Midshipman's Hope

1 view
Skip to first unread message

BoxHill

unread,
Jan 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/29/96
to
Sorry, my post got truncated. Too long, no doubt :) Here, more or less, is
the rest of it:

Better yet, since we all think it is better for kids to have two parents,
don't let ANYONE with kids be in the military. That would address the
problem
he cites, rather than deleting uninvolved non-parents from the candidate
pool.

>My point is that it's neither convenient nor
>sensible, and that risking the efficacy of your combat troops to provide
>job opportunities for women is a counter-survival policy.

Whose survival? Women have died in droves in all wars; Cash only objects
when
they pick up a gun and participate."Providing job opportunities" is his
interpretation, not mine.

>The traditional
>arrangements exist for a very good reason: they work. That's all I've got
>to say about it; I fully expect to be vindicated when the next serious
war
>rolls around.
>
He is certainly correct when he implies that *historically* it worked
better
for men to be frontline troops: historically women were unable to control
their childbearing and the individual with greater upper body strength had
an
overwhelming advantage in wielding the weapons in use. Both conditions
have
already changed significantly, and will continue to do so. In addition, we
are talking about a naval force IN THE FUTURE, not modern-day land-based
shock troops. How much physical strength does it take to push the button
that
fires a missile? Or a laser weapon? Ooops, I slipped again. The answer:
virtually none.

Finally, Mr. Cash weighs in on childbearing:

>You sure blather on about stuff you don't know anything about. You ever
had
>any kids? No, I didn't think so... If you want to discuss this with my
>wife, I'm sure she'll give you an earful.
>
Actually, I DO have a kid. And I had him in the usual way. And I nursed
him.
And according to your standards of discussion, Mr. Cash, since you have
clearly not been pregnant, given birth, or nursed a child, YOU are the
one
who is blathering on about stuff you don't know anything about.

I don't really think we do the community at large any favor by tying up
bandwidth with this sort of peurile argument. People have gotten quite
tired
of this sort of thing. If you have something logical to say, say it.
Otherwise, if this is the level of discourse you intend to deal in, I
suggest
that you email me directly. That is, if you feel compelled to continue to
attempt to put me in my place.


Janet
//Dear Artemesia! Poetry's a snare:
//Bedlam has many Mansions: have a care:
//Your Muse diverts you, makes the Reader sad:
//You think your self inspir'd; He thinks you mad.

Bronis Vidugiris

unread,
Jan 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/31/96
to
In article <4ejbd6$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, BoxHill <box...@aol.com> wrote:
)
)Whose survival? Women have died in droves in all wars; Cash only objects
)when
)they pick up a gun and participate."Providing job opportunities" is his
)interpretation, not mine.

A couple of comments:

I don't have any really reliable data, but one thing I recall hearing about
was the suffering of the women/female refugees in Bosnia.
The men/male refugees weren't suffering, because they were already
dead! Who is being opressed more here will be left as an exercise
for the poliically correct reader.....

Secondly....

The original intent of the founding fathers here in the US was that
anyone could "pick up a gun" and defend themselves. This hasn't
quite lived up to it's billing, but citizens, regardless of
gender, do have indeed still have some rights in that regard
(not full auto weapons, though). One of the issues is that while this
is more attractive than being part of the military, it appears to
be less effective. Again, I'm lacking specific proof,
but professional military does seem to be favored over even the
best well-armed civillians. A possible excpetion to this is
gurillea warfare, where civillians/irregulars can (IMO) do
fairly well.

Tom Hooten

unread,
Feb 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/2/96
to
> b...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) wrote:
> >The original intent of the founding fathers here in the US was that
> >anyone could "pick up a gun" and defend themselves.

>In article <4euhkk$9...@news.azstarnet.com>, fel...@azstarnet.com (Dave
Felts) >wrote:
> The intent was that a person woulf be able
> to be a one man militia in a time of invasion or war

Let me respectfully step in at this point and stir the pot just a bit. I
have entered this mid-thread so please excuse any stupidity on my part.
But can anyone really KNOW the "original intent" of the founding fathers
concerning this controversial topic.

Allow me to present an alternative 2 cents worth: The founding fathers
being wise and worldly men knew that governments (or at least the
governments they had experienced) could not be trusted. Only the people
could be trusted. Therefore, in order to provide yet another check on
government they decided to allow for an armed citizenry. The bottom line
being that the founding fathers did not trust ANY government, not even the
one they were framing.

Feel free to resume any flame war I have interrupted. :)

Tom Hooten

--
"Man was made at the end of the week's work when God was tired."
- Mark Twain

Dave Felts

unread,
Feb 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/3/96
to
hoo...@airmail.net (Tom Hooten) wrote:

Hi Tom, how goes _THE WORD_

>>In article <4euhkk$9...@news.azstarnet.com>, fel...@azstarnet.com (Dave
>Felts) >wrote:
>> The intent was that a person woulf be able
>> to be a one man militia in a time of invasion or war

>Let me respectfully step in at this point and stir the pot just a bit. I
>have entered this mid-thread so please excuse any stupidity on my part.
>But can anyone really KNOW the "original intent" of the founding fathers
>concerning this controversial topic.

No, but I think we can deduce from the times that what they intended
was for people to have the right and the means to defend themselves
since, at that time, there existed no one to do it for them (i.e.
police, national military, or other law enforcement agencies) Now
that such organizations exist, there should be no reason for the
private ownership of handguns. Execpt (always) these agencies are no
longer able to protect the citizens and once again we must protect
ourselves.

>Allow me to present an alternative 2 cents worth: The founding fathers
>being wise and worldly men knew that governments (or at least the
>governments they had experienced) could not be trusted. Only the people
>could be trusted. Therefore, in order to provide yet another check on
>government they decided to allow for an armed citizenry. The bottom line
>being that the founding fathers did not trust ANY government, not even the
>one they were framing.

So the FF's established a governement based on the premise that the
citizens would revolt if the goverment got out of line? Is it possible
for the government to be any more out of line than it already is?
Maybe it's time to sound the call to arms and kick the bums out!

Dave
----------------------------------
Dave Felts (fel...@azstarnet.com)
Help! I've fallen and I can't reach my beer!


Dave Felts

unread,
Feb 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/3/96
to
b...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) wrote:

>The original intent of the founding fathers here in the US was that
>anyone could "pick up a gun" and defend themselves.

Truem but in my opinion this is severly outdated, They write the bill
of rights right after a revolution, when hostile (we made them
hostile) indians roamed the land. When the US could be invaded by more
powerful foriegn countries. The intent was that a person woulf be able


to be a one man militia in a time of invasion or war

Now I'd say the risk of a hostile foreign power setting foot on our
soil id slim to none. No need for peopl with guns to be ready to
defend home and hearth.

>Again, I'm lacking specific proof,
>but professional military does seem to be favored over even the
>best well-armed civillians. A possible excpetion to this is
>gurillea warfare, where civillians/irregulars can (IMO) do
>fairly well.

You're right, judst look at Vietnam. We were better trained, better
equiped, etc, but still lost. (BTW, the military still teaches that we
won. That it was the strength of our offensive that drove the
Vietnamese to the peace talks in Paris. Can you believe it?!)

Dana Crom

unread,
Feb 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/4/96
to
In article <4eup3c$d...@news.azstarnet.com>,

Dave Felts <fel...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
>hoo...@airmail.net (Tom Hooten) wrote:
>
>Hi Tom, how goes _THE WORD_
>
>>>In article <4euhkk$9...@news.azstarnet.com>, fel...@azstarnet.com (Dave
>>Felts) >wrote:
>>> The intent was that a person woulf be able
>>> to be a one man militia in a time of invasion or war
>
>>Let me respectfully step in at this point and stir the pot just a bit. I
>>have entered this mid-thread so please excuse any stupidity on my part.
>>But can anyone really KNOW the "original intent" of the founding fathers
>>concerning this controversial topic.
>
>No, but I think we can deduce from the times that what they intended
>was for people to have the right and the means to defend themselves
>since, at that time, there existed no one to do it for them (i.e.
>police, national military, or other law enforcement agencies) Now
>that such organizations exist, there should be no reason for the
>private ownership of handguns. Execpt (always) these agencies are no
>longer able to protect the citizens and once again we must protect
>ourselves.

Which is *not* the position taken in _The Federalist Papers_ - letters and
position papers written by the framers of the constitution, explaining why
the constitution was written and the purpose of each amendment. This was
all done to convince the states to ratify the constitution - *not* a sure
thing at the time.

Though they would agree that self defense was a valid reason for an armed
citizenry, they also, in large part, felt that it was a *necessary* check
on the powers of the government. And given the deep suspicion of the
federalist movement by many at the time, the constitution might have been
rejected without it.

>>Allow me to present an alternative 2 cents worth: The founding fathers
>>being wise and worldly men knew that governments (or at least the
>>governments they had experienced) could not be trusted. Only the people
>>could be trusted. Therefore, in order to provide yet another check on
>>government they decided to allow for an armed citizenry. The bottom line
>>being that the founding fathers did not trust ANY government, not even the
>>one they were framing.
>
>So the FF's established a governement based on the premise that the
>citizens would revolt if the goverment got out of line? Is it possible
>for the government to be any more out of line than it already is?
>Maybe it's time to sound the call to arms and kick the bums out!

Wasn't it Jefferson who wondered if we didn't need a revolution every 50
years or so? Even if we count the Civil War, we are over 80 years overdue
for the next. And I'm not sure if that statement requires a smiley, or a
grimace of fear.
--
------------------------+------------------------------------------------------
Dana Crom (415) 933-1449| I now have a mental picture of a "Hotditarod" where
da...@morc.mfg.sgi.com | a team of naked humans drags a dog in air-conditioned
Silicon Graphics, Inc. | comfort from Mexico City to Buenos Aires - L. Smith

Jeff Suzuki

unread,
Feb 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/4/96
to
Dana Crom (da...@morc.mfg.sgi.com) wrote:

: Though they would agree that self defense was a valid reason for an armed


: citizenry, they also, in large part, felt that it was a *necessary* check
: on the powers of the government. And given the deep suspicion of the
: federalist movement by many at the time, the constitution might have been
: rejected without it.

I wouldn't take _The Federalist Papers_ too absolutely as the source
of what "The Founding Fathers" thought. While it gives you insight as
to what Madison, Hamilton, and Jay thought, it was mainly a method to
get people to vote in favor of the new constitution which had been
laboriously hammered out by a series of compromises. About the only
thing the Founding Fathers had in common was they were all men.

The situation doesn't help much that the actual Second Amendment is
pretty murky grammatically (as were many other important documents:
what's a "more perfect" union????). I quote:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

Now, does this mean that you can keep and bear arms for the purpose of
having a well regulated Militia (the prevailing judicial opinion
before the twentieth century, judging by books on Constitutional law
written at the time), or does it mean that if you have people who keep
and bear arms, you can create a well regulated Militia from them? (By
the former, BTW, assault rifles are _much_ more constitutionally
protected than pistols)

Jeffs

Leland Krueger

unread,
Feb 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/4/96
to

On Sat, 3 Feb 1996, Dave Felts wrote:

>
> Truem but in my opinion this is severly outdated, They write the bill
> of rights right after a revolution, when hostile (we made them
> hostile) indians roamed the land. When the US could be invaded by more

> powerful foriegn countries. The intent was that a person woulf be able


> to be a one man militia in a time of invasion or war
>

> Now I'd say the risk of a hostile foreign power setting foot on our
> soil id slim to none. No need for peopl with guns to be ready to
> defend home and hearth.

I have to disagree with you here Dave. I believe the founding fathers
looked at history and saw that the majority of governments that became
oppressive had disarmed the citzens. The prime example of this is
Imperial China, any dynasty. This is not to say I believe the US
government is out to disarm Americans in order to turn them into serfs
or something. I do think it is a bad idea to mess with the Bill of
Rights.

>
>
> You're right, judst look at Vietnam. We were better trained, better
> equiped, etc, but still lost. (BTW, the military still teaches that we
> won. That it was the strength of our offensive that drove the
> Vietnamese to the peace talks in Paris. Can you believe it?!)
>
>

Are you trying to say that you don't think Linebacker I and II had
anything to do with the North Vietnamese coming to the table?

Leland Krueger
l...@techapp.com

"Loyalty above all else, except honor."

Dave Felts

unread,
Feb 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/6/96
to
Leland Krueger <l...@techapp.com> wrote:

>> You're right, judst look at Vietnam. We were better trained, better
>> equiped, etc, but still lost. (BTW, the military still teaches that we
>> won. That it was the strength of our offensive that drove the
>> Vietnamese to the peace talks in Paris. Can you believe it?!)

>Are you trying to say that you don't think Linebacker I and II had
>anything to do with the North Vietnamese coming to the table?

Yes they did, but not in the way teh military teaches in their
professional military education schools. THEY teach that we had won
the war and left pretty much on our own terms, and that's just not
true.

>Leland Krueger
>l...@techapp.com

>"Loyalty above all else, except honor."

----------------------------------

Leland Krueger

unread,
Feb 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/6/96
to

On Tue, 6 Feb 1996, Dave Felts wrote:

>
> Yes they did, but not in the way teh military teaches in their
> professional military education schools. THEY teach that we had won
> the war and left pretty much on our own terms, and that's just not
> true.
>

Interesting. I went through Air Force basic about five years ago
and the details in the PFE were not presented this way. Rolling Thunder
was written off as having little to no impact and Linebacker I & II
were credited only with getting the North Vietnamese to the negotiating
table. The main thing emphasized was the Air Force learning the value
of operational and communication security.

Bronis Vidugiris

unread,
Feb 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/6/96
to
In article <4f17uj$m...@fido.asd.sgi.com>,
Dana Crom <da...@morc.mfg.sgi.com> wrote:

)Which is *not* the position taken in _The Federalist Papers_ - letters and
)position papers written by the framers of the constitution, explaining why
)the constitution was written and the purpose of each amendment. This was
)all done to convince the states to ratify the constitution - *not* a sure
)thing at the time.

)Though they would agree that self defense was a valid reason for an armed
)citizenry, they also, in large part, felt that it was a *necessary* check
)on the powers of the government. And given the deep suspicion of the
)federalist movement by many at the time, the constitution might have been
)rejected without it.

Yep. (IMO).

Joseph Askew

unread,
Feb 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/6/96
to
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960206013810.6039B-100000@volcano> Leland Krueger <l...@techapp.com> writes:

>Rolling Thunder
>was written off as having little to no impact and Linebacker I & II
>were credited only with getting the North Vietnamese to the negotiating
>table.

Just out of curiousity, given that the North Vietnamese always
knew that there was no other possible route to victory besides
the obvious "tire the US out and get a political settlement"
why would anyone in their right minds think the NV needed any
sort of encouragement of any sort to come to the table especially
when they know the result will be a US collapse?

Joseph

Dave Felts

unread,
Feb 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/7/96
to
Leland Krueger <l...@techapp.com> wrote:


>Interesting. I went through Air Force basic about five years ago

>and the details in the PFE were not presented this way. Rolling Thunder


>was written off as having little to no impact and Linebacker I & II
>were credited only with getting the North Vietnamese to the negotiating

>table. The main thing emphasized was the Air Force learning the value
>of operational and communication security.

True, as well as being the first engament to seriously employ
precision guided munitions. At Squadron Officer's Scholl they kept
emphasizing the helplessnes of the Vietnamese and how we could bomb
them at will. When I asked why, if that was true, we negotiated a
settlement that basically had us as the losers no one really had the
answer. (Shut up and color Capt Felts)

And. for Mr. Fientuch's benefit, I suppose we could compare the Fish's
guerilla (sp?) tactics to those of the Vietcong. On one side his navy
with superior technology and technical superiority, on the other side
the Fish, exploiting the natural environment (which is thier own) to
their advantage.

How's that Mr. Fientuch? :)

Eric Gross

unread,
Feb 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/7/96
to
David --

If you're reading, I just wanted to give you my compliments.

I had not heard of you or the series until very recently (I'm just getting
back into reading SF after a few years enforced absence due to the demands of
getting a PhD . . . .) when I logged into this group, saw the thread and
picked up a mention of you on a list of good military SF writers.

I picked up Midshipman's Hope about a month ago, but was busy and couldn't get
time to read it. My wife saw it lying on the dresser, picked it up, read it
and liked it very much. She also started hinting about getting the next
book in the series . . . . The other night I went to bed, popped on the
booklight and thought "Hey, I'll read a bit before I go to bed." Well, I read
175 pages and couldn't stop, and only put it down because I knew I had to get
up in a few hours and go to work . . . .

Excellent work, sir. The second book is on order and I am eagerly awaiting its
arrival. You have captured some of the classic dilemmas of command and
authority, and presented some very human characters. And told a darn fine
story, too :)

Again, our thanks for your work and my compliments and best wishes to you!

Leland Krueger

unread,
Feb 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/7/96
to

On Wed, 7 Feb 1996, Dave Felts wrote:

> True, as well as being the first engament to seriously employ
> precision guided munitions. At Squadron Officer's Scholl they kept
> emphasizing the helplessnes of the Vietnamese and how we could bomb
> them at will. When I asked why, if that was true, we negotiated a
> settlement that basically had us as the losers no one really had the
> answer. (Shut up and color Capt Felts)

I can say, quite happily, I never went to OTS and my chances of further
military provided training are close to nil (3 more years in the IRR).
I have to admit some of the older noncoms and officers tried to put a
positive spin on the Vietnam war and its ending.

Leland Krueger

unread,
Feb 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/7/96
to

On Tue, 6 Feb 1996, Joseph Askew wrote:

> Just out of curiousity, given that the North Vietnamese always
> knew that there was no other possible route to victory besides
> the obvious "tire the US out and get a political settlement"
> why would anyone in their right minds think the NV needed any
> sort of encouragement of any sort to come to the table especially
> when they know the result will be a US collapse?
>

Hello Joseph,
I believe it was more a matter of the NV realizing the US wanted out of
the war and trying to gain concessions from us. Nixon called for
Linebacker II after the NV left the negotiating table. I am not familiar
with why the NV left the negotiation.

Dave Felts

unread,
Feb 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/8/96
to
egr...@mailer.fsu.edu (Eric Gross) wrote:

>>> True, as well as being the first engament to seriously employ
>>> precision guided munitions. At Squadron Officer's Scholl they kept
>>> emphasizing the helplessnes of the Vietnamese and how we could bomb
>>> them at will. When I asked why, if that was true, we negotiated a
>>> settlement that basically had us as the losers no one really had the
>>> answer. (Shut up and color Capt Felts)

>I'm surprised that no one could answer this, since the answer is really quite
>simple -- war has a political and a military dimension; ascendency in one does
>not translate into ascendency in the other. Also, the ability to bomb at will
>does not translate into the abillity to defeat an enemy or drive him to
>surrender . . . .

You're absolutly correct, and I realize this. My main confusion was
why the instructors teaching the 'party' line weren't able (or
weren't) willing to explain this. Vietnam was lost on the homefront,
not in SE Asia. They did, however, comment on the important of public
opinion on influencing national policy.

epi...@ibm.net

unread,
Feb 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/8/96
to
In <4f8htd$d...@spectator.cris.com>, Writ...@cris.com (David Feintuch) writes:
> Very interesting thread, you guys. But I keep reading it hoping to
>find some mention of "Midshipman's Hope" by one David Feintuch. :)
>
> Guess I'm doomed to be perennially disappointed... <sigh>... :)
>
>
>
>David Feintuch
>
> p.s. FISHERMAN'S HOPE, the climax of the series, is now reaching
>your bokstore.
>
>
David,

FWIW, Fisherman's Hope will probably not make it up into Canada until March.
Major bummer :-(.

Eric Pinnell

(Nuke dem Feesh!)

Jeff Suzuki

unread,
Feb 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/14/96
to
Leland Krueger (l...@techapp.com) wrote:

: I have to disagree with you here Dave. I believe the founding fathers


: looked at history and saw that the majority of governments that became
: oppressive had disarmed the citzens. The prime example of this is
: Imperial China, any dynasty.

Not that the Founding Fathers knew much about Imperial China.
However, they did have the example of Stuart England.

In any case, though, it's pretty clear from their writings that the
Founding Fathers feared _not_ government, but government _by the
people_. (Yep, that's what I said) Carefully read the constitution,
and see how many road blocks there are to direct democracy. The
direct election of Senators is a recent addition to the Constitution;
even today, the Constitution does not provide for direct election of
the President, though in practice the electoral college does vote for
who "the people" vote for.

Or for that matter, read the Constitution of the State of Virginia,
written by Thomas Jefferson (and one of three things on his tombstone,
none of which were being President). Jefferson warned of the dangers
of "tyranny of the majority", and was especially fearful of direct
democracy: his idea of democracy was a nation of well-read
independent farmers. Jeffersonian democracy was essentially rule by
an educated elite, and bears little resemblance to what we would
consider democracy.

You can even compare the Articles of Confederation with the
Constitution; the AoC provided for a much _weaker_ central government,
and one of the main achievements of the Constitution was strengthening
the power of the government.

Jeffs

David Feintuch

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to
ross.2440...@mailer.fsu.edu>
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Distribution:

Eric Gross (egr...@mailer.fsu.edu) wrote: : David --

: If you're reading, I just wanted to give you my compliments.

Yes, I'm reading :) And thank you very much.

: I had not heard of you or the series until very recently (I'm just getting

: back into reading SF after a few years enforced absence due to the demands of
: getting a PhD . . . .) when I logged into this group, saw the thread and
: picked up a mention of you on a list of good military SF writers.

: I picked up Midshipman's Hope about a month ago, but was busy and couldn't get
: time to read it. My wife saw it lying on the dresser, picked it up, read it
: and liked it very much. She also started hinting about getting the next
: book in the series . . . . The other night I went to bed, popped on the
: booklight and thought "Hey, I'll read a bit before I go to bed." Well, I read
: 175 pages and couldn't stop, and only put it down because I knew I had to get
: up in a few hours and go to work . . . .

there's no praise I love more than "I couldn't put it down."
Thank you.


: Excellent work, sir. The second book is on order and I am eagerly awaiting its

: arrival. You have captured some of the classic dilemmas of command and
: authority, and presented some very human characters. And told a darn fine
: story, too :)

: Again, our thanks for your work and my compliments and best wishes to you!

Hope you enjoy the others as well. Let me know.

David Feintuch
http://www.cris.com/~writeman


David Feintuch

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to
8htd$d...@spectator.cris.com> <4fbfss$4q...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>

Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Distribution:

epi...@ibm.net wrote: : In <4f8htd$d...@spectator.cris.com>,


Writ...@cris.com (David Feintuch) writes: : > Very interesting thread,
you guys. But I keep reading it hoping to : >find some mention of
"Midshipman's Hope" by one David Feintuch. :) : > : > Guess I'm doomed to

be perennially disappointed... <sigh>... :) : > : > p.s. FISHERMAN'S
HOPE, the climax of the series, is now reaching : >your bookstore.
: >

: FWIW, Fisherman's Hope will probably not make it up into Canada until March.
: Major bummer :-(.

: Eric Pinnell

: (Nuke dem Feesh!)

Must be all those Canadian censors we keep hearing about, Eric.
How far are you from the border?

Dave Feintuch
http://www.cris.com/~writeman


BrianD

unread,
Feb 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/16/96
to
Hey, I'm in Fredericton, NB (Canada) and I just picked up Fisherman's Hope
last night.

If we have it here, it's already everywhere.

BTW re: The Book - I'm half way through it, and expect to finish it tonight
right after the second part of X-Files. I may even tape X-Files and finish
the book first :)

Brian A. Davis
President,
Fredericton Science Fiction Society
Fredericton, NB, CANADA

jgar...@kean.ucs.mun.ca

unread,
Feb 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/17/96
to
In article <4g1779$a...@spectator.cris.com>, Writ...@cris.com (David Feintuch) writes:
> 8htd$d...@spectator.cris.com> <4fbfss$4q...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
> Organization: Concentric Internet Services
> Distribution:
>
> epi...@ibm.net wrote: : In <4f8htd$d...@spectator.cris.com>,
> Writ...@cris.com (David Feintuch) writes: : > Very interesting th
> : FWIW, Fisherman's Hope will probably not make it up into Canada until March.
> : Major bummer :-(.
>
> : Eric Pinnell
>
> : (Nuke dem Feesh!)
>
> Must be all those Canadian censors we keep hearing about, Eric.
> How far are you from the border?
>
> Dave Feintuch
> http://www.cris.com/~writeman
>
I got it in St. John's NF on Feb 13. It ought to be elsewhere in Canada if
it got here.

John Garland
jgar...@kean.ucs.mun.ca

tose...@ttown.apci.com

unread,
Feb 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/21/96
to
While I enjoyed this book(actually books since I went out and bought the second one) I wonder

IS IT SCIENCE FICTION?

Clearly, MH belongs to the genre of sea stories in the vein most recently of O'Brien's series-- captain supreem on his ship
doubts himself and has some character flaws--except for the aliens. But the aliens are brought in at the end and not really
described well at all. They are sort of an addon to the plot.
I contend that the book could have been written about a1800 ship without much change. Therefore, I ask is it SF.
I am not looking for a general "What is SF?", but ask for this particular book.
The aliens while an interesting idea are not a factor in any meaningful way in either of the two volumes I read. SF could
explore the interaction, society etc. but since the book doesn't do this. I ask the question.
As we've been reading in this group, the book takes us back to pre-Tailgate days. In fact it takes us back much further to
the navy of 1800 England. SF might explore the society which would lead to a reversion of society as seen in the book. I
realize that an ill-defined religion is the reason. I believe SF would explore that society. A good part of the previous books in
the sea-going genre, in fact, explore the relationship between the society and the ship customs.

kevin christopher klemme

unread,
Feb 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/22/96
to
Is it science fiction? Well, yeah, at least it meets a certain minimum
standard of being set in the future, mostly in space, etc. If you're
going to insist that to be "science fiction" a work has to make a social
study of the culture portrayed, there's an awful lot of stuff calling
itself "science fiction" that's going to have to find a new genre for itself.

But for what it's worth, the third and fourth books in the series focus
more on the two most significant planets--Hope Nation and Earth--and do
spend more time exploring the society from which Seafort comes.

You seem to assume that Seafort's society is a step BACKWARD from our
own. Am I reading your message correctly? While I certainly would not
want to live in Seafort's world, one of the things that I like best
about Feintuch's writing is that he projects a future using a different
set of assumptions than I've usually seen in the science fiction I've read.

Kevin


David Feintuch

unread,
Feb 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/23/96
to
kevin christopher klemme (kkl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote (about
Midshipman's Hope):

: Is it science fiction? Well, yeah, at least it meets a certain minimum


: standard of being set in the future, mostly in space, etc.

The essential elements of the story could have been transposed
to, as some have noted, the British navy in the age of sail. But I think
there are enough sf elements to make the story clearly sf. Besides, a
future dystopia is almost by definition sf. No?

: One of the things that I like best


: about Feintuch's writing is that he projects a future using a different
: set of assumptions than I've usually seen in the science fiction I've read.

Ahhh.... thank you. That's one of the things I've disliked about
an awful lot of the genre: the future is either a high tech wonderland,
or a regressive swords-among-fission-reactors sort of place. I tried for
something different, but I must admit the story built the society, and
not the other way around.

Thanks for your praise.

David Feintuch
writ...@cris.com

http:///www.cris.com/~writeman

Peter Cash

unread,
Feb 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM2/29/96
to
David Feintuch wrote:
...

> The essential elements of the story could have been transposed
> to, as some have noted, the British navy in the age of sail. But I think
> there are enough sf elements to make the story clearly sf. Besides, a
> future dystopia is almost by definition sf. No?

Aha, the author shows his cards. So tell me David--why, precisely, is
the world of _Midshipman's Hope_ a dystopia?

David Feintuch

unread,
Mar 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/11/96
to
dra...@cencom.net wrote:

: I'll second that. I find the future portrayed in the Seafort Saga to be even
: worse than the Megacorp futures portrayed in the Cyberpunk novels. There is
: not much in the Seafort Saga universe to recommend it.

Hmm... are we talking about the society, or the novels, here?

David Feintuch

pat...@mail.atcon.com

unread,
Mar 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/12/96
to
Writ...@cris.com (David Feintuch) wrote:

>dra...@cencom.net wrote:

>David Feintuch

The Novels are great. I saw the first one in the store, hummed and
hawed. I final picked one on a Saturday. I finished early
Sunday morning, had to wait until Monday for the bookstores to
open : (

Patrick Usherwood


David Feintuch

unread,
Mar 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/13/96
to
pat...@MAIL.ATCON.COM wrote:

: The Novels are great. I saw the first one in the store, hummed and


: hawed. I final picked one on a Saturday. I finished early
: Sunday morning, had to wait until Monday for the bookstores to
: open


Thank you. How far have you gotten by now?

Dave feintuch


David Feintuch

unread,
Mar 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/14/96
to
pat...@MAIL.ATCON.COM wrote:
: > Thank you. How far have you gotten by now?

: >Dave feintuch

: I finished all three that week. Now I wait for Aspect to finish
: your next one and get it on the shelf. Did you read Alexander
: Kent's (a pen name) series?

Yep, as soon as Forrester died. A great disappointment.
Immitation Hornblower without soul.

Though I have quibbles with Patrick O'brien, he is MUCH better.

Dave Feintuch

dra...@cencom.net

unread,
Mar 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/18/96
to

> dra...@cencom.net wrote:
>
> : I'll second that. I find the future portrayed in the Seafort Saga to be
> even
> : worse than the Megacorp futures portrayed in the Cyberpunk novels. There
> is
> : not much in the Seafort Saga universe to recommend it.
>
> Hmm... are we talking about the society, or the novels, here?
>
> David Feintuch

Definately the portrayed future society. Your books were excellent and among
the best I read this last year. The society in your novels frankly scares the
hell out of me as a future society. There seems to be a small, religious elite
group and a lot of uneducated trannies. No one even seems to care that the
trannies are not getting an education and are killing themselves off. I'll
admit that our current society isn't great on this issue also, but at least
people don't respond that they are just trannies when they are killed.


dra...@cencom.net

unread,
Mar 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/18/96
to
Here's a question for everybody who has read the novels and for David Feintuch
too. Just how intelligent were the Fish? They seemed pretty intelligent to
me that they acted in concert with each other and used tools such as rocks and
such when they attacked. They also, I think delibertly knowing what they were
doing, spread disease among Hope nation from what the first book said about
them dropping packets of disease on the planet. And yet, although they seemed
as intelligent as a primate for example, they stupidly went to their death in
the last book due to the human equivalent of fingernails on the blackboard.
What thoughts do you have on this subject?


kevin christopher klemme

unread,
Mar 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/19/96
to

Darned good question! One speculation: the Fish may have a blind spot
regarding gravity that they can't escape. Since space flight seems to
come naturally to them, and since we saw no evidence of technology
amongst them, perhaps they've never calculated a safe distance from the
sun. Another factor may be that they are as blind in hyperspace as
humans are, and so they just followed the call. Planetary gravity
doesn't seem to bother them much--some Fish landed on planets, presumably
they were going to leave.

Not a coherent theory, just thoughts off the top of my head.

Kevin


dra...@cencom.net

unread,
Mar 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/19/96
to

Planetary gravity didn't seem to hurt them much, but there is no indication
that once they landed on the planet they could ever get off of it again. Okay,
I can see the first group of Fish being tricked to their death, but what about
the other Fish? Didn't they notice in anyway? Besides, with how long I would
imagine the Fish being around as they evolved, you would think at least one of
them would have gotten too close to a sun like they did in this book and died.
Assuming this had happened before, I would think that the other fish would know
not to do this from the other Fish's example.

On another idea, I can't remember a reason why the Fuse ships didn't land on a
planet. Was there something in the technology of Fusing that stoped them from
doing it on a planet?

David Feintuch

unread,
Mar 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/20/96
to
dra...@cencom.net wrote:

: > : not much in the Seafort Saga universe to recommend it.


: >
: > Hmm... are we talking about the society, or the novels, here?
: >
: > David Feintuch

: Definately the portrayed future society. Your books were excellent and among
: the best I read this last year. The society in your novels frankly scares the
: hell out of me as a future society. There seems to be a small, religious elite
: group and a lot of uneducated trannies. No one even seems to care that the
: trannies are not getting an education and are killing themselves off. I'll
: admit that our current society isn't great on this issue also, but at least
: people don't respond that they are just trannies when they are killed.

Glad to hear you liked the stories. I wish you could prove to me
that the world I suggest is as unlikely as you wish it were.

Dave Feintuch

David Feintuch

unread,
Mar 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/20/96
to
kevin christopher klemme (kkl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:

: dra...@cencom.net wrote:
: > Here's a question for everybody who has read the novels and for David Feintuch
: > too. Just how intelligent were the Fish?


Nice question. I don't want to influence the discussion by being
the first to comment, so I'll wait a bit and throw my two cents worth in
after...

Dave Feintuch

Laurence Brothers

unread,
Mar 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/20/96
to
Re the intelligence of the fish:

Well, just because they may be intelligent doesn't mean they can't
have instincts too, such as the attraction to the caterwauling cry;
possibly some sort of distress or mating signal.

However, I incline to the opinion that the fish were deliberately
bred war-creatures of low intelligence capable of performing
only simple tasks for their unknown masters.... Possibly
they "escaped" like Berserkers. But the ability to develop
a plague selective enough to affect an alien race of radically
different type argues science behind the scenes someplace,
and the fish don't appear to have the resources to develop
such a plague: even if they are "intuitive chemists" their
physiology and chemistry have to be totally different from
planet-bound humans. I suppose it's theoretically possible
that as a result of their capture and/or ingestion of some human
victims at some point they could non-scientifically develop
an appropriate plague form, but I find it implausible at best.

--
Laurence R. Brothers ~ qua...@bellcore.com
"There is no memory with less satisfaction in it than the memory
of some temptation we resisted." -- James Branch Cabell

Larry J Lennhoff

unread,
Mar 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/21/96
to
In article <4iq44v$9...@tribune.cris.com>,

>kevin christopher klemme (kkl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>: dra...@cencom.net wrote:
>: > Here's a question for everybody who has read the novels
>: > . Just how intelligent were the Fish?
>
I'd claim they were comparable in intelligence to humans, but alien enough in
nature that communication was impossible. (Varsle, not Ramen, to use OSC's
nomenclature). I find it hard to believe that the creation and spraying
of the virus would be possible w/o sentience.

Even now I believe the Fish aren't all wiped out. I suspect they have marked
the area around earth as "too dangerous to go near". Intelligent or not,
Nick didn't kill enough Fish to wipe out an entire species. If no further
Fish have appeared by Voices of Hope, I'll take that as further supporting
evidence that the Fish are intelligent.

So why didn't the Fish ever negotiate? There are several possibilities.

First, who's to say they recognized us as intelligent? If the Fish aren't
artificial in nature, there would have to be a Fusion based (or at
least space based ) ecosystem. If that's the case, the mere fact
that we Fuse proves nothing vis a vis intelligence. We could
just be some unintelligent herbivore who use the caterwalling effect
to scare off unintelligent predators. We could even be predators
whose caterwalling stuns less advanced forms than the Fish.

If the Fish are artificial, then all bets are off.
Its hard to speculate about the motives of the Fish, whose behavior we see.
Speculating about the makers-of-Fish is even harder.

Secondly, why assume that they didn't negotiate? The Fish seem to communicate
somehow (as they coordinate in bringing in rocks, etc.) yet we never figure
out how they do so. Even unintelligent animals tend to coordinate via
some physical means (ants leave trails, etc) but we enver spot this.
For all we know, the Fish were yelling on some hyperfrequency Fusion band
"Cut the damn noise and we'll leave you alone!" the entire time.

The principle argument against the Fish's intelligence is their behavoir at
the last battle. I rationalize this as follows: The Fish know getting too
near a gravity well is dangerous. They probably have some sense that lets
them no approximately when the gradient is too steep. But I would guess
they normally avoid going anywhere near a sun. Perhaps there's no prey,
and anyway its dangerous. But during the battle, not only are they trying
to think under extreeme conditions, but all their doing is following
the ships. It makes no sense the ships would go where they too would be
destroyed. So they followed quickly, and only after arriving did they
realize they were doomed. This theory implies that whatever method the
Fish use to communicate, it can't send information very far out of a steep
gravity well. This supports the idea that Fish communication is Fusion based.

Hope this was of interest

Larry
--
What is certain is that casual killing, on a caprice, is not just revenge
for parental detachment but an almost valid response to being born into an
absurd world, a frivolous fault in a venal universe. - Robin Thorber
l...@netcom.com

epi...@ibm.net

unread,
Mar 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/21/96
to
In <4iq44v$9...@tribune.cris.com>, Writ...@cris.com (David Feintuch) writes:
> Nice question. I don't want to influence the discussion by being
>the first to comment, so I'll wait a bit and throw my two cents worth in
>after...
>
>Dave Feintuch

David,

Clearly the fish were intelligent, in that they could cooperate to lob an
asteroid. It also implies some sort of speech/communication mechanism.

Eric Pinnell

Ian Philips

unread,
Mar 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/21/96
to

Just how intelligent were the Fish?
|>
|> Nice question. I don't want to influence the discussion by being
|> the first to comment, so I'll wait a bit and throw my two cents worth in
|> after...
|>
|> Dave Feintuch

A different question: How wide spread are the fish? Are they
spread throughout the whole galaxy? I have read just the first
three books and one thing I wondered was if the fish could
travel as far as they did and take as long as they did to
travel that distance, then you would have to leave a "lure"
running for years in order to attract all of them (to their deaths).

I don't know what happens if the next book(s), but if the humans
destroy all the fish, does that not seem much like the
problem at the end of Ender's Game? Humans killing off another
intellegent species?

Loved the Seafort books, read all the Hornblower books in my teens.

Ian Philips

Gwen Byrd

unread,
Mar 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/22/96
to
I agree with Dragon that any type of organism that can make tools,
cruise and navigate in space, and especially hear a cold fusion engine in
space (ever heard of a vacuum?) would know not to defuse near the sun.
Perhaps they thought they were going at night :)
Even through this, the writing and imagination is incredible.
Still a fan,
Gwen Byrd

David Silbey

unread,
Mar 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/23/96
to
In article <4iuvdt$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
gwen...@aol.com (Gwen Byrd) wrote:

> I agree with Dragon that any type of organism that can make tools,
>cruise and navigate in space, and especially hear a cold fusion engine in
>space (ever heard of a vacuum?)

Uh...did 'hearing' have anything to do with it? They may have used
'hearing' as shorthand to describe what the fish were doing, but I don't
know that that implies the same sort of 'hearing' as is impossible in a
vacuum.

Besides, you can't cast shadows in space, not not hear*.

David

*Yes, this is an obscure joke relating to a troll on the Star Trek
newsgroup that...never mind.

_____
David J Silbey Duke University sil...@dircon.co.uk

Kent M. Peterson

unread,
Mar 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/23/96
to
ian...@bnr.ca (Ian Philips) wrote:
>
>|> > Just how intelligent were the Fish?
>|>
>|> Nice question. I don't want to influence the discussion by being
>|> the first to comment, so I'll wait a bit and throw my two cents worth in
>|> after...
>|>
>|> Dave Feintuch
>
>I don't know what happens if the next book(s), but if the humans
>destroy all the fish, does that not seem much like the
>problem at the end of Ender's Game? Humans killing off another
>intellegent species?

Um, not really. In Ender's Game, the aliens realized what was wrong
with what they were doing, and stopped. The "problem" was that humans
then took over the genocide job, with full knowledge of what they were
doing. There has been no indication that the fish are either willing
or able to stop attacking humans, and in this case Graff's argument of
"us or them" is fully justified.

My opinion on this matter is that the fish may be reasonably intelligent,
but the "wailing" of the fusion drives causes them to behave in a purely
instinctive manner - sort of like using an ultrasonic stunner on a dog,
only more complicated. Whether the fish realize that they are getting
themselves into big trouble or not doesn't matter; they are affected by
the caterwauling in such a manner as to have no choice, they go into
a feeding frenzy or something, and keep attacking until they are shocked
out of it (heavy casualties), or they win (caterwauling stops), or they
die.

Kent Peterson


David Feintuch

unread,
Mar 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/23/96
to
Gwen Byrd (gwen...@aol.com) wrote:
: I agree with Dragon that any type of organism that can make tools,
: cruise and navigate in space, and especially hear a cold fusion engine in
: space (ever heard of a vacuum?) would know not to defuse near the sun.
: Perhaps they thought they were going at night :)

Bah :)

It makes as much sense to say that any type of organism that can
make tools, cruies and navigate in space would know not to kill its own
species, or worse, its young.

Incidentally, there is nothing I remember in the Seafrort series
that suggests the fish are a tool-maming species.

Also, "hearing" fusion is a metaphor, and was described in the
books as such by the characters who use the phrase. It means
sensing-with-some-organ-we-don't-quite-understand.


: Even through this, the writing and imagination is incredible.


: Still a fan,
: Gwen Byrd

And I still appreciate your criticism and thoughts.

Dave Feintuch
http://www.cris.com/~writeman


dra...@cencom.net

unread,
Mar 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/24/96
to

> : Definately the portrayed future society. Your books were excellent and
> among
> : the best I read this last year. The society in your novels frankly scares
> the
> : hell out of me as a future society. There seems to be a small, religious
> elite
> : group and a lot of uneducated trannies. No one even seems to care that the
> : trannies are not getting an education and are killing themselves off. I'll
> : admit that our current society isn't great on this issue also, but at least
> : people don't respond that they are just trannies when they are killed.
>
> Glad to hear you liked the stories. I wish you could prove to me
> that the world I suggest is as unlikely as you wish it were.
>
> Dave Feintuch

The fact that it isn't unlikely as I wish it was it what scares me the most
about your proposed future. Societies have a tendency to swing too far in one
direction to where the people get outraged by the excesses of some people.
Society then frequently swings too far in the opposite direction in protest.


Michael S. Schiffer

unread,
Mar 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/25/96
to
In article <4j1tdu$8...@tribune.cris.com>,
David Feintuch <Writ...@cris.com> wrote:

> Incidentally, there is nothing I remember in the Seafrort series
>that suggests the fish are a tool-maming species.

Certainly there are elements that _suggest_ they are tool
makers. If the fish are the primary enemy, they appear to be able to
make virulent plague germs, which suggests pretty impressive
biological analysis and biotech. There are other explanations, of
course: 1) they have an amazingly complex natural ability to analyze
genetic material and devise countermeasures-- sort of an offensive
equivalent of our immune system, although with a much greater range
(we're only able to counter terrestrial organisms, and not nearly all
of those). 2) The fish themselves are tools (or domesticated animals,
or slaves, or partners) of some as-yet-unseen tool-making species.

Mike

--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS "I decline utterly to be impartial
ms...@tezcat.com as between the fire brigade and the fire."
ms...@midway.uchicago.edu -- Winston Churchill, July 7, 1926
<URL: http://www.tezcat.com/~mss2/>


Gwen Byrd

unread,
Apr 7, 1996, 4:00:00 AM4/7/96
to
On your second proposal of the origin of the fish, this is an angle I
haven't thought of before. When they defused too close to the sun, I
thought it too preposterous of creatures who can navigate in space and
purposely spread "designer viruses". But suppose they were not entirely
sentient, only a domesticated species doing their dirty work for some
biological genius. On the plane of say, a pack of domesticated dogs
protecting their master.

Cool idea,
Gwen Byrd

David Feintuch

unread,
Apr 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/9/96
to
Gwen Byrd (gwen...@aol.com) wrote:
: On your second proposal of the origin of the fish, this is an angle I

Nick Seafort and I are wondering just what happened to the thread
name here...

David Feintuch


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages