER WARNING
>

(snip)

> 7. The protagonists are Mary Sues with some minor flaws: obesity in
> _MHI_ and alcohol abuse in _tAA_.

I don't clearly recall him having an alcohol abuse problem -- which is
generally something I notice. I notice he drank/got drunk a lot, but my
online UK friends and acquaintances seem to do that *vastly* more often
than those I know here, and it fits with Stross' actual behavior based
on his LJ, which often describes journeys to the pub and the results of
having overindulged. It seems to me more a different set of cultural norms.

> 10. The Lovecraftian horrors are opposed by two teams: “The Good Guys”
> and “The Bad Guys”. The “Bad Guys” are government bureaucracies: the
> jackbooted thugs from an FBI clone in _MHI_ and some parts of the Laundry
> bureaucracy in _tAA_.

The Bad Guys in TAA are more often renegade people or groups; the
threat that Bob has to deal with in TAA, as I recall, was bevtvanyyl
fhzzbarq ol erartnqr Anmvf naq er-njnxrarq ol n phyg, neither one of
which really qualifies as a bureaucracy.

>
> 11. Pretty much everyone is at least moderately unpleasant. You know it’s
> bad when you are tempted to start rooting for the nameless horrors from
> beyond space and time.

I didn't find Bob that unpleasant, though he was quite the snarker.




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

[Brian M. Scott]

On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 23:45:52 -0700 (PDT), Ahasuerus
<ahas...@email.com> wrote in
<news:fe3baa93-0748-4e88...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> 7. The protagonists are Mary Sues with some minor flaws:
> obesity in _MHI_ and alcohol abuse in _tAA_.

Your notion of what constitutes a Mary Sue is somewhat
broader than mine.

[...]

> 10. The Lovecraftian horrors are opposed by two teams:
> “The Good Guys” and “The Bad Guys”. The “Bad Guys” are
> government bureaucracies: the jackbooted thugs from an
> FBI clone in _MHI_ and some parts of the Laundry
> bureaucracy in _tAA_.

‘Opposed by’ and ‘jackbooted thugs’ both seem just a bit too
strong in the case of MHI. (The former does suit Stricken &
Co, but they don’t appear in MHI.)

> 11. Pretty much everyone is at least moderately
> unpleasant. You know it’s bad when you are tempted to
> start rooting for the nameless horrors from beyond space
> and time.

I might not have much use for them in real life, but I
didn’t have any problem rooting for the nominal good guys in
MHI.

> And here are some of the differences:

> 1. Stross has a lot more balls in the air: Dilbert,
> Deighton, Lovecraft, Stephenson, the works.

> 2. Correia’s protagonist is a much bigger Mary Sue, often
> annoyingly so.

I don’t see him as a Mary Sue in the first place.

> 3. Stross makes some errors in the history/espionage area.
> I didn’t notice any gun-related mistakes in _MHI_ (which
> doesn’t necessarily mean that there aren’t any.)

I’m certainly not in a position to judge, but I’d be
surprised if there were any clear errors (as distinct from
matters on which experts might differ).

[...]

> 10. Stross’s book tries to be funny, but the humor failed
> spectacularly in my case. Apparently it worked better for
> others.

Every one of his books that I’ve read has failed to live up
to its initial promise, so I stopped reading them quite a
while back.

Brian

[Ahasuerus]

I guess it depends on what one means by "alcohol abuse". In my book,
"getting drunk a lot" qualifies as alcohol abuse, but YMMV.

> but my online UK friends and acquaintances seem to do that
> *vastly* more often than those I know here, and it fits with Stross'
> actual behavior based on his LJ, which often describes journeys to the
> pub and the results of having overindulged. It seems to me more a
> different set of cultural norms.

Oh sure, I am aware of the differences. It's entirely possible that the
character (and the author) didn't think of it as a "flaw".

> > 10. The Lovecraftian horrors are opposed by two teams: “The Good
> > Guys” and “The Bad Guys”. The “Bad Guys” are government
> > bureaucracies: the jackbooted thugs from an FBI clone in _MHI_ and
> > some parts of the Laundry bureaucracy in _tAA_.
>
> The Bad Guys in TAA are more often renegade people or groups; the
> threat that Bob has to deal with in TAA, as I recall, was bevtvanyyl
> fhzzbarq ol erartnqr Anmvf naq er-njnxrarq ol n phyg, neither one of
> which really qualifies as a bureaucracy.

Ahem, have you read "The Concrete Jungle"? :) But perhaps a better way
to categorize the groups that exist in these two universes would be to
call them "The Good" (MHI/the good part of the Laundry), "The Bad"
(Lovecraftian horrors, vampires, terrorists, etc) and "The Ugly"
(the Monster Control Bureau/the naughty parts of the Laundry).

> > 11. Pretty much everyone is at least moderately unpleasant. You
> > know it’s bad when you are tempted to start rooting for the
> > nameless horrors from beyond space and time.
>
> I didn't find Bob that unpleasant, though he was quite the
> snarker.

Have you ever had to manage the Bobs of this world? After a few months
you start thinking that perhaps Cthulhu is not all that bad after all...

[Stephen Graham]

On the management front, Bob gets what's coming to him eventually.

[Ahasuerus]

> > 10. The Lovecraftian horrors are opposed by two teams:
> > “The Good Guys” and “The Bad Guys”. The “Bad Guys” are
> > government bureaucracies: the jackbooted thugs from an
> > FBI clone in _MHI_ and some parts of the Laundry
> > bureaucracy in _tAA_.
>
> ‘Opposed by’ and ‘jackbooted thugs’ both seem just a bit too
> strong in the case of MHI. (The former does suit Stricken &
> Co, but they don’t appear in MHI.)

I proposed a different way of categorizing the factions in my response
to Sea Wasp a few minutes ago -- see the bit about "The Good, the Bad
and the Ugly".

> > 11. Pretty much everyone is at least moderately
> > unpleasant. You know it’s bad when you are tempted to
> > start rooting for the nameless horrors from beyond space
> > and time.
>
> I might not have much use for them in real life, but I didn’t
> have any problem rooting for the nominal good guys in MHI.

Since we are spoiler-protected, let me give you an example. At one
point Grant, Julie's boyfriend, is kidnapped and, as far as the Good
Guys can tell, held by the Bad Guys in order to be sacrificed later.
In the meantime, Julie and the protagonist get together for some bedroom
gymnastics (p. 574). They eventually find and rescue Grant, but he is
still enthralled and attacks the protagonist, at which point Julie:

"calmly raised the butt of her M14 and cracked him sharply alongside
his head. He was out like a light. "Grant, honey... I think we need
to start seeing other people." (p.628)

FWIW, I find it hard to root for people like that.

[snip]

> > 2. Correia’s protagonist is a much bigger Mary Sue, often
> > annoyingly so.
>
> I don’t see him as a Mary Sue in the first place.

Correia describes himself as an overweight (but very strong) "gun-geek"
accountant with "authority" issues and "complete lack of faith in the
federal government" (http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/about/)
Ring any bells? :)

[snip]

> > 10. Stross’s book tries to be funny, but the humor failed
> > spectacularly in my case. Apparently it worked better for
> > others.
>
> Every one of his books that I’ve read has failed to live up
> to its initial promise, so I stopped reading them quite a
> while back.

I have always -- i.e. going back 20 years when he posted on soc.bi and
other newsgroups -- found that his prose works well at the sentence level.
It's the other stuff that can be problematic.

[Stephen Graham]

> 1. Stross has a lot more balls in the air: Dilbert, Deighton,
> Lovecraft, Stephenson, the works.

As the series continues, Stross also uses the stories better as social
commentary. There's an acknowledgement of why some of the flaws in the
Laundry are to be expected.

> 4. Stross’s protagonist grows during the course of the novel while
> Correia’s doesn’t.

I think it's harder for a Man of Destiny to evolve. Bob Howard doesn't
have that handicap as a character.

> 7. Correia’s universe suffers from the “enormous top secret conspiracy
> that everyone and his brother know about” problem. Stross’s universe has
> the same problem in “The Concrete Jungle”, which was reportedly retconned
> later.

It's been too long since I read "The Concrete Jungle" so I don't recall
the details. But Stross does a good job of conveying the sense of why
people keep the secret.

> 10. Stross’s book tries to be funny, but the humor failed spectacularly
> in my case. Apparently it worked better for others.

Both authors have humorous elements in the story; they just come from
different styles.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 10:58:55 -0700 (PDT), Ahasuerus
<ahas...@email.com> wrote in
<news:6c75f047-fddd-4ec2...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

>>> 11. Pretty much everyone is at least moderately
>>> unpleasant. You know it’s bad when you are tempted to
>>> start rooting for the nameless horrors from beyond space
>>> and time.

>> I might not have much use for them in real life, but I
>> didn’t have any problem rooting for the nominal good
>> guys in MHI.

> Since we are spoiler-protected, let me give you an
> example. At one point Grant, Julie's boyfriend, is
> kidnapped and, as far as the Good Guys can tell, held by
> the Bad Guys in order to be sacrificed later. In the
> meantime, Julie and the protagonist get together for some
> bedroom gymnastics (p. 574). They eventually find and
> rescue Grant, but he is still enthralled and attacks the
> protagonist, at which point Julie:

> "calmly raised the butt of her M14 and cracked him sharply
> alongside his head. He was out like a light. "Grant,
> honey... I think we need to start seeing other people."
> (p.628)

> FWIW, I find it hard to root for people like that.

In our world I’d agree with you; in that world, or at any
rate their part of it, that was Julie solving the immediate
problem with minimal force, and the author engaging in a bit
of mild farce. I wasn’t terribly fond of Grant to begin
with, but even that’s largely beside the point: in context
that little episode really is more farcical than anything
else.

> [snip]

>>> 2. Correia’s protagonist is a much bigger Mary Sue,
>>> often annoyingly so.

>> I don’t see him as a Mary Sue in the first place.

> Correia describes himself as an overweight (but very
> strong) "gun-geek" accountant with "authority" issues and
> "complete lack of faith in the federal government"
> (http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/about/) Ring any
> bells? :)

Sure. But I have the impression that Correia is smarter and
knows it -- smart enough not to want to be in his
protagonist’s shoes. Even if I’m wrong, his protagonist has
a pretty hard time of it, a fact that in itself greatly
reduces his MS-ishness in my eyes.

[...]

Brian

[Ahasuerus]

> [snip]

> >>> 11. Pretty much everyone is at least moderately
> >>> unpleasant. You know it’s bad when you are tempted to
> >>> start rooting for the nameless horrors from beyond space
> >>> and time.
> >>
> >> I might not have much use for them in real life, but I
> >> didn’t have any problem rooting for the nominal good
> >> guys in MHI.
> >
> > Since we are spoiler-protected, let me give you an
> > example. At one point Grant, Julie's boyfriend, is
> > kidnapped and, as far as the Good Guys can tell, held by
> > the Bad Guys in order to be sacrificed later. In the
> > meantime, Julie and the protagonist get together for some
> > bedroom gymnastics (p. 574). They eventually find and
> > rescue Grant, but he is still enthralled and attacks the
> > protagonist, at which point Julie:
> >
> > "calmly raised the butt of her M14 and cracked him sharply
> > alongside his head. He was out like a light. "Grant,
> > honey... I think we need to start seeing other people."
> > (p.628)
> >
> > FWIW, I find it hard to root for people like that.
>
> In our world I’d agree with you; in that world, or at any
> rate their part of it, that was Julie solving the immediate
> problem with minimal force, and the author engaging in a bit
> of mild farce.

Knocking Grant out didn't worry me since they were pressed for time
and the stakes were very high. Besides, it's well known that UF/noir/
etc characters can be knocked out repeatedly without suffering ill
effects. Concussions? Contusions? What's that?

But consider the larger picture: Julie's boyfriend has been kidnapped
and is about to be sacrificed by the Nameless Horrors and their
minions. What does she do? Why, she jumps into the sack with the
protagonist, of course! And what does she do immediately after they
rescue Grant, but before he has a chance to recover? She breaks up with
him! Nice, isn't it? I know some rabbits who could teach her a thing or
two about self-control.

> I wasn’t terribly fond of Grant to begin
> with, but even that’s largely beside the point: in context
> that little episode really is more farcical than anything else.

Perhaps I am losing what little sense of humor I possessed back in
the day... Hm, maybe I should try to read something explicitly funny
and see if it still works for me. I do have a bookshelf full of
Wodehouses which I am yet to read -- if you read one Wodehouse a year
like I did at one point, it will take you a loooong time to get to the
end... Better yet, I could ask for "funny SF" recommendations here! :)

> >>> 2. Correia’s protagonist is a much bigger Mary Sue,
> >>> often annoyingly so.
> >>
> >> I don’t see him as a Mary Sue in the first place.
> >
> > Correia describes himself as an overweight (but very
> > strong) "gun-geek" accountant with "authority" issues and
> > "complete lack of faith in the federal government"
> > (http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/about/) Ring any
> > bells? :)
>
> Sure. But I have the impression that Correia is smarter and
> knows it -- smart enough not to want to be in his
> protagonist’s shoes. Even if I’m wrong, his protagonist has
> a pretty hard time of it, a fact that in itself greatly
> reduces his MS-ishness in my eyes.

I sort of got the impression that Correia knew that his character was
getting dangerously close to the Mary Sue territory, so he tried to make
him work for it -- and get repeatedly beaten in the process -- but Pitt
still all but screamed "Mary Sue!" to me. Oh well, different strokes and
all that.

[David Goldfarb]

In article <263894d5-1e19-4bc0...@googlegroups.com>,

Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 4, 2013 7:41:53 AM UTC-4, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> On 10/4/13 2:45 AM, Ahasuerus wrote:
>> > 7. The protagonists are Mary Sues with some minor flaws: obesity in
>> > _MHI_ and alcohol abuse in _tAA_.
>>
>> I don't clearly recall him having an alcohol abuse problem --
>> which is generally something I notice. I notice he drank/got drunk a
>> lot,
>
>I guess it depends on what one means by "alcohol abuse". In my book,
>"getting drunk a lot" qualifies as alcohol abuse, but YMMV.

Frankly, I can't say that I even noticed that. His drinking doesn't
in any way interfere with either his work or his social life; the
only way that I can see calling his drinking "alcohol abuse" is if
for you there's no such thing as simple "use" as opposed to "abuse".

--
David Goldfarb | BANG! BANG! BANG! "Fire the tachyon guns!"
goldf...@gmail.com |
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- David Danzig

[Ahasuerus]

On Friday, October 4, 2013 8:42:01 PM UTC-4, David Goldfarb wrote:
> In article <263894d5-1e19-4bc0...@googlegroups.com>,
> Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, October 4, 2013 7:41:53 AM UTC-4, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> >> On 10/4/13 2:45 AM, Ahasuerus wrote:
> >> > 7. The protagonists are Mary Sues with some minor flaws: obesity
> >> > in _MHI_ and alcohol abuse in _tAA_.
> >>
> >> I don't clearly recall him having an alcohol abuse problem --
> >> which is generally something I notice. I notice he drank/got drunk
> >> a lot,
> >
> >I guess it depends on what one means by "alcohol abuse". In my book,
> >"getting drunk a lot" qualifies as alcohol abuse, but YMMV.
>
> Frankly, I can't say that I even noticed that. His drinking doesn't
> in any way interfere with either his work or his social life; the
> only way that I can see calling his drinking "alcohol abuse" is if
> for you there's no such thing as simple "use" as opposed to "abuse".

My reading of the text suggests that his drinking did interfere with
his work as well as with his social life.

Exhibit 1:

"... and then we have another wee dram. The rest of the afternoon
becomes a blur, but when I wake up in bed the next morning I have a
stunning hangover, a vague memory of drunkenly talking things over
with Mhari [his sometime girlfriend] for hours on end until it blew
up in a flaming row, and I'm on my own.
Situation normal: all fucked up." (p. 61 of the SFBC edition)

So much for his social life.

Exhibit 2:

"The death rattle of a mortally wounded telephone is a horrible thing
to hear at four o'clock on a Tuesday morning. It's even worse when you
are sleeping the sleep that follows a pitcher of iced margueritas in
the basement of the Dog's Bollocks, with a chaser of nachos and a
tequila slammer or three for dessert. I come to, sitting upright,
bare-ass naked in the middle of the wooden floor, clutching the
receiver with one hand and my head with the other -- purely to prevent
it from exploding, you understand -- and moaning quietly. "Who is it?"
I croak into the microphone.
"Bob, get your ass down to the office right away." (p. 1 of "The
Concrete Jungle")

And then he has to go fight a fire and almost gets himself killed
because he isn't thinking straight.

On the plus side, given his bosses' interrogation methods, Bob's
drinking is not very likely to compromise national security :-) (Hm,
Bob Howard and Aldrich Ames -- there is an interesting odd couple!)

[David Goldfarb]

In article <69be5ddd-d4be-441e...@googlegroups.com>,

Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> wrote:
>My reading of the text suggests that his drinking did interfere with
>his work as well as with his social life.
>
>Exhibit 1:
>
>"... and then we have another wee dram. The rest of the afternoon
>becomes a blur, but when I wake up in bed the next morning I have a
>stunning hangover, a vague memory of drunkenly talking things over
>with Mhari [his sometime girlfriend] for hours on end until it blew
>up in a flaming row, and I'm on my own.
> Situation normal: all fucked up." (p. 61 of the SFBC edition)
>
>So much for his social life.

Except that his relationship with Mhari is pretty dysfunctional
regardless. I don't see the alcohol as a significant factor here.

>Exhibit 2:
>
>"The death rattle of a mortally wounded telephone is a horrible thing
>to hear at four o'clock on a Tuesday morning. It's even worse when you
>are sleeping the sleep that follows a pitcher of iced margueritas in
>the basement of the Dog's Bollocks, with a chaser of nachos and a
>tequila slammer or three for dessert. I come to, sitting upright,
>bare-ass naked in the middle of the wooden floor, clutching the
>receiver with one hand and my head with the other -- purely to prevent
>it from exploding, you understand -- and moaning quietly. "Who is it?"
>I croak into the microphone.
> "Bob, get your ass down to the office right away." (p. 1 of "The
>Concrete Jungle")
>
>And then he has to go fight a fire and almost gets himself killed
>because he isn't thinking straight.

And again, I see the major problem here as being gotten up at 4 AM,
with the alcohol being a secondary contributor.

I don't know how far you've read in the series, but based on having
read everything to date I definitely don't think that Stross thinks
of Bob as having an alcohol problem. As the series progresses, his
social life settles down a bit, and we don't see him drink much except
occasionally as self-medication for stress. (You have to admit that
his job involves a fair amount of stress.)

--
David Goldfarb |"I've always had a hard time getting up when
goldf...@gmail.com | it's dark outside."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | "But in space, it's always dark."
|"I know. I know..." -- Babylon 5

[Ahasuerus]

On Friday, October 4, 2013 10:17:38 PM UTC-4, David Goldfarb wrote:
> In article <69be5ddd-d4be-441e...@googlegroups.com>,
> Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> wrote:
> >My reading of the text suggests that his drinking did interfere with
> >his work as well as with his social life.
> >
> >Exhibit 1:

> > [snip]

> >
> >So much for his social life.
>
> Except that his relationship with Mhari is pretty dysfunctional
> regardless. I don't see the alcohol as a significant factor here.

Mhari was, of course, a nutcase, but I don't see how "stunning
hangover" and "a vague memory of drunkenly talking things over" until
"it blew up in a flaming row" could not be a significant factor.

> >Exhibit 2:
> > [snip]

> >And then he has to go fight a fire and almost gets himself killed
> >because he isn't thinking straight.
>
> And again, I see the major problem here as being gotten up at 4 AM,
> with the alcohol being a secondary contributor.

Lots of people get dragged out of bed at 4 am, but it doesn't make
their heads explode.

Oh well, it would appear that we have very different opinions of what
constitutes alcohol abuse. Be that as it may, I believe it was one of
the reasons why I found Bob rather unlikeable. He was certainly
*believable* -- there are lots of people with alcohol problems and
attitude problems in the intelligence community (the reason why
Ames wasn't caught earlier was that he had coworkers who had even worse
problems) -- but not likeable.

> I don't know how far you've read in the series,

I stopped after _tAA_ and "The Concrete Jungle" because of all the
things listed earlier. There were good bits here and there, so I may try
the next book in the series at some point, but it's quite low on the
list of priorities.

> but based on
> having read everything to date I definitely don't think that Stross
> thinks of Bob as having an alcohol problem.

Well, as we discussed with Sea Wasp earlier, attitudes differ. It's
entirely possible that John Norman doesn't think that his characters
have ... problems either :)

> As the series progresses, his
> social life settles down a bit, and we don't see him drink much except
> occasionally as self-medication for stress. (You have to admit that
> his job involves a fair amount of stress.)

True, although his drinking problem goes back to the days when he was
just a glorified system administrator.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 17:24:50 -0700 (PDT), Ahasuerus
<ahas...@email.com> wrote in
<news:010e388a-a612-45d6...@googlegroups.com>

[...]

> But consider the larger picture: Julie's boyfriend has
> been kidnapped and is about to be sacrificed by the
> Nameless Horrors and their minions. What does she do?
> Why, she jumps into the sack with the protagonist, of
> course! And what does she do immediately after they
> rescue Grant, but before he has a chance to recover? She
> breaks up with him! Nice, isn't it? I know some rabbits
> who could teach her a thing or two about self-control.

It seems to me that you’re looking at it very much from
Grant’s point of view and not much at all from Julie’s. I’m
not holding her actions up as a model for anyone else to
follow, but they certainly don’t press any of my buttons.

>> I wasn’t terribly fond of Grant to begin with, but even
>> that’s largely beside the point: in context that little
>> episode really is more farcical than anything else.

> Perhaps I am losing what little sense of humor I possessed
> back in the day... Hm, maybe I should try to read
> something explicitly funny and see if it still works for
> me. I do have a bookshelf full of Wodehouses which I am
> yet to read -- if you read one Wodehouse a year like I
> did at one point, it will take you a loooong time to get
> to the end... Better yet, I could ask for "funny SF"
> recommendations here! :)

It’s not sf, but some passages in Edmund Crispin’s last
Gervase Fen novel, _The Glimpses of the Moon_, had me
literally rolling on the floor the first time I read it. As
I recall, there’s a fair bit of humor in the earlier ones as
well. WP mentions a lovely bit from a chase sequence in
_The Moving Toyshop_:

‘Let’s go left,’ Cadogan suggested. ‘After all, Gollancz
is publishing this book.’

J.B. Priestley’s short novel _Low Notes on a High Level: A
Frolic_, also non-sf, is a delightful little farce somewhat
reminiscent in flavor of Thorne Smith, who of course wrote
some very funny fantasy.

I don’t know quite how to classify John Erskine, _The
Private Life of Helen of Troy_; it’s not precisely fantasy,
but it’s not really anything else, either, and in its own
dry, quiet way it’s very funny. It’s available at Gutenberg
Australia, too:

<http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0600381h.html>

Which, thanks to its erudition, reminds me that _Jurgen_ is
pretty funny.

I can enjoy light, comic sf, but I prefer it in small doses.
_Expecting Someone Taller_ (Holt), _Pyramid Scheme_ and
_Pyramid Power_ (Flint & Freer), _Summon the Keeper_ (Huff)
all had their moments, as did John Morressy’s Kedrigern
series. Pratchett doesn’t do much for me: my reaction is
more ‘yes, I see what you’re about’ than ‘yes, that’s
funny’, and the books end up not quite working either as
humor or as stories. But Gini Koch’s Aliens series is a
hoot.

[...]

Brian

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

I don't think there's a point of view in which "I have a boyfriend that
we're planning on rescuing" and "while he may be being sacrificed, I go
have sex with this other guy" really work in Julie's favor OR in the
protagonist's favor, unless it's pretty clear that the sexual mores that
both her and her boyfriend shared were awfully different from the
general assumed default in our (American) society.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, 5 October 2013 13:40:07 UTC+1, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 10/5/13 12:41 AM, Brian M. Scott wrote:

SPOILER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING

SPOILER WARNING

> > It seems to me that you’re looking at it very much from
> > Grant’s point of view and not much at all from Julie’s.
>
> I don't think there's a point of view in which "I have a boyfriend that
> we're planning on rescuing" and "while he may be being sacrificed, I go
> have sex with this other guy" really work in Julie's favor OR in the
> protagonist's favor, unless it's pretty clear that the sexual mores that
> both her and her boyfriend shared were awfully different from the
> general assumed default in our (American) society.

Well, it is now. Clear, I mean.

You /may/ be incompletely informed about the actual sexual mores of
American society, although I don't claim to know better. But, they're
not /married/ - and there could be a flexible arrangement even if
they were. I was going to say that the protagonist is a skank but
apparantly that is a type of dance. *shrug* (I like to fact check.)

You may well take a risk to rescue somebody that you are no longer
romantically interested in exclusively. There comes to mind Mark Twain's
monograph on fire rescue etiquette (if authentic), as presented at
<http://walternelson.com/dr/twain-etiquette> The categories of person
to be rescued according to precedence don't appear to include an ex.

But I agree that "Grant, honey... I think we need to start seeing
other people" isn't a /funny/ line, in itself, if it describes how
their relationship was already understood. It's only funny, and
not very much so, as an evident proxy for, "Hey, Grant, you weren't
around, so I skanked this other guy, here, instead." Or - maybe -
if their deal is that they get to sleep with other people but
not /socialise/. This is called (in Britain) "dogging", and only
occurs in rather implausible social documentaries on television,
in automobiles (while stationary; well, relatively stationary).

Definite Mary-Sue-ish interpretations of the action that could be used
include "He's the /protagonist/" and "For eldritch reasons, the rescue
attempt must be preceded by sexual intercourse." I haven't in fact
read the passage, but I would expect the latter to be made clear in
the text, if it applied.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 08:40:07 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
<news:l2p1b8$ina$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:

<shrug> These things happen. (Well, not the monsters.)
Attractions don’t follow nice rules. As I said, it doesn’t
push any of my buttons. I’m pretty relaxed about such
things in the first place, and I tend to give fictional
protagonists the benefit of the doubt.

Brian

[Ahasuerus]

[snip]

Sure, if Julie and her boyfriend, Grant, had been in an "open
relationship", then things would have been different. However, at the
beginning of the book (p. 58 and the following 10 pages) Julie
repeatedly tells the protagonist to buzz off because she is "in a
relationship" with Grant, which means that theirs was a standard
"serial monogamy" relationship. Hence having sex with the protagonist
before notifying her boyfriend about her change of heart would have
constituted breach of contract even if the latter hadn't been held
captive at that time.

And since this thread is about "Correia vs. Stross", we should probably
mention that the original relationship in _The Atrocity Archive_ was
asymmetrical. The protagonist, Bob, preferred a steady relationship
while his sometime girlfriend, Mhari, slept around. However, there was
no breach of contract involved since Bob knew all about it (and hated
it.) Which, I suppose, was another reason why I found him believable
but unlikeable.

[Ahasuerus]

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 12:41:56 AM UTC-4, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 17:24:50 -0700 (PDT), Ahasuerus
> <ahas...@email.com> wrote in
> <news:010e388a-a612-45d6...@googlegroups.com>
> in rec.arts.sf.written:

> > [snip-snip]

> > Better yet, I could ask for "funny SF" recommendations here! :)

[non-SF recommendations snipped - thanks!]

> I can enjoy light, comic sf, but I prefer it in small doses.
> _Expecting Someone Taller_ (Holt), _Pyramid Scheme_ and
> _Pyramid Power_ (Flint & Freer), _Summon the Keeper_ (Huff)
> all had their moments, as did John Morressy’s Kedrigern
> series.

_Expecting Someone Taller_ (1987) was very nice and the two novels
that followed, _Who's Afraid of Beowulf?_ (1988) and _Flying Dutch_
(1991), were pleasant if a bit repetitive. _Ye Gods!_ (1992) was very
disjointed and made me stop reading Holt for a while. Apparently I
wasn't the only one since his subsequent books were not (readily)
available in the US for a decade. They aren't exactly bad, but...

_Summon the Keeper_ was also nice, but then I like Huff. I haven't read
the Pyramid series yet, but I'll move it up the list based on the
recommendation -- thanks!

> Pratchett doesn’t do much for me: my reaction is
> more ‘yes, I see what you’re about’ than ‘yes, that’s
> funny’, and the books end up not quite working either as
> humor or as stories.

Some of his books work for me, but in certain other cases my reaction
was close to yours.

> But Gini Koch’s Aliens series is a hoot.

Interesting. I have seen them compared to MaryJanice Davidson's "Betsy
the Vampire Queen" series, which I didn't like at all. Would you say
that it was an (un)fair comparison?

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sat, 5 Oct 2013 12:25:24 -0700 (PDT), Ahasuerus
<ahas...@email.com> wrote in
<news:e2ed4238-50fa-4143...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Saturday, October 5, 2013 12:41:56 AM UTC-4, Brian M.
> Scott wrote:

[...]

>> But Gini Koch’s Aliens series is a hoot.

> Interesting. I have seen them compared to MaryJanice
> Davidson's "Betsy the Vampire Queen" series, which I
> didn't like at all. Would you say that it was an (un)fair
> comparison?

I’m not familiar with the Davidson books. Looking at the WP
descriptions, I’d guess that some might see them as similar,
but I don’t think that I would except in the sense that both
are intended to be funny.

The Aliens books are delightfully silly. They're at once
ridiculous and (for me, at least) ridiculously entertaining.
They manage not to take themselves at all seriously, even
though she pretty clearly puts a lot of thought into them;
the silliness is honest silliness, not anything-goes
silliness. And I like the people.

Brian

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

*attractions* don't. I am attracted and have been attracted to many
people. That doesn't mean that if the person I'm dating happens to be
unavailable (let alone currently in deadly danger) that I just drop my
pants and go at it with someone else. At the LEAST I owe the person the
decency of "You know, I've changed my mind about this going steady
thing" *first*.

Not doing that is just tasteless and rude at the least (unless there's
a pretty explicit discussion previously in which the characters had said
that "hey, with respect to sex, anything goes"), which isn't what I want
to see from the protagonist or any person they're supposed to have an
interest in.

I know a few people that relaxed about their sexual interactions, but
all of them have had explicit discussions about these things with their
significant others beforehand.

[Ahasuerus]

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 2:27:48 PM UTC-4, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 08:40:07 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
> Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
> <news:l2p1b8$ina$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:

> >>>>>>> SPOILER WARNING
> >>>>>>> SPOILER WARNING
> >>>>>>> SPOILER WARNING
> >>>>>>> SPOILER WARNING
> >>>>>>> SPOILER WARNING
> >>>>>>> SPOILER WARNING
> >>>>>>> SPOILER WARNING
> >>>>>>> SPOILER WARNING
> >>>>>>> SPOILER WARNING
> >>>>>>> SPOILER WARNING
> >>>>>>> SPOILER WARNING
> >>>>>>> SPOILER WARNING
> >>>>>>> SPOILER WARNING
> >>>>>>> SPOILER WARNING
> >>>>>>> SPOILER WARNING
> >>>>>>> SPOILER WARNING
> >>>>>>> SPOILER WARNING
> >>>>>>> SPOILER WARNING

> [snip]
> >>[Ahasuerus wrote:]

> >>> But consider the larger picture: Julie's boyfriend has
> >>> been kidnapped and is about to be sacrificed by the
> >>> Nameless Horrors and their minions. What does she do?
> >>> Why, she jumps into the sack with the protagonist, of
> >>> course! And what does she do immediately after they
> >>> rescue Grant, but before he has a chance to recover? She
> >>> breaks up with him! Nice, isn't it? I know some rabbits
> >>> who could teach her a thing or two about self-control.
> >>

> > [Brian M. Scott wrote:]

> >> It seems to me that you’re looking at it very much from
> >> Grant’s point of view and not much at all from Julie’s.
> >

> [Sea Wasp wrote:]

> > I don't think there's a point of view in which "I have a
> > boyfriend that we're planning on rescuing" and "while he
> > may be being sacrificed, I go have sex with this other
> > guy" really work in Julie's favor OR in the protagonist's
> > favor, unless it's pretty clear that the sexual mores
> > that both her and her boyfriend shared were awfully
> > different from the general assumed default in our
> > (American) society.
>

[Brian M. Scott wrote:]

> <shrug> These things happen. (Well, not the monsters.)
> Attractions don’t follow nice rules. As I said, it doesn’t
> push any of my buttons. I’m pretty relaxed about such
> things in the first place, and I tend to give fictional
> protagonists the benefit of the doubt.

Fascinating. Different squids for different kids, I suppose. Or, since
we are talking about Lovecraftian horrors, different kids for different
squids :-)

[Ahasuerus]

Thanks, I'll add the first one to the list and see how it goes...

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sat, 5 Oct 2013 17:23:45 -0700 (PDT), Ahasuerus
<ahas...@email.com> wrote in
<news:6a5f7b18-b0bd-4051...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> Fascinating. Different squids for different kids, I
> suppose. Or, since we are talking about Lovecraftian
> horrors, different kids for different squids :-)

Or maybe *more* kids for *every* squid.

‘Kids is kids. Guinea kids, or dago kids, or Irish kids is
all the same to Yog-Fhlannerhotep. You can’t have too many
of thim.’

Brian

[Ahasuerus]

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 9:56:00 PM UTC-4, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2013 17:23:45 -0700 (PDT), Ahasuerus
> <ahas...@email.com> wrote in
> <news:6a5f7b18-b0bd-4051...@googlegroups.com>
> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> [...]
>
> > Fascinating. Different squids for different kids, I
> > suppose. Or, since we are talking about Lovecraftian
> > horrors, different kids for different squids :-)
>

> Or maybe *more* kids for *every* squid. [snip]

If you elect me, you will have *two* kids in every pot!

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sat, 5 Oct 2013 19:07:00 -0700 (PDT), Ahasuerus
<ahas...@email.com> wrote in
<news:aae6e8ab-aabe-42c4...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

Gemini Christmas!

Brian

[J. Clarke]

In article <aae6e8ab-aabe-42c4...@googlegroups.com>,
ahas...@email.com says...

Would that make them vatkids?

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, 5 October 2013 19:36:53 UTC+1, Ahasuerus wrote:
> On Saturday, October 5, 2013 9:14:09 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > You /may/ be incompletely informed about the actual sexual mores of
> > American society, although I don't claim to know better. But, they're
> > not /married/ - and there could be a flexible arrangement even if
> > they were. I was going to say that the protagonist is a skank but

> > apparently that is a type of dance. *shrug* (I like to fact check.)

>
> Sure, if Julie and her boyfriend, Grant, had been in an "open
> relationship", then things would have been different. However, at the
> beginning of the book (p. 58 and the following 10 pages) Julie
> repeatedly tells the protagonist to buzz off because she is "in a
> relationship" with Grant, which means that theirs was a standard
> "serial monogamy" relationship.

...or, that she's still thinking about it in this particular case,
and it's just supposed to discourage him, temporarily anyway. Telling
him that she's conditionally available would be a tactical error.

I'm trying to remember author and book where a female character -
a nurse? - who's single, wears a wedding ring to avoid getting
propositioned by patients, which /that/ protagonist sees through.

[Ahasuerus]

Well, yes. But not for long!

[David DeLaney]

On 2013-10-05, Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> wrote:
>> But Gini Koch???s Aliens series is a hoot.

>
> Interesting. I have seen them compared to MaryJanice Davidson's "Betsy
> the Vampire Queen" series, which I didn't like at all. Would you say
> that it was an (un)fair comparison?

Well ... If you want to know what a Mary Sue actually is? Read Koch's
Alien-title series. But she does it rather better than most of them; I'm
buying each as they come out. (James Nicoll, I think it was, reported being
slightly jarred in the first book when the protagonist was mean and/or nasty
- I'd have to reread to recall details - to one of the villains; it whooshed
right by me, but it put him off the rest of them.)

Dave, treat them more as romps with occasional new magic tech than as serious
character studies
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

On 2013-10-05, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> I was going to say that the protagonist is a skank but
> apparantly that is a type of dance. *shrug* (I like to fact check.)

Rest easy - it is _also_ a description of how a certain type of woman is
viewed. (In a Regency romance it might be euphemized as "no better than she
should be"...)

Dave

[David DeLaney]

On 2013-10-06, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> I'm trying to remember author and book where a female character -
> a nurse? - who's single, wears a wedding ring to avoid getting
> propositioned by patients, which /that/ protagonist sees through.

Is it possibly Alexander's Nightshifted series? (...probably not, because
there the female nurse IS the protagonist.)

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <81b826dc-3bda-4725...@googlegroups.com>,

Some recent (though not 2013) ones:

J.F. Lewis's _Staked_ is a very funny vampire book. You need to have
a high tolerance for amorality and sex, but if you've got that, it rocks.
(The other ones are good, but not as good as the first one).

Somewhat the same could be said for Mark Henry's _Happy Hour Of The Damned_,
though the drop-off in the follow-ups is more severe.

Karen Chance's Cassie Palmer books are essentially a 6 volume long sex farce,
except the characters are in real danger and you care about them.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[Ahasuerus]

On Sunday, October 6, 2013 12:54:39 AM UTC-4, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2013-10-05, Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> wrote:

> > [Brian M. Scott wrote:]
> >> But Gini Koch's Aliens series is a hoot.

> >
> > Interesting. I have seen them compared to MaryJanice Davidson's
> > "Betsy the Vampire Queen" series, which I didn't like at all. Would
> > you say that it was an (un)fair comparison?
>
> Well ... If you want to know what a Mary Sue actually is? Read Koch's
> Alien-title series. But she does it rather better than most of them;
> I'm buying each as they come out.

OK, OK, the two of you have convinced me. Let me see... ah, yes, the
first few chapters are available on Amazon. I'll take a peek tomorrow.

> (James Nicoll, I think it was,
> reported being slightly jarred in the first book when the protagonist
> was mean and/or nasty - I'd have to reread to recall details - to one
> of the villains; it whooshed right by me, but it put him off the rest
> of them.)

<google-google> Yes, it was James. The kinds of things that he finds
problematic are rarely a concern for me.

> Dave, treat them more as romps with occasional new magic tech than as
> serious character studies

We are in worse shape than I thought if you can't find serious character
studies in humorous UF/PR! ;)

[Brian M. Scott]

On 6 Oct 2013 05:17:01 GMT, "Ted Nolan <tednolan>"
<t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote in
<news:bbca2d...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> Karen Chance's Cassie Palmer books are essentially a 6
> volume long sex farce, except the characters are in real
> danger and you care about them.

I’d forgotten just how true that is -- and then I got the
new one. It’s a pretty neat trick that she pulls off,
actually, though I prefer her Dorinda Basarab books by a
substantial margin.

Brian

[Robert Carnegie]

On Sunday, 6 October 2013 05:58:17 UTC+1, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2013-10-06, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > I'm trying to remember author and book where a female character -
> > a nurse? - who's single, wears a wedding ring to avoid getting
> > propositioned by patients, which /that/ protagonist sees through.
>
> Is it possibly Alexander's Nightshifted series? (...probably not, because
> there the female nurse IS the protagonist.)

I don't think so. It occurred to me that it might be actual common
practice; if this character was the only person in (fictional) history
to do it, then it would be an amazing guess.

I was thinking about some of Anne McCaffrey's stories, about the
"Talented" (psionics), but then the guy would just read her mind
or something, which I don't think this was.

[Ahasuerus]

On Sunday, October 6, 2013 1:17:01 AM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
[snip-snip]

> Some recent (though not 2013) ones:
>
> J.F. Lewis's _Staked_ is a very funny vampire book. You need to have
> a high tolerance for amorality and sex, but if you've got that, it rocks.
> (The other ones are good, but not as good as the first one).

The sex part is not a problem, but I am not sure about the "amorality"
angle -- see the Correia-Stross sub-thread. I am trying to think of the
last book with truly amoral characters that I enjoyed and drawing a blank.
I'll add it to the list anyway and see if it works for me.

> Somewhat the same could be said for Mark Henry's _Happy Hour Of The
> Damned_, though the drop-off in the follow-ups is more severe.
>
> Karen Chance's Cassie Palmer books are essentially a 6 volume long
> sex farce, except the characters are in real danger and you care about
> them.

Thanks for the recommendations! I should probably add that although I
like the *idea* of urban fantasy -- after all, it seems like a logical
successor to the _Unknown_ school of fantasy, which I enjoyed greatly,
as well as to such series as Saberhagen's Dracula and Huff's Victory
Nelson -- I usually find that the reality (Hamilton, Harris, Briggs,
etc) disappoints me. But that's probably fodder for another discussion.

[Greg Goss]

Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> wrote:


>The sex part is not a problem, but I am not sure about the "amorality"
>angle -- see the Correia-Stross sub-thread. I am trying to think of the
>last book with truly amoral characters that I enjoyed and drawing a blank.
>I'll add it to the list anyway and see if it works for me.

P1?
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Ahasuerus]

On Sunday, October 6, 2013 7:43:21 PM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
> Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> wrote:
> [snip-snip]

> >The sex part is not a problem, but I am not sure about the "amorality"
> >angle -- see the Correia-Stross sub-thread. I am trying to think of the
> >last book with truly amoral characters that I enjoyed and drawing a blank.
> >I'll add it to the list anyway and see if it works for me.
>
> P1?

The adolescence of?

[Greg Goss]

Yeah. He wipes out a jetliner because one person on it is a threat to
him. But he's a pretty sympathetic character anyhow.

[Ahasuerus]

On Sunday, October 6, 2013 8:07:41 PM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
> Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, October 6, 2013 7:43:21 PM UTC-4, Greg Goss wrote:
> >> Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> wrote:
> >> [snip-snip]
> >> >The sex part is not a problem, but I am not sure about the
> >> > "amorality" angle -- see the Correia-Stross sub-thread. I am
> >> > trying to think of the last book with truly amoral characters
> >> > that I enjoyed and drawing a blank. I'll add it to the list
> >> > anyway and see if it works for me.
> >>
> >> P1?
> >
> >The adolescence of?
>
> Yeah. He wipes out a jetliner because one person on it is a threat
> to him. But he's a pretty sympathetic character anyhow.

Ah, I see. I don't know if "sympathetic" is the right word, perhaps
"interesting"? I suppose "emergent AI", "sentient chimp" and similar
stories have different rules since the learning process can carry the
story. If the AI/chimp/upliftee learns about this weird thing that
humans call "morality", it's a bonus.

[Greg Goss]

It's the reason for the title. As uplifted characters go, teenagers
are a good model.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <bbecac...@mid.individual.net>,

Well, you can't help but like Eric the vampire, somehow. If you're
in his circle, he's very loyal (though you may still well be
collateral damage). If not, well katie bar the door..

[William December Starr]

In article <263894d5-1e19-4bc0...@googlegroups.com>,
Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> said:

> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>> I didn't find Bob that unpleasant, though he was quite the
>> snarker.
>
> Have you ever had to manage the Bobs of this world? After a few
> months you start thinking that perhaps Cthulhu is not all that bad
> after all...

The people who try to "manage" Bob almost universally deserve the
headache though. (Note that Angleton does not manage Bob; he just
aims him.)

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <fifm8800nxhc.b...@40tude.net>,
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> said:

> Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> wrote
>
>> 3. Stross makes some errors in the history/espionage area.
>> I didn't notice any gun-related mistakes in _MHI_ (which
>> doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't any.)
>
> I'm certainly not in a position to judge, but I'd be
> surprised if there were any clear errors (as distinct from
> matters on which experts might differ).

I have to just roll my eyes and go with it whenever Bob
mentions a Laundry project or file whose code name gives away
information about it. Like BASILISK STARE, if I remember
correctly, or the task group on that early 20th century Russian
nobleman in _The Fuller Memorandum_, I think it was, that was
called something like BLOODY NOBLE. (It wasn't 'noble' but
the actual word evades me as I type this.)

-- wds

[Moriarty]

BLOODY BARON.

-Moriarty

[Ahasuerus]

Well, yes, except we only see Bob's side of the story :-)

[Ahasuerus]

That's not completely impossible IF the code names themselves are
classified. At one point the Soviets got burned because some of
their code names for agents were easy to break, e.g. "Sound" for
"Golos" (which means "voice" in Russian). They thought that their
encrypted traffic was impossible to read, so they figured it wasn't
a big deal. Except, of course, it turned out that some of it *could*
be read because they hadn't always followed their SOPs. (Note to all
wannabe spymasters: one-time pads are impossible to crack only if used
exactly one time. Moreover, two is not the same as one.) And it wasn't
until relatively recently that the CIA started using computers to
assign random code names to agents -- it turns out that humans are
not very good at coming up with truly random names and aliases.

On the other hand, a unit name like "Occult Control Coordination
Unit Liaison, Unconventional Situations" seems rather unlikely since
there is no good reason to embed top secret information in the name
of a secret organization or a major project. There was a reason why
the Manhattan Project wasn't known as "Atomic Bomb Project".

What's worse, Stross also mangles the timelines and names of well-
known agencies that anyone can easily look up. When he writes things
like "NKVD: Historical predecessor organization to KGB, renamed in
1947", you just idly wonder how the heck he managed to get the basics
wrong. (Yes, I know that he makes similar mistakes in his online posts,
but one would hope that authors spend more time researching their books.)

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:47:07 AM UTC+11, Ahasuerus wrote:

> What's worse, Stross also mangles the timelines and names of well-
> known agencies that anyone can easily look up. When he writes things
> like "NKVD: Historical predecessor organization to KGB, renamed in
> 1947", you just idly wonder how the heck he managed to get the basics
> wrong. (Yes, I know that he makes similar mistakes in his online posts,
> but one would hope that authors spend more time researching their books.)

You do realize that The Laundry is not set in the real world don't you?
That might actually be Stross pointing out some differences...

[Ahasuerus]

On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 8:26:54 PM UTC-4, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:47:07 AM UTC+11, Ahasuerus wrote:

> [snip-snip]

> > What's worse, Stross also mangles the timelines and names of well-
> > known agencies that anyone can easily look up. When he writes things
> > like "NKVD: Historical predecessor organization to KGB, renamed in
> > 1947", you just idly wonder how the heck he managed to get the basics
> > wrong. (Yes, I know that he makes similar mistakes in his online posts,
> > but one would hope that authors spend more time researching their books.)
>
> You do realize that The Laundry is not set in the real world don't you?
> That might actually be Stross pointing out some differences...

It seems unlikely since he makes the same errors in his posts, e.g.
"There's a story told about Josip Tito and the seventh assassin
Beria's NKVD sent to bump him off in the late 1940s"
(http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/08/on-syria.html#comment-1644508)

Unless, of course, he is posting from a parallel universe :)

[Brian M. Scott]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:47:07 -0700 (PDT), Ahasuerus
<ahas...@email.com> wrote in
<news:c1806c49-d969-4276...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> What's worse, Stross also mangles the timelines and names
> of well- known agencies that anyone can easily look up.
> When he writes things like "NKVD: Historical predecessor
> organization to KGB, renamed in 1947", you just idly
> wonder how the heck he managed to get the basics wrong.
> (Yes, I know that he makes similar mistakes in his online
> posts, but one would hope that authors spend more time
> researching their books.)

Well, ‘historical predecessor organization to KGB’ isn’t
entirely wrong, though the rest suggests that ‘immediate
predecessor’ was intended, which *is* wrong; but 1947
matches nothing relevant, so far as I can tell.

Vaguely à propos: At a topology conference in Budapest in
1978 I met the son of the man who would be chairman of the
KGB for the second half of 1982. (He was a very fine
topologist.) His father had apparently had nothing to do
with him or his mother for many, many years, but the
relationship had nevertheless made it virtually impossible
for him to get permission to travel to the West. Budapest
was evidently acceptable.

Brian

[Ahasuerus]

On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 9:30:05 PM UTC-4, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:47:07 -0700 (PDT), Ahasuerus
> <ahas...@email.com> wrote in
> <news:c1806c49-d969-4276...@googlegroups.com>
> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> [...]
>
> > What's worse, Stross also mangles the timelines and names

> > of well-known agencies that anyone can easily look up.

> > When he writes things like "NKVD: Historical predecessor
> > organization to KGB, renamed in 1947", you just idly
> > wonder how the heck he managed to get the basics wrong.
> > (Yes, I know that he makes similar mistakes in his online
> > posts, but one would hope that authors spend more time
> > researching their books.)
>
> Well, ‘historical predecessor organization to KGB’ isn’t
> entirely wrong, though the rest suggests that ‘immediate
> predecessor’ was intended, which *is* wrong; but 1947
> matches nothing relevant, so far as I can tell.

There was a short-lived attempt to combine the two main foreign
intelligence services, i.e. military intelligence (GRU) and the
foreign intelligence department (later "directorate") of the Soviet
secret police, which was successively known as
Cheka-GPU-OGPU-GUGB/NKVD-NKGB-NKVD-NKGB-MGB-MVD-KGB (dizzy yet?),
in 1947-1948.

We don't know much about the resulting "Committee of Information" (KI)
under Stalin's foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov because, to quote Mark
Kramer:

"The files of the Committee of Information (KI) that oversaw the two
services are inaccessible. Some memoirs by former foreign intelligence
and GRU officials have been published, and there are also some oblique
comments in the relevant volume of the official "Istoriya sovetskoi
razvedki" (History of Soviet Foreign Intelligence) series. But these
sources give a contradictory and at best highly incomplete picture of
what the real state of affairs was. [...]

... the arrangement with the Committee of Information was undone
mainly, it seems, because of pressure from military intelligence
officials, who persuaded Stalin to reestablish the GRU as a separate
entity. One former high-ranking Soviet foreign intelligence official
whom I interviewed two years ago (someone who had served from the 1940s
to the 1980s and who has been involved in the "Istoriya sovetskoi
razvedki" series) said that the GRU officials feared their service was
undergoing too much interference from the foreign intelligence service."
(http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-hoac&month=0503&week=d&msg=A5aYJget/I/T5OwmeutctA&user=&pw=)

It's a rather obscure episode and it seems unlikely that Stross had
heard of it, but you never know.

> Vaguely à propos: At a topology conference in Budapest in
> 1978 I met the son of the man who would be chairman of the
> KGB for the second half of 1982. (He was a very fine
> topologist.) His father had apparently had nothing to do
> with him or his mother for many, many years, but the
> relationship had nevertheless made it virtually impossible
> for him to get permission to travel to the West. Budapest
> was evidently acceptable.

Looks like he died a few months ago --
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%87%D1%83%D0%BA,_%D0%92%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%92%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

[Brian M. Scott]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 20:20:19 -0700 (PDT), Ahasuerus
<ahas...@email.com> wrote in
<news:e8fe78ce-bab3-4d53...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 9:30:05 PM UTC-4, Brian M. Scott wrote:

[...]

>> Vaguely à propos: At a topology conference in Budapest in
>> 1978 I met the son of the man who would be chairman of the
>> KGB for the second half of 1982. (He was a very fine
>> topologist.) His father had apparently had nothing to do
>> with him or his mother for many, many years, but the
>> relationship had nevertheless made it virtually impossible
>> for him to get permission to travel to the West. Budapest
>> was evidently acceptable.

> Looks like he died a few months ago --
> http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%87%D1%83%D0%BA,_%D0%92%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%92%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

Yes, there was a brief obituary in Topology Atlas:

<http://at.yorku.ca/i/a/a/l/91.htm>

He seemed a very nice fellow.

Brian

[William December Starr]

In article <slrnl5c2nn.ph...@shasta.marwnad.com>,
Paul Arthur <junk+...@flowerysong.com> said:

> But remember, those aren't necessarily the real code names, Bob's
> name isn't Robert Oliver Francis Howard, and you shouldn't trust
> anything he tells you.

I thought of that, but I could swear that there was at least one
time in a Laundry story when something happened that would only have
happened if a code name really was the unsecurely descriptive thing
that Bob said it was in the text. Unfortunately, while I think I
remember the event of me noticing when it happened, I have no memory
at all of what I noticed it about.

-- wds

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 10 October 2013 02:30:05 UTC+1, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> Vaguely à propos: At a topology conference in Budapest in
> 1978 I met the son of the man who would be chairman of the
> KGB for the second half of 1982. (He was a very fine
> topologist.) His father had apparently had nothing to do
> with him or his mother for many, many years, but the
> relationship had nevertheless made it virtually impossible
> for him to get permission to travel to the West. Budapest
> was evidently acceptable.

I do trust that a sufficient number of dry little jokes
about the topology /of/ Budapest, as well as of the conference,
were made.

Konigsberg would have been appropriate, but apparently it too
is sharply divided, into before 1945 and after (understandably) -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad>

[Ahasuerus]

On Sunday, October 6, 2013 1:36:27 AM UTC-4, Ahasuerus wrote:
> On Sunday, October 6, 2013 12:54:39 AM UTC-4, David DeLaney wrote:
> > On 2013-10-05, Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> wrote:
> > > [Brian M. Scott wrote:]
> > >> But Gini Koch's Aliens series is a hoot.
> > >
> > > Interesting. I have seen them compared to MaryJanice Davidson's
> > > "Betsy the Vampire Queen" series, which I didn't like at all.
> > > Would you say that it was an (un)fair comparison?
> >
> > Well ... If you want to know what a Mary Sue actually is? Read
> > Koch's Alien-title series. But she does it rather better than
> > most of them; I'm buying each as they come out.
>
> OK, OK, the two of you have convinced me. Let me see... ah, yes, the
> first few chapters are available on Amazon. I'll take a peek tomorrow.

[4 months later]

FWIW, I managed to endure the first 85 pages. If the author was trying
to demonstrate how fatuous and inane chick lit can be, she did a fair
job, but I am not sure that it was in dire need of being demonstrated.

Oh well, no accounting for tastes.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:40:03 -0800 (PST), Ahasuerus
<ahas...@email.com> wrote in
<news:c9195362-c7c2-4a36...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

Chick lit? Whatever the Alien books may be, they don’t fit
my understanding of that category, though I suppose that
they could be seen to some extent as a parody of it.

> Oh well, no accounting for tastes.

Indeed.

Brian

[Ahasuerus]

On Monday, February 10, 2014 10:30:41 PM UTC-5, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:40:03 -0800 (PST), Ahasuerus
> <ahas...@email.com> wrote in
> <news:c9195362-c7c2-4a36...@googlegroups.com>
> in rec.arts.sf.written:

> [snip-snip]

> >>> > [Brian M. Scott wrote:]
> >>>>> But Gini Koch's Aliens series is a hoot.

> > [snip-snip]

> > [4 months later]
> >
> > FWIW, I managed to endure the first 85 pages. If the
> > author was trying to demonstrate how fatuous and inane
> > chick lit can be, she did a fair job, but I am not sure
> > that it was in dire need of being demonstrated.
>
> Chick lit? Whatever the Alien books may be, they don't fit
> my understanding of that category, though I suppose that

> they could be seen to some extent as a parody of it. [snip]

Yes, that's what I had in mind. There was also a fair amount of
"hey, look how ludicrous comic book science is!" stuff, but that's
hardly a revelation to anyone over the age of 12. Next: "Unsafe at
All Speeds", an expose of poor quality control at Acme Corporation!

[William December Starr]

In article <c9195362-c7c2-4a36...@googlegroups.com>,

Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> said:

> FWIW, I managed to endure the first 85 pages. If the author was
> trying to demonstrate how fatuous and inane chick lit can be, she
> did a fair job, but I am not sure that it was in dire need of
> being demonstrated.

Hmm. Change 'chick' to 'Hitler' and it sounds like my experience
with _The Iron Dream_.

(And 'she' to 'he,' of course.)

-- wds

[James Nicoll]

In article <ldcd7b$ioj$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

The Iron Dream was probably less pro-torture than the Alien books are.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On 2014-02-11 11:10:32 -0500, James Nicoll said:

> In article <ldcd7b$ioj$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article <c9195362-c7c2-4a36...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> said:
>>
>>> FWIW, I managed to endure the first 85 pages. If the author was
>>> trying to demonstrate how fatuous and inane chick lit can be, she
>>> did a fair job, but I am not sure that it was in dire need of
>>> being demonstrated.
>>
>> Hmm. Change 'chick' to 'Hitler' and it sounds like my experience
>> with _The Iron Dream_.
>>
> The Iron Dream was probably less pro-torture than the Alien books are.

It's more pro-slaughter than pro-torture.



--
I'm serializing a new Ethshar novel!
The sixteenth chapter is online at:
http://www.ethshar.com/ishtascompanion16.html

[James Nicoll]

In article <lddo0l$rh1$1...@dont-email.me>,

Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>On 2014-02-11 11:10:32 -0500, James Nicoll said:
>
>> In article <ldcd7b$ioj$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> In article <c9195362-c7c2-4a36...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Ahasuerus <ahas...@email.com> said:
>>>
>>>> FWIW, I managed to endure the first 85 pages. If the author was
>>>> trying to demonstrate how fatuous and inane chick lit can be, she
>>>> did a fair job, but I am not sure that it was in dire need of
>>>> being demonstrated.
>>>
>>> Hmm. Change 'chick' to 'Hitler' and it sounds like my experience
>>> with _The Iron Dream_.
>>>
>> The Iron Dream was probably less pro-torture than the Alien books are.
>
>It's more pro-slaughter than pro-torture.
>

The Alien books like slaughter too but making sure the targets know
that not only will they die but their loved ones will be targeted too
is something the hero takes time for. Because I guess Sippenhaft is
something the good guys do now.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:10:21 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
<jdni...@panix.com> wrote in
<news:lde03c$sst$1...@reader1.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> The Alien books like slaughter too but making sure the
> targets know that not only will they die but their loved
> ones will be targeted too is something the hero takes
> time for. Because I guess Sippenhaft is something the
> good guys do now.

What *are* you talking about? By and large it’s not
apparent that the targets even *have* any loved ones.

Brian