Joe Haldeman, Grand Master
James Nicoll
Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
O
-|-
^
will be the next Grand Master, joining the ranks of Robert A. Heinlein (1974),
Jack Williamson (1975), Clifford D. Simak (1976), L. Sprague de Camp (1978),
Fritz Leiber (1981), Andre Norton (1983), Arthur C. Clarke (1985),
Isaac Asimov (1986), Alfred Bester (1987), Ray Bradbury (1988), Lester
del Rey (1990), Frederik Pohl (1992), Damon Knight (1994), A. E. van
Vogt (1995), Jack Vance (1996), Poul Anderson (1997), Hal Clement (1998),
Brian Aldiss (1999), Philip Jose Farmer (2000), Ursula K. Le Guin (2003),
Robert Silverberg (2004), Anne McCaffrey (2005), Harlan Ellison (2006),
James Gunn (2007), Michael Moorcock (2008) and Harry Harrison (2009).
--
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)
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <hg8b2a$d5h$1...@reader1.panix.com>):
> News is filtering through the blogosphere to the effect that
> Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
>
> O
> -|-
> ^
>
> will be the next Grand Master, joining the ranks of Robert A. Heinlein
> (1974),
> Jack Williamson (1975), Clifford D. Simak (1976), L. Sprague de Camp (1978),
> Fritz Leiber (1981), Andre Norton (1983), Arthur C. Clarke (1985),
> Isaac Asimov (1986), Alfred Bester (1987), Ray Bradbury (1988), Lester
> del Rey (1990), Frederik Pohl (1992), Damon Knight (1994), A. E. van
> Vogt (1995), Jack Vance (1996), Poul Anderson (1997), Hal Clement (1998),
> Brian Aldiss (1999), Philip Jose Farmer (2000), Ursula K. Le Guin (2003),
> Robert Silverberg (2004), Anne McCaffrey (2005), Harlan Ellison (2006),
> James Gunn (2007), Michael Moorcock (2008) and Harry Harrison (2009).
>
>
We need more girls and less McCaffreys. Fewer $cientologists wouldn't hurt,
either.
Lois McMaster Bujold for Grand Master. That's all three at one go.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Szymon Sokół
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:47:22 -0500, James Nicoll wrote
> (in article <hg8b2a$d5h$1...@reader1.panix.com>):
>
>> News is filtering through the blogosphere to the effect that
>> Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
>>
>> O
>> -|-
>> ^
His head is falling off.
>> will be the next Grand Master, joining the ranks of Robert A. Heinlein
>> (1974),
>> Jack Williamson (1975), Clifford D. Simak (1976), L. Sprague de Camp (1978),
>> Fritz Leiber (1981), Andre Norton (1983), Arthur C. Clarke (1985),
>> Isaac Asimov (1986), Alfred Bester (1987), Ray Bradbury (1988), Lester
>> del Rey (1990), Frederik Pohl (1992), Damon Knight (1994), A. E. van
>> Vogt (1995), Jack Vance (1996), Poul Anderson (1997), Hal Clement (1998),
>> Brian Aldiss (1999), Philip Jose Farmer (2000), Ursula K. Le Guin (2003),
>> Robert Silverberg (2004), Anne McCaffrey (2005), Harlan Ellison (2006),
>> James Gunn (2007), Michael Moorcock (2008) and Harry Harrison (2009).
>>
>>
>
> We need more girls and less McCaffreys. Fewer $cientologists wouldn't hurt,
> either.
I don't see L. Ron Hubbard on this list, so which ones are the
scientologists?
> Lois McMaster Bujold for Grand Master. That's all three at one go.
Good idea.
--
Szymon Sokół (SS316-RIPE) -- Network Manager B
Computer Center, AGH - University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland O
http://home.agh.edu.pl/szymon/ PGP key id: RSA: 0x2ABE016B, DSS: 0xF9289982 F
Free speech includes the right not to listen, if not interested -- Heinlein H
James Nicoll
J.J. O'Shea <no....@just.go.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:47:22 -0500, James Nicoll wrote
>(in article <hg8b2a$d5h$1...@reader1.panix.com>):
>
>> News is filtering through the blogosphere to the effect that
>> Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
>>
>> O
>> -|-
>> ^
He was not decapitated when I posted this.
>> will be the next Grand Master, joining the ranks of Robert A. Heinlein
>> (1974),
>> Jack Williamson (1975), Clifford D. Simak (1976), L. Sprague de Camp (1978),
>> Fritz Leiber (1981), Andre Norton (1983), Arthur C. Clarke (1985),
>> Isaac Asimov (1986), Alfred Bester (1987), Ray Bradbury (1988), Lester
>> del Rey (1990), Frederik Pohl (1992), Damon Knight (1994), A. E. van
>> Vogt (1995), Jack Vance (1996), Poul Anderson (1997), Hal Clement (1998),
>> Brian Aldiss (1999), Philip Jose Farmer (2000), Ursula K. Le Guin (2003),
>> Robert Silverberg (2004), Anne McCaffrey (2005), Harlan Ellison (2006),
>> James Gunn (2007), Michael Moorcock (2008) and Harry Harrison (2009).
>>
>>
>
>We need more girls and less McCaffreys. Fewer $cientologists wouldn't hurt,
>either.
Yeah, it's pretty much impossible for minors, male or female, to build up
the body of work needed for Grandmaster so I wouldn't expect any girls to
make the list.
What Scientologists are you thinking of above?
>Lois McMaster Bujold for Grand Master. That's all three at one go.
Not for another decade, I'd think.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1dl3x20t...@falcon.sloth.hell.pl>):
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:10:01 -0500, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:47:22 -0500, James Nicoll wrote
>> (in article <hg8b2a$d5h$1...@reader1.panix.com>):
>>
>>> News is filtering through the blogosphere to the effect that
>>> Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
>>>
>>> O
>>> -|-
>>> ^
>
> His head is falling off.
>
>>> will be the next Grand Master, joining the ranks of Robert A. Heinlein
>>> (1974),
>>> Jack Williamson (1975), Clifford D. Simak (1976), L. Sprague de Camp
>>> (1978),
>>> Fritz Leiber (1981), Andre Norton (1983), Arthur C. Clarke (1985),
>>> Isaac Asimov (1986), Alfred Bester (1987), Ray Bradbury (1988), Lester
>>> del Rey (1990), Frederik Pohl (1992), Damon Knight (1994), A. E. van
>>> Vogt (1995), Jack Vance (1996), Poul Anderson (1997), Hal Clement (1998),
>>> Brian Aldiss (1999), Philip Jose Farmer (2000), Ursula K. Le Guin (2003),
>>> Robert Silverberg (2004), Anne McCaffrey (2005), Harlan Ellison (2006),
>>> James Gunn (2007), Michael Moorcock (2008) and Harry Harrison (2009).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> We need more girls and less McCaffreys. Fewer $cientologists wouldn't hurt,
>> either.
>
> I don't see L. Ron Hubbard on this list, so which ones are the
> scientologists?
Van Vogt.
>
>> Lois McMaster Bujold for Grand Master. That's all three at one go.
>
> Good idea.
>
--
Anthony Nance
> News is filtering through the blogosphere to the effect that
> Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
>
> O
> -|-
> ^
>
> will be the next Grand Master, joining the ranks of Robert A. Heinlein (1974),
> Jack Williamson (1975), Clifford D. Simak (1976), L. Sprague de Camp (1978),
> Fritz Leiber (1981), Andre Norton (1983), Arthur C. Clarke (1985),
> Isaac Asimov (1986), Alfred Bester (1987), Ray Bradbury (1988), Lester
> del Rey (1990), Frederik Pohl (1992), Damon Knight (1994), A. E. van
> Vogt (1995), Jack Vance (1996), Poul Anderson (1997), Hal Clement (1998),
> Brian Aldiss (1999), Philip Jose Farmer (2000), Ursula K. Le Guin (2003),
> Robert Silverberg (2004), Anne McCaffrey (2005), Harlan Ellison (2006),
> James Gunn (2007), Michael Moorcock (2008) and Harry Harrison (2009).
Thanks for the news. When this rolls around and discussion turns to
future candidates, names usually include Wolfe, Delany, and Wilhelm,
with fewer nods/voices for Tenn, Russ, Budrys, and a bit of wavering
about some other folks for various reasons (e.g. Bujold, Matheson,
Niven, Cherryh, Vinge, John Christopher, Willis, ...)
Thanks again,
Tony
James Nicoll
Anthony Nance <na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> News is filtering through the blogosphere to the effect that
>> Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
>>
>> O
>> -|-
>> ^
>>
>> will be the next Grand Master, joining the ranks of Robert A. Heinlein
>(1974),
>> Jack Williamson (1975), Clifford D. Simak (1976), L. Sprague de Camp (1978),
>> Fritz Leiber (1981), Andre Norton (1983), Arthur C. Clarke (1985),
>> Isaac Asimov (1986), Alfred Bester (1987), Ray Bradbury (1988), Lester
>> del Rey (1990), Frederik Pohl (1992), Damon Knight (1994), A. E. van
>> Vogt (1995), Jack Vance (1996), Poul Anderson (1997), Hal Clement (1998),
>> Brian Aldiss (1999), Philip Jose Farmer (2000), Ursula K. Le Guin (2003),
>> Robert Silverberg (2004), Anne McCaffrey (2005), Harlan Ellison (2006),
>> James Gunn (2007), Michael Moorcock (2008) and Harry Harrison (2009).
>
>
>Thanks for the news. When this rolls around and discussion turns to
>future candidates, names usually include Wolfe, Delany, and Wilhelm,
>with fewer nods/voices for Tenn, Russ, Budrys,
I think the GM only goes to people who alive, which rules out
Budrys.
>and a bit of wavering
>about some other folks for various reasons (e.g. Bujold, Matheson,
>Niven, Cherryh, Vinge, John Christopher, Willis, ...)
I would not complain if Joan Vinge got the tap, although she's
a bit young for it.
Anthony Nance
> In article <hg8k8d$q5u$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> Anthony Nance <na...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> News is filtering through the blogosphere to the effect that
>>> Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
>>>
>>> O
>>> -|-
>>> ^
>>>
>>> will be the next Grand Master, joining the ranks of Robert A. Heinlein
>>(1974),
>>> Jack Williamson (1975), Clifford D. Simak (1976), L. Sprague de Camp (1978),
>>> Fritz Leiber (1981), Andre Norton (1983), Arthur C. Clarke (1985),
>>> Isaac Asimov (1986), Alfred Bester (1987), Ray Bradbury (1988), Lester
>>> del Rey (1990), Frederik Pohl (1992), Damon Knight (1994), A. E. van
>>> Vogt (1995), Jack Vance (1996), Poul Anderson (1997), Hal Clement (1998),
>>> Brian Aldiss (1999), Philip Jose Farmer (2000), Ursula K. Le Guin (2003),
>>> Robert Silverberg (2004), Anne McCaffrey (2005), Harlan Ellison (2006),
>>> James Gunn (2007), Michael Moorcock (2008) and Harry Harrison (2009).
>>
>>
>>Thanks for the news. When this rolls around and discussion turns to
>>future candidates, names usually include Wolfe, Delany, and Wilhelm,
>>with fewer nods/voices for Tenn, Russ, Budrys,
>
> I think the GM only goes to people who alive, which rules out
> Budrys.
Yep - I forgot, thanks. I did remember to remove a few other names
before posting, thankfully.
Tony
Howard
>
> I would not complain if Joan Vinge got the tap, although she's
> a bit young for it.
>
Really? Does Vinge have a body of work that says "Grandmaster"? (if
anyone could even agree on that...)
Brenda Clough
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:39:03 -0500, Szymon Sokóￜ? wrote
I believe you do have to be alive. OTOH I cannot remember Van Vogt's status.
Brenda
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
He's dead & a grandmaster, but not in that order.
Was he an all-the-way 'tologist? Somehow I thought he stopped at Dianactics
or whatever the precursor was called.
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Rich Horton
Nicoll) wrote:
>News is filtering through the blogosphere to the effect that
>Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
A good, even excellent, choice, better than about half of recent GM
choices. My only quibble is that Wolfe should have got it first. I
wonder if Haldeman's recent health scare had an effect?
Brenda Clough
I would think so. It was worrying.
Brenda
Howard Brazee
>Lois McMaster Bujold for Grand Master. That's all three at one go.
In general, these kind of honorary awards go to people who are
perceived as emeritus masters. One loses votes by being current
masters.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:10:01 -0500, J.J. O'Shea
><try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>>Lois McMaster Bujold for Grand Master. That's all three at one go.
>
>In general, these kind of honorary awards go to people who are
>perceived as emeritus masters. One loses votes by being current
>masters.
Um... that isn't SUPPOSED to be how it works. SFWA also has an
"Author Emeritus" position for people who aren't writing anymore.
Joe Haldeman is very much still active -- or at least, when he's
healthy he is.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
DouhetSukd
> News is filtering through the blogosphere to the effect that
> Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
>
> O
> -|-
> ^
>
> will be the next Grand Master, joining the ranks of Robert A. Heinlein (1974),
> Jack Williamson (1975), Clifford D. Simak (1976), L. Sprague de Camp (1978),
> Fritz Leiber (1981), Andre Norton (1983), Arthur C. Clarke (1985),
> Isaac Asimov (1986), Alfred Bester (1987), Ray Bradbury (1988), Lester
> del Rey (1990), Frederik Pohl (1992), Damon Knight (1994), A. E. van
> Vogt (1995), Jack Vance (1996), Poul Anderson (1997), Hal Clement (1998),
> Brian Aldiss (1999), Philip Jose Farmer (2000), Ursula K. Le Guin (2003),
> Robert Silverberg (2004), Anne McCaffrey (2005), Harlan Ellison (2006),
> James Gunn (2007), Michael Moorcock (2008) and Harry Harrison (2009).
>
> defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
A worthy choice, IMHO.
David DeLaney
>> Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
>>
>> O
>> -|-
>> ^
>>
AAAAH! You tabdamaged Joe Haldeman! ... Wait, he was already pluralized...
Dave "branes and branes" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "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.
Michael Stemper
>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:39:03 -0500, Szymon Sokół wrote (in article <1dl3x20t...@falcon.sloth.hell.pl>):
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:10:01 -0500, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>>> We need more girls and less McCaffreys. Fewer $cientologists wouldn't hurt,
>>> either.
>>
>> I don't see L. Ron Hubbard on this list, so which ones are the
>> scientologists?
>
>Van Vogt.
Was he a Scientologist? I know that he got into Dianetics, but did he
participate in the follow-on as well?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Why doesn't anybody care about apathy?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <hgaovm$e0g$2...@news.eternal-september.org>):
> In article <hg8ib...@news4.newsguy.com>, J.J. O'Shea
> <try.n...@but.see.sig> writes:
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:39:03 -0500, Szymon SokóŠwrote (in article
>> <1dl3x20t...@falcon.sloth.hell.pl>):
>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:10:01 -0500, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>
>>>> We need more girls and less McCaffreys. Fewer $cientologists wouldn't
>>>> hurt,
>>>> either.
>>>
>>> I don't see L. Ron Hubbard on this list, so which ones are the
>>> scientologists?
>>
>> Van Vogt.
>
> Was he a Scientologist? I know that he got into Dianetics, but did he
> participate in the follow-on as well?
>
>
As far as I know, yes.
Gerry Quinn
> In article <hg8ft...@news4.newsguy.com>,
> J.J. O'Shea <no....@just.go.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:47:22 -0500, James Nicoll wrote
> >(in article <hg8b2a$d5h$1...@reader1.panix.com>):
> >
> >> News is filtering through the blogosphere to the effect that
> >> Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
> >>
> >> O
> >> -|-
> >> ^
>
> He was not decapitated when I posted this.
He has been so viciously decapitated that no ordinary font,
proportional or non-proportion, can restore him. Only a special
surgical font, if such exists, can help him now!
- Gerry Quinn
Joseph Nebus
>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:14:04 -0700, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
>wrote:
>>On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:10:01 -0500, J.J. O'Shea
>><try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>>Lois McMaster Bujold for Grand Master. That's all three at one go.
>>
>>In general, these kind of honorary awards go to people who are
>>perceived as emeritus masters. One loses votes by being current
>>masters.
>Um... that isn't SUPPOSED to be how it works. SFWA also has an
>"Author Emeritus" position for people who aren't writing anymore.
>Joe Haldeman is very much still active -- or at least, when he's
>healthy he is.
Hmmm. While I'm happy to have Joe Haldeman alive and writing,
it does seem like there would be room for slight mischief by putting the
Grand Master and the Author Emeritus positions together and get someone
to preemptively call off the rest of the career.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Schilling
> News is filtering through the blogosphere to the effect that
> Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
>
> O
> -|-
> ^
>
> will be the next Grand Master,
With Bill Erlichman not far behind?
Tim McDaniel
Joseph Nebus <nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
>it does seem like there would be room for slight mischief by putting
>the Grand Master and the Author Emeritus positions together and get
>someone to preemptively call off the rest of the career.
Engraved on a plaque: "That will do extremely well. You have
delighted us long enough. Let the other authors have time to exhibit."
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Peter Knutsen
> News is filtering through the blogosphere to the effect that
> Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
I read "The Forever War" a couple of months ago, and while there were
some loud scientific blunders, it was good enough to make me think he
deserves the Grand Mastery.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
htn963
No author deserves the Grand Master award for just one book.* AFAICT,
_Forever War_ was Haldeman's only notable work.
*OTOH, this happens for Nobel prizes quite a few times (usually for
political reasons), e.g. Boris Pasternak for _Doctor Zhivago_.
--
Ht
Nigel
> In article <hg8hqp$t0...@reader1.panix.com>, jdnic...@panix.com says...
>
> > In article <hg8ft802...@news4.newsguy.com>,
> > J.J. O'Shea <no.b...@just.go.net> wrote:
> > >On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:47:22 -0500, James Nicoll wrote
>
> > >> News is filtering through the blogosphere to the effect that
> > >> Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
>
> > >> O
> > >> -|-
> > >> ^
>
> > He was not decapitated when I posted this.
>
> He has been so viciously decapitated that no ordinary font,
> proportional or non-proportion, can restore him. Only a special
> surgical font, if such exists, can help him now!
>
"Damit, I'm a Doctor, not a typesetter !"
Cheers,
Nigel.
Gerry Quinn
@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, htn...@live.com says...
Not to mention that two recent Peace Prize recipients seem to have got
it for a fraudulent documentary and an inspirational autobiography
respectively.
- Gerry Quinn
htn963
Careful now, we don't want another sf thread in this political
newsgroup...oh, wait, I meant the other way around.
--
Ht
John Pelan
"only notable work"? Please. A career of high-quality short-fiction
and superior novels. I'll have to enjoy a moment of smugness in saying
that I called this one a couple of years ago; and I'll agree that Gene
Wolfe also needs to be so honored.
Mark Reichert
But Quinn knows that rightwingers and corporate flunkies have always
been free to make political posts here, it's only the left and anti-
corporate folk who get reamed for it. Atwood, J. Schilling, Friedman
never have gotten flack. An argument maybe, but not Sea Wasp saying
they're destroying the newsgroup.
Ahasuerus
> On Dec 20, 8:56 am, Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On 15/12/2009 16:47, James Nicoll wrote:
>
> > > News is filtering through the blogosphere to the effect that
> > > Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
>
> > I read "The Forever War" a couple of months ago, and while there were
> > some loud scientific blunders, it was good enough to make me think he
> > deserves the Grand Mastery.
>
> No author deserves the Grand Master award for just one book.* AFAICT,
> _Forever War_ was Haldeman's only notable work.
To quote http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NomLit57.html, Haldeman
has won 5 Hugos, 5 Nebulas, 1 World Fantasy Award, 1 Skylark, 1
Campbell Memorial Award, 1 Tiptree, 4 Locus Awards, 1 Ditmar, 1
Ignotus, 3 Rhysling Awards, 1 AnLab Poll, 1 Asimov's Reader Poll , 1
HOMer, 3 SE SF Awards, 1 Science Fiction Chronicle Reader Award, so
apparently quite a few people thought that a number of his other works
were also notable.
> *OTOH, this happens for Nobel prizes quite a few times (usually for
> political reasons), e.g. Boris Pasternak for _Doctor Zhivago_.
Pasternak was a leading Russian poet and the Nobel prize was awarded
for "important achievements both in contemporary lyric poetry and in
the field of the great Russian epic tradition".
Robert A. Woodward
<f0afc89a-24d2-46d5...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
John Pelan <jpe...@cnw.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2:07�am, htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 8:56�am, Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > On 15/12/2009 16:47, James Nicoll wrote:
> >
> > > > News is filtering through the blogosphere to the effect that
> > > > Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
> >
> > > I read "The Forever War" a couple of months ago, and while there were
> > > some loud scientific blunders, it was good enough to make me think he
> > > deserves the Grand Mastery.
> >
> > No author deserves the Grand Master award for just one book.* �AFAICT,
> > _Forever War_ was Haldeman's only notable work.
> >
> > *OTOH, this happens for Nobel prizes quite a few times (usually for
> > political reasons), e.g. Boris Pasternak for _Doctor Zhivago_.
> >
> > --
> > Ht
>
> "only notable work"? Please. A career of high-quality short-fiction
> and superior novels. <snip>
Not to mention "Oh, the embarrassment!" (which poster htn963 should
consider).
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
DouhetSukd
eserves the Grand Mastery.
>
> No author deserves the Grand Master award for just one book.* AFAICT,
> _Forever War_ was Haldeman's only notable work.
Well, if you'd peruse just the Nebula listings, you'd see he's a more
frequent fixture TYWATT.
Forever Peace was pretty prescient, when looking at Predator/Reaper-
based warfare. Camouflage was also pretty good and those are just 2
recent ones. All My Sins Remembered, Worlds...
Basically, he's a good solid author with interesting and inventive
themes - wish for more like him.
Gerry Quinn
@x20g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, Mark_R...@hotmail.com says...
> On Dec 21, 11:16 am, htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 8:15 am, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> > > In article <3b5dd5b4-c784-440f-a560-190debda2626
> > > @o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, htn...@live.com says...
> > > > *OTOH, this happens for Nobel prizes quite a few times (usually for
> > > > political reasons), e.g. Boris Pasternak for _Doctor Zhivago_.
> >
> > > Not to mention that two recent Peace Prize recipients seem to have got
> > > it for a fraudulent documentary and an inspirational autobiography
> > > respectively.
> >
> > Careful now, we don't want another sf thread in this political
> > newsgroup...oh, wait, I meant the other way around.
>
> But Quinn knows that rightwingers and corporate flunkies have always
> been free to make political posts here, it's only the left and anti-
> corporate folk who get reamed for it. Atwood, J. Schilling, Friedman
> never have gotten flack. An argument maybe, but not Sea Wasp saying
> they're destroying the newsgroup.
I made no political point - I merely pointed our that the Nobel Peace
Prize seems of late to be given in honour of literary or film works of
indifferent quality.
As for political posts, it seems that the greatest amount of criticism
tends to be reserved for the most idiotic posters, who are not
uniformly on the left, although many of them are.
- Gerry Quinn
htn963
> On Dec 21, 2:07 am, htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 8:56 am, Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > On 15/12/2009 16:47, James Nicoll wrote:
>
> > > > News is filtering through the blogosphere to the effect that
> > > > Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
>
> > > I read "The Forever War" a couple of months ago, and while there were
> > > some loud scientific blunders, it was good enough to make me think he
> > > deserves the Grand Mastery.
>
> > No author deserves the Grand Master award for just one book.* AFAICT,
> > _Forever War_ was Haldeman's only notable work.
>
> > *OTOH, this happens for Nobel prizes quite a few times (usually for
> > political reasons), e.g. Boris Pasternak for _Doctor Zhivago_.
>
> > --
> > Ht
>
> "only notable work"? Please. A career of high-quality short-fiction
> and superior novels.
I'll admit to not having paid much attention to Haldeman's short-
fiction. In any case, it would be nice to see more authors being so
honored for shorter works (like Harlan Ellison) since I think that's
where the true heart and spirit of sf still reside.
> I'll have to enjoy a moment of smugness in saying
> that I called this one a couple of years ago; and I'll agree that Gene
> Wolfe also needs to be so honored.
Wolfe's a good candidate, if only for his "literary" cachet.
--
Ht
htn963
Now, now, bubblebear.
Btw, when's the next Bujold book coming out? I'm looking forward to
trashing it.
--
Ht
htn963
> On Dec 21, 4:07 am, htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 20, 8:56 am, Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > On 15/12/2009 16:47, James Nicoll wrote:
>
> > > > News is filtering through the blogosphere to the effect that
> > > > Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
>
> > > I read "The Forever War" a couple of months ago, and while there were
> > > some loud scientific blunders, it was good enough to make me think he
> > > deserves the Grand Mastery.
>
> > No author deserves the Grand Master award for just one book.* AFAICT,
> > _Forever War_ was Haldeman's only notable work.
>
> has won 5 Hugos, 5 Nebulas, 1 World Fantasy Award, 1 Skylark, 1
> Campbell Memorial Award, 1 Tiptree, 4 Locus Awards, 1 Ditmar, 1
> Ignotus, 3 Rhysling Awards, 1 AnLab Poll, 1 Asimov's Reader Poll , 1
> HOMer, 3 SE SF Awards, 1 Science Fiction Chronicle Reader Award, so
> apparently quite a few people thought that a number of his other works
> were also notable.
Well, it's apparent to me that most of Haldeman's subsequent awards
were won riding on the reputation of _Forever War_. The oh-he-wrote-
such-a-great-book-then-that-he-gets-the-benefit-of-the-doubt-now
syndrome. Hugos and Nebulas aren't what they used to be in any case,
and most of the other awards are crap that few really pays any
attention to.
> > *OTOH, this happens for Nobel prizes quite a few times (usually for
> > political reasons), e.g. Boris Pasternak for _Doctor Zhivago_.
>
> Pasternak was a leading Russian poet and the Nobel prize was awarded
> for "important achievements both in contemporary lyric poetry and in
> the field of the great Russian epic tradition".
That's what they would say publicly, of course, but the main reason
was the Swedish committee wanted an excuse to thumb their noses at
communist Russia.
--
Ht
htn963
wrote:
> In article
> <f0afc89a-24d2-46d5-8e1c-b44d20295...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
"What, me worry?" And my friends call me Ht. Oh, wait...
--
Ht
htn963
> In article <a2387063-88d1-4c1f-8020-f9b469fc1c17
> @x20g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, Mark_Reich...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 11:16 am, htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 21, 8:15 am, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> > > > In article <3b5dd5b4-c784-440f-a560-190debda2626
> > > > @o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, htn...@live.com says...
> > > > > *OTOH, this happens for Nobel prizes quite a few times (usually for
> > > > > political reasons), e.g. Boris Pasternak for _Doctor Zhivago_.
>
> > > > Not to mention that two recent Peace Prize recipients seem to have got
> > > > it for a fraudulent documentary and an inspirational autobiography
> > > > respectively.
>
> > > Careful now, we don't want another sf thread in this political
> > > newsgroup...oh, wait, I meant the other way around.
>
> > But Quinn knows that rightwingers and corporate flunkies have always
> > been free to make political posts here, it's only the left and anti-
> > corporate folk who get reamed for it. Atwood, J. Schilling, Friedman
> > never have gotten flack. An argument maybe, but not Sea Wasp saying
> > they're destroying the newsgroup.
>
> I made no political point - I merely pointed our that the Nobel Peace
> Prize seems of late to be given in honour of literary or film works of
> indifferent quality.
It's even given for works of indifferent quality in the Nobel prizes
for *literature*, so why should this even be surprising?
> As for political posts, it seems that the greatest amount of criticism
> tends to be reserved for the most idiotic posters, who are not
> uniformly on the left, although many of them are.
Now, now, bubblebear.
--
Ht
James Nicoll
htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
>
>I'll admit to not having paid much attention to Haldeman's short-
>fiction. In any case, it would be nice to see more authors being so
>honored for shorter works (like Harlan Ellison) since I think that's
>where the true heart and spirit of sf still reside.
>
I admire your courage for putting the bit where you reveal that you
haven't read Haldeman's short fiction in the same paragraph where you
assert short fiction is "where the true heart and spirit of sf still
reside." That's the problem with short fiction in F&SF right now:
people may repect it but they don't seem to read it (and they are very
reluctant to pay for it well enough to support the magazines).
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
htn963
> In article <edc43d65-3f67-4cbb-a457-15ad4efed...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >I'll admit to not having paid much attention to Haldeman's short-
> >fiction. In any case, it would be nice to see more authors being so
> >honored for shorter works (like Harlan Ellison) since I think that's
> >where the true heart and spirit of sf still reside.
>
> Ellison was named Grand Master in 2006.
>
> I admire your courage for putting the bit where you reveal that you
> haven't read Haldeman's short fiction in the same paragraph where you
> assert short fiction is "where the true heart and spirit of sf still
> reside."
Being admired for my courage (or should I say honesty) by thee is good
enough to help make my morning, Sir James.
>That's the problem with short fiction in F&SF right now:
> people may repect it but they don't seem to read it (and they are very
> reluctant to pay for it well enough to support the magazines).
Y'know, it may seem superficial, but I myself never did like reading
short fiction from magazines, even when I started out years ago: I
didn't like the cheap, flimsy feel of them and their low print
quality. I like reading them anthologized in books, long after the
authors have gone broke or given up.
--
Ht
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Indeed. Though for me it wasn't the cheap feel, it was that the
magazines might have 1 story I liked in them. I didn't like at all
paying money for something which was 90% what I didn't want.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
James Nicoll
htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
>On Dec 22, 8:32�am, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>> In article
><edc43d65-3f67-4cbb-a457-15ad4efed...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,htn963
>�<htn...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I'll admit to not having paid much attention to Haldeman's short-
>> >fiction. �In any case, it would be nice to see more authors being so
>> >honored for shorter works (like Harlan Ellison) since I think that's
>> >where the true heart and spirit of sf still reside.
>>
>> � � � � Ellison was named Grand Master in 2006.
>>
>> I admire your courage for putting the bit where you reveal that you
>> haven't read Haldeman's short fiction in the same paragraph where you
>> assert short fiction is "where the true heart and spirit of sf still
>> reside."
>
>Being admired for my courage (or should I say honesty) by thee is good
>enough to help make my morning, Sir James.
Interestingly, and there is an SF tie-in, the Nickel Resolution of
1919 prevents Canadian citizens from receiving titles (Which is why Lord
Black of Crossharbour had to lose his Canadian citizenship and with it
any hope of doing his time in a Canadian prison to become Lord Black).
Don't know how people who already have titles who then become Canadians
are handled but that doesn't apply to be because I am a natural-born
citizen.
The SF tie-in is OATH OF FEALTY, which demonstrated that neither
Niven nor Pournelle knew about the Nickel Resolution.
>>That's the problem with short fiction in F&SF right now:
>> people may repect it but they don't seem to read it (and they are very
>> reluctant to pay for it well enough to support the magazines).
>
>Y'know, it may seem superficial, but I myself never did like reading
>short fiction from magazines, even when I started out years ago: I
>didn't like the cheap, flimsy feel of them and their low print
>quality. I like reading them anthologized in books, long after the
>authors have gone broke or given up.
There's online but those formats also have suffered setback due to people
not reading/paying for them.
There's also original anthologies, a field of which I know less than I
should. Strahan, despite his stubborn insistance on spelling "Stachan"
"Strahan" and not the proper "Strachan" way my mother's family does,
edits a fine anthology. Ditto with Adams.
Joseph Nebus
>htn963 wrote:
>> Y'know, it may seem superficial, but I myself never did like reading
>> short fiction from magazines, even when I started out years ago: I
>> didn't like the cheap, flimsy feel of them and their low print
>> quality. I like reading them anthologized in books, long after the
>> authors have gone broke or given up.
> Indeed. Though for me it wasn't the cheap feel, it was that the
>magazines might have 1 story I liked in them. I didn't like at all
>paying money for something which was 90% what I didn't want.
Hm. When I was reading the magazines regularly, I would find
usually that ... well, there might be only one or two stories that I
really liked [1], but most were at least tolerably entertaining. Some
would be stories I didn't particularly want, or were just plain bad,
but the standard of mediocrity seemed within the bounds I found to be
acceptable.
[1] And every few months one that still haunts me all this time
later.
This leaves the question why I stopped reading the magazines
regularly. For Analog I can say that I had a little too much of, eh,
that Analog-y film left over even the stories that had some emotional
connection. For Asimov's and for Fantasy & Science Fiction ... I'm
less sure, but I did notice that I kept putting off reading that month's
issue in favor of other books, so obviously something was putting me
off.
Remarkably I seem to have most of my copies from my subscription
lifespan, and I wonder what I'd think of the magazines I was passing on
as read now. But I have got ... I think the last estimate was 19 books
in the queue already and I'm trying very hard to squeeze that down ahead
especially with the anticipated Christmas wave coming in.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William December Starr
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) said:
> Interestingly, and there is an SF tie-in, the Nickel Resolution of
> 1919 prevents Canadian citizens from receiving titles (Which is
> why Lord Black of Crossharbour had to lose his Canadian
> citizenship and with it any hope of doing his time in a Canadian
> prison to become Lord Black). Don't know how people who already
> have titles who then become Canadians are handled but that doesn't
> apply to be because I am a natural-born citizen.
>
> The SF tie-in is OATH OF FEALTY, which demonstrated that neither
> Niven nor Pournelle knew about the Nickel Resolution.
U.S. authors ignorant about Canada? That's unpossible!
-- wds
William December Starr
DouhetSukd <douhe...@gmail.com> said:
> htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> No author deserves the Grand Master award for just one book.*
>> �AFAICT, _Forever War_ was Haldeman's only notable work.
>
> Well, if you'd peruse just the Nebula listings, you'd see he's a
> more frequent fixture TYWATT.
Then You Will Admit To Treason?
-- wds
John Pelan
Ht:
May I suggest any (or all) of the following samplers: "War
Stories" (not a collection that I thought would appeal to me, but I'm
happy to have been mistaken). "Infinite Dreams", and "Dealing in
Fututres" as where Joe was as of the mid-point of his career... By
1990 I was firmly convinced he was on his way to Grand Master status.
Then, to seal the deal, read "A Separate War & Other Stories". Yes,
there's some overlap, but one is better off having too much Haldeman
than not enough... ;-)
Gene Wirchenko
<robe...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>In article
><f0afc89a-24d2-46d5...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> John Pelan <jpe...@cnw.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> "only notable work"? Please. A career of high-quality short-fiction
>> and superior novels. <snip>
>
>Not to mention "Oh, the embarrassment!" (which poster htn963 should
>consider).
That is enough. Such a beautiful meme.
I wanted to write something here about a chain of events that
leads to everyone dying, but could not come up with anything
satisfactory. I suppose I am just not significant enough.
Oh, the embarrassment!
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Gene Wirchenko
wrote:
[snip]
>Y'know, it may seem superficial, but I myself never did like reading
>short fiction from magazines, even when I started out years ago: I
>didn't like the cheap, flimsy feel of them and their low print
>quality. I like reading them anthologized in books, long after the
>authors have gone broke or given up.
Why not read them anthologized in books, before the authors have
gone broke or given up?
I understand what you mean about anthologies. Reading one short
story in a genre is like eating one potato chip.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Mark Reichert
> In article <a2387063-88d1-4c1f-8020-f9b469fc1c17
> @x20g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, Mark_Reich...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 11:16 am, htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 21, 8:15 am, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> > > > In article <3b5dd5b4-c784-440f-a560-190debda2626
> > > > @o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, htn...@live.com says...
> > > > > *OTOH, this happens for Nobel prizes quite a few times (usually for
> > > > > political reasons), e.g. Boris Pasternak for _Doctor Zhivago_.
>
> > > > Not to mention that two recent Peace Prize recipients seem to have got
> > > > it for a fraudulent documentary and an inspirational autobiography
> > > > respectively.
>
> > > Careful now, we don't want another sf thread in this political
> > > newsgroup...oh, wait, I meant the other way around.
>
> > But Quinn knows that rightwingers and corporate flunkies have always
> > been free to make political posts here, it's only the left and anti-
> > corporate folk who get reamed for it. Atwood, J. Schilling, Friedman
> > never have gotten flack. An argument maybe, but not Sea Wasp saying
> > they're destroying the newsgroup.
>
> I made no political point - I merely pointed our that the Nobel Peace
> Prize seems of late to be given in honour of literary or film works of
> indifferent quality.
Hmm, "indifferent quality". That's a new definition of "fraudulent" I
hadn't seen. I'll keep it in mind.
DouhetSukd
> In article <552c889f-3a22-4be7-8eac-c0ed6ce00...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> DouhetSukd <douhets...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >> No author deserves the Grand Master award for just one book.*
> >> AFAICT, _Forever War_ was Haldeman's only notable work.
>
> > Well, if you'd peruse just the Nebula listings, you'd see he's a
> > more frequent fixture TYWATT.
>
> Then You Will Admit To Treason?
>
> -- wds
AFAICT => Than You Were Able To Tell (eh, it would have been awkward
to get one of those wrong).
Ahasuerus
> On Dec 21, 8:40 pm, Ahasuerus <ahasue...@email.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 21, 4:07 am, htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 20, 8:56 am, Peter Knutsen <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > On 15/12/2009 16:47, James Nicoll wrote:
>
> > > > > News is filtering through the blogosphere to the effect that
> > > > > Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
>
> > > > I read "The Forever War" a couple of months ago, and while there were
> > > > some loud scientific blunders, it was good enough to make me think he
> > > > deserves the Grand Mastery.
>
> > > No author deserves the Grand Master award for just one book.* AFAICT,
> > > _Forever War_ was Haldeman's only notable work.
>
> > has won 5 Hugos, 5 Nebulas, 1 World Fantasy Award, 1 Skylark, 1
> > Campbell Memorial Award, 1 Tiptree, 4 Locus Awards, 1 Ditmar, 1
> > Ignotus, 3 Rhysling Awards, 1 AnLab Poll, 1 Asimov's Reader Poll , 1
> > HOMer, 3 SE SF Awards, 1 Science Fiction Chronicle Reader Award, so
> > apparently quite a few people thought that a number of his other works
> > were also notable.
>
> Well, it's apparent to me that most of Haldeman's subsequent awards
Not a proposition one could argue with :)
> > > *OTOH, this happens for Nobel prizes quite a few times (usually for
> > > political reasons), e.g. Boris Pasternak for _Doctor Zhivago_.
>
> > Pasternak was a leading Russian poet and the Nobel prize was awarded
> > for "important achievements both in contemporary lyric poetry and in
> > the field of the great Russian epic tradition".
>
> That's what they would say publicly, of course, but the main reason
> was the Swedish committee wanted an excuse to thumb their noses at
> communist Russia.
His first two Nobel nominations were on the strength of his poetry
alone, long before _Doctor Zhivago_ was published.
Mike Ash
Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
That's not bad, but you're supposed to put "All die." before the last
sentence.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Mike Ash
<e2bbbda1-1076-4544...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
I can't say what the award-givers think, and don't really care either,
but to me, _Forever War_ isn't even his best work. _All My Sins
Remembered_ is (IMO, of course) significantly better, as is his
(non-genre) _1968_. And although it's less easy to compare, I find many
of his short works (several of which have won awards) to be superior as
well.
The trouble is that Haldeman is one of those authors who is
frustratingly inconsistent. When he's good, he's very, very good. But
his average is, well, average. For every _All My Sins Remembered_ he
puts out a couple _Worlds_ (which I enjoyed greatly, but which I don't
think is "great") and couple _Marsbound_ (entertaining, but not
particularly notable).
All in all, I'd say he deserves the award. His average may not be that
high, but he has many significant and outstanding works to his name.
htn963
> In article <f5f53a10-9e28-49cb-bb78-1e4b7f31c...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 22, 8:32 am, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> >> In article
> ><edc43d65-3f67-4cbb-a457-15ad4efed...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,htn963
> > <htn...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >> >I'll admit to not having paid much attention to Haldeman's short-
> >> >fiction. In any case, it would be nice to see more authors being so
> >> >honored for shorter works (like Harlan Ellison) since I think that's
> >> >where the true heart and spirit of sf still reside.
>
> >> Ellison was named Grand Master in 2006.
>
> >> I admire your courage for putting the bit where you reveal that you
> >> haven't read Haldeman's short fiction in the same paragraph where you
> >> assert short fiction is "where the true heart and spirit of sf still
> >> reside."
>
> >Being admired for my courage (or should I say honesty) by thee is good
> >enough to help make my morning, Sir James.
>
> Interestingly, and there is an SF tie-in, the Nickel Resolution of
> 1919 prevents Canadian citizens from receiving titles (Which is why Lord
> Black of Crossharbour had to lose his Canadian citizenship and with it
> any hope of doing his time in a Canadian prison to become Lord Black).
> Don't know how people who already have titles who then become Canadians
> are handled but that doesn't apply to be because I am a natural-born
> citizen.
I think the Nickel Resolution is a great idea because I still get the
unfortunate impression (sorry) that most Canadians are bacon-gobbling
and beer-guzzling yokels who don't deserve titles, though I do find
your women *very* hot: Canadian women are probably next to Indian
women on my list of top babes, if only because most that I've seen are
so fresh, energetic and natural -- must be something about all that
great outdoors.
> The SF tie-in is OATH OF FEALTY, which demonstrated that neither
> Niven nor Pournelle knew about the Nickel Resolution.
They didn't knew much of anything else relevant in real life either.
_The Mote in God's Eye_ was hilarious to read, though it had one great
scene involving a spacesuit, and I think you know what I mean.
>
> >>That's the problem with short fiction in F&SF right now:
> >> people may repect it but they don't seem to read it (and they are very
> >> reluctant to pay for it well enough to support the magazines).
>
> >Y'know, it may seem superficial, but I myself never did like reading
> >short fiction from magazines, even when I started out years ago: I
> >didn't like the cheap, flimsy feel of them and their low print
> >quality. I like reading them anthologized in books, long after the
> >authors have gone broke or given up.
>
> There's online but those formats also have suffered setback due to people
> not reading/paying for them.
I don't like reading fiction online either -- I'd rather have
something physical in my hand.
>
> There's also original anthologies, a field of which I know less than I
> should. Strahan, despite his stubborn insistance on spelling "Stachan"
> "Strahan" and not the proper "Strachan" way my mother's family does,
> edits a fine anthology. Ditto with Adams.
Noted.
--
Ht
htn963
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:42:57 -0800 (PST), htn963 <htn...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Y'know, it may seem superficial, but I myself never did like reading
> >short fiction from magazines, even when I started out years ago: I
> >didn't like the cheap, flimsy feel of them and their low print
> >quality. I like reading them anthologized in books, long after the
> >authors have gone broke or given up.
>
> Why not read them anthologized in books, before the authors have
> gone broke or given up?
Don't tell me what to do you Canadian.
> I understand what you mean about anthologies. Reading one short
> story in a genre is like eating one potato chip.
Not sure what you really meant here. But anyhow, I tend to prefer
story collections devoted to just one author or that share a common
theme. I have less patience for those big, scattershot "best-of-the-
year" stuff like the annuals Dorzois puts out, which are often
uneven.
--
Ht
Richard D. Latham
I particularily like "Mindbridge".
--
#include <disclaimer.std> /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
/* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
/* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
Richard D. Latham lat...@us.ibm.com or lat...@verizon.net
William December Starr
Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> said:
> The trouble is that Haldeman is one of those authors who is
> frustratingly inconsistent. When he's good, he's very, very
> good. But his average is, well, average. For every _All My Sins
> Remembered_ he puts out a couple _Worlds_ (which I enjoyed
> greatly, but which I don't think is "great") and couple
> _Marsbound_ (entertaining, but not particularly notable).
And then there's THE HEMINGWAY HOAX...
-- wds
Gerry Quinn
cbcb62...@n31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>, Mark_R...@hotmail.com
says...
You forget that it is easily possible for a work to be both fraudulent,
and of indifferent quality.
I also would like to point out that such assessments are relative; _The
Audacity of Hope_ may well be a fine work, according to the criteria by
which such pieces are commonly assessed - but is it really deserving of
a Nobel?
- Gerry Quinn
Mike Ash
<09099ac1-da1d-4582...@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
> > � � �I understand what you mean about anthologies. �Reading one short
> > story in a genre is like eating one potato chip.
>
> Not sure what you really meant here. But anyhow, I tend to prefer
> story collections devoted to just one author or that share a common
> theme. I have less patience for those big, scattershot "best-of-the-
> year" stuff like the annuals Dorzois puts out, which are often
> uneven.
Interesting. For me, Dozois's annual opus is the one regular media
purchase I make. I buy it like clockwork, every summer when it comes
out. I agree that they're often uneven, but the good parts far more than
make up for the bad for me.
htn963
> In article
> <09099ac1-da1d-4582-9c92-6cfdc67e5...@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
> > > I understand what you mean about anthologies. Reading one short
> > > story in a genre is like eating one potato chip.
>
> > Not sure what you really meant here. But anyhow, I tend to prefer
> > story collections devoted to just one author or that share a common
> > theme. I have less patience for those big, scattershot "best-of-the-
> > year" stuff like the annuals Dorzois puts out, which are often
> > uneven.
>
> Interesting. For me, Dozois's annual opus is the one regular media
> purchase I make. I buy it like clockwork, every summer when it comes
> out. I agree that they're often uneven, but the good parts far more than
> make up for the bad for me.
I think Dozois's problem with me is that he tries to be *too*
inclusive and lacks focus. But I did enjoy his earlier anthologies
more.
--
Ht
Gene Wirchenko
wrote:
>On Dec 22, 5:40�pm, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> � � �Why not read them anthologized in books, before the authors have
>> gone broke or given up?
>
>Don't tell me what to do you Canadian.
<BEG>
>> � � �I understand what you mean about anthologies. �Reading one short
>> story in a genre is like eating one potato chip.
>
>Not sure what you really meant here. But anyhow, I tend to prefer
>story collections devoted to just one author or that share a common
>theme. I have less patience for those big, scattershot "best-of-the-
That is what I mean. I like to read shorts in organised
collections.
>year" stuff like the annuals Dorzois puts out, which are often
>uneven.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>All in all, I'd say he deserves the award. His average may not be that
>high, but he has many significant and outstanding works to his name.
So what is the award for? Brilliant work or good work?
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Ahasuerus
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:44:39 +0800, Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >All in all, I'd say he deserves the award. His average may not be that
> >high, but he has many significant and outstanding works to his name.
>
> So what is the award for? Brilliant work or good work?
Technically, it's "for a lifetime’s achievement in science fiction and/
or fantasy" (http://www.nebulaawards.com/index.php/awards/
grand_master), which leaves the door wide open.
Besides, this is the 27th Grand Master award since 1975, so the pool
of eligible candidates is not what it used to be.
Mike Ash
Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
I haven't a clue, but since Haldeman's work is universally good and many
of his works are brilliant, even if the majority aren't, I'd say it
doesn't matter for this particular case.
lal_truckee
>
> Besides, this is the 27th Grand Master award since 1975, so the pool
> of eligible candidates is not what it used to be.
There are already too many "Grand Masters," cheapening the honor.
IMO a hiatus is indicated while the award is rethought.
htn963
So you do admit by this that the quality of sf has gone down markedly
over the years? (Or is it that most sf writers nowadays start out
younger and still need more years to qualify?)
--
Ht
James Nicoll
htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
>
>So you do admit by this that the quality of sf has gone down markedly
>over the years? (Or is it that most sf writers nowadays start out
>younger and still need more years to qualify?)
They definitely don't start out younger. Some of the early SF authors
weren't legally adults when they got started. This probably doesn't reflect
how much better things were in Olden Times so much as the standards were
low enough that a high-school kid's work would do and maybe a little of
Hugo thought teenagers were less likely to sue for non-payment.
I will admit I got a book a couple of years ago whose author IIRC wasn't
old enough to drive when he submitted his book (actually, I think I got
two but one of them was pretty clearly an attempt to jump on the Eragon
bandwagon and was pretty bad).
Andrew Plotkin
> an attempt to jump on the Eragon bandwagon
File under "Blurbs of Petrefaction, No Saving Throw".
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
Mike Ash
Looking over that list, I'd say that this award either isn't given for
quality, or the awards committee's idea of quality differs markedly from
my own. This list appears far more geared toward *influence* than
quality, a policy with which I find no fault, but which makes the
question of quality irrelevant. (The actual wording of the award is that
it's given for "achievement", which is nice and vague.)
No doubt this will provoke a flame war, but I'd take a good Haldeman
over a Heinlein or a Clarke. The latter two were visionary and
completely deserve the title of Grand Master, but I find Haldeman to be
more engaging and entertaining to read.
Oddly, of the four works listed under Haldeman's name, three of them are
not among what I would consider to be his best. Guess it just goes to
show that it's all subjective.
Ahasuerus
On the day you create a brand new "lifetime achievement" award, the
pool of (broadly defined) eligible writers is very deep. Every time
you create a new Grand Master, the pool becomes a little more shallow.
After a few decades, the average level of eligible writers levels off
as old writers die and new writers become eligible as they age. Just
how low that "equilibrium level" will end up being is determined by
how often you create new Grand Masters.
htn963
> I will admit I got a book a couple of years ago whose author IIRC wasn't
> old enough to drive when he submitted his book (actually, I think I got
> two but one of them was pretty clearly an attempt to jump on the Eragon
> bandwagon and was pretty bad).
I hope you didn't actually like Eragon or any respect I have for your
critical judgment will evaporate.
--
Ht
htn963
But as you say, new writers are always aging to replace the ones who
have died off or been grandmastered, so I don't see the pool becoming
too shallow to worry about.
In any case, I'd rather see Grand Master awards be used to honor
actual accomplishments (both in quality and quantity -- I'd say around
10 great books is enough) no matter what the age, rather than be given
as a sop to old fogeys on their way out. Seeing, for instance, a
brilliant but still relatively young guy like Greg Egan gets it would
make this award much more interesting and exciting -- and makes it an
arguably better guide to quality sf.
--
Ht
James Nicoll
I've never read Eragon. The book I refer to above was a crappy fantasy
that was published, as far as I could tell, on the Dancing Bear principle:
Oooo look at the very young author.
Ahasuerus
> On Dec 31, 8:54 am, Ahasuerus <ahasue...@email.com> wrote: [snip-snip]
> > On the day you create a brand new "lifetime achievement" award, the
> > pool of (broadly defined) eligible writers is very deep. Every time
> > you create a new Grand Master, the pool becomes a little more shallow.
> > After a few decades, the average level of eligible writers levels off
> > as old writers die and new writers become eligible as they age. Just
> > how low that "equilibrium level" will end up being is determined by
> > how often you create new Grand Masters.
>
> But as you say, new writers are always aging to replace the ones who
> have died off or been grandmastered, so I don't see the pool becoming
Well, there are three variables that determine how deep the pool of
eligible writers is:
A. The number of eligible new writers added to the pool
B. The number of eligible old writers taken out of the pool due to
death (or occasionally dementia)
C. The number of eligible old writers taken out of the pool due to GM-
fication
Assuming that A = B over a sufficiently long period of time, the one
variable that SFWA has control over is C. The more often they create
new GMs, the lower the level of the pool. What would be the average
level of GMs if SFWA announced new GMs every month?
To go back to the original point, in 1975 the pool was at its deepest
by definition. The question is not whether it has become more shallow
since then -- unless new GMs were created extremely rarely, it was
liable to -- but where to strike the balance between quantity and
quality (and personal preferences of SFWA presidents, but that's a
whole different can of worms.)
Finally, there is nothing inherently wrong with setting the bar very
high or very low, it's just a question of adjusting expectations.
> In any case, I'd rather see Grand Master awards be used to honor
> actual accomplishments (both in quality and quantity -- I'd say around
> 10 great books is enough) no matter what the age, rather than be given
> as a sop to old fogeys on their way out. Seeing, for instance, a
> brilliant but still relatively young guy like Greg Egan gets it would
> make this award much more interesting and exciting -- and makes it an
> arguably better guide to quality sf.
A "guide to quality SF" is undoubtedly a useful thing -- and there are
quite a few of them -- but it's not quite what the GM award is for.
htn963
> In article <8cb396c9-f684-4d72-b5a5-fff28c03f...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 31, 7:41 am, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
> >> I will admit I got a book a couple of years ago whose author IIRC wasn't
> >> old enough to drive when he submitted his book (actually, I think I got
> >> two but one of them was pretty clearly an attempt to jump on the Eragon
> >> bandwagon and was pretty bad).
>
> >I hope you didn't actually like Eragon or any respect I have for your
> >critical judgment will evaporate.
>
> I've never read Eragon. The book I refer to above was a crappy fantasy
> that was published, as far as I could tell, on the Dancing Bear principle:
> Oooo look at the very young author.
I hope you're at least getting paid to read crap like this, as life is
too short, even for speedreaders.
--
Ht
htn963
> On Dec 31, 1:07 pm, htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 31, 8:54 am, Ahasuerus <ahasue...@email.com> wrote: [snip-snip]
> > > On the day you create a brand new "lifetime achievement" award, the
> > > pool of (broadly defined) eligible writers is very deep. Every time
> > > you create a new Grand Master, the pool becomes a little more shallow.
> > > After a few decades, the average level of eligible writers levels off
> > > as old writers die and new writers become eligible as they age. Just
> > > how low that "equilibrium level" will end up being is determined by
> > > how often you create new Grand Masters.
>
> > But as you say, new writers are always aging to replace the ones who
> > have died off or been grandmastered, so I don't see the pool becoming
> > too shallow to worry about. [snip]
>
> Well, there are three variables that determine how deep the pool of
> eligible writers is:
>
> A. The number of eligible new writers added to the pool
> B. The number of eligible old writers taken out of the pool due to
> death (or occasionally dementia)
> C. The number of eligible old writers taken out of the pool due to GM-
> fication
>
> Assuming that A = B over a sufficiently long period of time, the one
> variable that SFWA has control over is C. The more often they create
> new GMs, the lower the level of the pool. What would be the average
> level of GMs if SFWA announced new GMs every month?
But it isn't every month, and not even annually. I count only 25
winners.
(http://www.sfwa.org/archive/awards/grand.htm) Now if the SFWA does
have the power to announce an unlimited number of GMs at any time
(does it?) then I see your point.
<snip>
> > In any case, I'd rather see Grand Master awards be used to honor
> > actual accomplishments (both in quality and quantity -- I'd say around
> > 10 great books is enough) no matter what the age, rather than be given
> > as a sop to old fogeys on their way out. Seeing, for instance, a
> > brilliant but still relatively young guy like Greg Egan gets it would
> > make this award much more interesting and exciting -- and makes it an
> > arguably better guide to quality sf.
>
> A "guide to quality SF" is undoubtedly a useful thing -- and there are
> quite a few of them
Not enough reliable ones I says.
>-- but it's not quite what the GM award is for.
I know it isn't -- just wanted the title of Grand Master to mean
something more than a retirement title. Perhaps I've seen too many
kung fu movies.
--
Ht
David DeLaney
He is, as far as I know - he's a reviewer for a couple of outfits. (As a
result of which he's not Allowed to tell us a good fraction of the books or
ARCs he gets in each box, on his LJ.)
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "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.
Chris
> In article <3b5dd5b4-c784-440f-a560-190debda2626
> @o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, htn...@live.com says...
>
> > > On 15/12/2009 16:47, James Nicoll wrote:
>
> > > > News is filtering through the blogosphere to the effect that
> > > > Joe Haldemen, pictured here as bad ascii art
>
> > > I read "The Forever War" a couple of months ago, and while there were
> > > some loud scientific blunders, it was good enough to make me think he
> > > deserves the Grand Mastery.
>
> > No author deserves the Grand Master award for just one book.* AFAICT,
> > _Forever War_ was Haldeman's only notable work.
>
> > political reasons), e.g. Boris Pasternak for _Doctor Zhivago_.
>
> Not to mention that two recent Peace Prize recipients seem to have got
> it for a fraudulent documentary and an inspirational autobiography
> respectively.
>
While I agree that Obama's prize was awarded based on what the
committee hoped he accomplishes in the future, asserting "An
Inconvenient Truth" is fraudulent is simply wrong.*
Chris
*At least, based on what climate scientists say. Certain vested
interests funding directed think-tanks do claim otherwise.
Chris
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:14:04 -0700, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:10:01 -0500, J.J. O'Shea
> ><try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
> >>Lois McMaster Bujold for Grand Master. That's all three at one go.
>
> >In general, these kind of honorary awards go to people who are
> >perceived as emeritus masters. One loses votes by being current
> >masters.
>
> Um... that isn't SUPPOSED to be how it works. SFWA also has an
> "Author Emeritus" position for people who aren't writing anymore.
>
> Joe Haldeman is very much still active -- or at least, when he's
> healthy he is.
>
> --
> My webpage is athttp://www.watt-evans.com
> I'm selling my comic collection -- seehttp://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
> I'm serializing a novel athttp://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
I was unaware that he was ill. What is it, please? Is it related to
his Vietnam years? Agent Orange exposure?
Also, Wiki (which I checked looking for info about his health) says
Ridley Scott will direct _Forever War_. Is that in the works or is it
vapor-ware?
Thanks,
Chris
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> Besides, this is the 27th Grand Master award since 1975, so the pool
>> of eligible candidates is not what it used to be.
>
>So you do admit by this that the quality of sf has gone down markedly
>over the years? (Or is it that most sf writers nowadays start out
>younger and still need more years to qualify?)
We never did have one new person per year to reach that level of
quality (then basically be retired, and still be alive).
With the award being almost yearly, they were giving awards faster
than creating "true" grandmasters.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Eric S. Harris
Um, climate scientists are also a vested interest. I'm fairly sure you
knew, but figured you and/or others could use a reminder. -Eric
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail. If I haven't
replied to an alleged rebuttal (yet), it may not be the most deserving
of correction; it's a big Internet: http://xkcd.com/386 May 2008: The
yahoo.com address has technical difficulties. Dec: Yahoo is fixing ...
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>On Dec 31, 1:09�pm, Ahasuerus <ahasue...@email.com> wrote:
>
>But it isn't every month, and not even annually. I count only 25
>winners.
>(http://www.sfwa.org/archive/awards/grand.htm) Now if the SFWA does
>have the power to announce an unlimited number of GMs at any time
>(does it?) then I see your point.
There's a maximum of one a year under the current rules; no minimum.
It was originally limited to six every ten years, the theory being
every president of SFWA should have the opportunity to present the
award and most presidents served two one-year terms, with the sixth
allowed just in case, but that changed some time between 1985 and 1999
-- I forget exactly when.
><snip>
>
>> A "guide to quality SF" is undoubtedly a useful thing -- and there are
>> quite a few of them
>
>Not enough reliable ones I says.
>
>>-- but it's not quite what the GM award is for.
>
>I know it isn't -- just wanted the title of Grand Master to mean
>something more than a retirement title. Perhaps I've seen too many
>kung fu movies.
It's not a retirement title; most Grand Masters keep writing after
receiving the award. Yeah, most of the twenty-five are dead or
retired NOW, but they weren't when they got it.
It was invented to give Heinlein an award when it was thought he was
too ill to ever do much more writing; it was considered unacceptable
that he'd never won a Nebula despite being so hugely important to the
SF field. The next several recipients, though, were still quite
active, and Heinlein recovered after all and wrote several more books.
Besides Heinlein, Bester and van Vogt are the only two cases I know of
where SFWA consciously decided, "We need to give it to them while we
still can."
It's an award for influencing the field. It is not really a writing
award as such; if it were, del Rey wouldn't have made the cut. In
early years it was specifically intended to honor writers who did most
of their work before the Nebulas existed, but as that pool died off
the criteria drifted.
There was some talk in the '90s of dropping it -- several people
suggested that van Vogt should be the last -- but the folks who like
handing out trophies won the debate.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 16 2009, 12:52�am, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>
>> Joe Haldeman is very much still active -- or at least, when he's
>> healthy he is.
>
>I was unaware that he was ill. What is it, please? Is it related to
>his Vietnam years? Agent Orange exposure?
No. He was hospitalized with pancreatitis a few months ago, and then
had a succession of secondary infections; he was in the hospital for
several weeks, got out for a couple of weeks, and then had to go back.
I believe he was sent home again on Christmas, but last I heard he was
still on bed rest.
>Also, Wiki (which I checked looking for info about his health) says
>Ridley Scott will direct _Forever War_. Is that in the works or is it
>vapor-ware?
It's a little more than vaporware, a little less than certain.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Besides Heinlein, Bester and van Vogt are the only two cases I know of
>where SFWA consciously decided, "We need to give it to them while we
>still can."
That's because they didn't know in time how sick Zelazny was.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:53:46 -0500, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Besides Heinlein, Bester and van Vogt are the only two cases I know of
>>where SFWA consciously decided, "We need to give it to them while we
>>still can."
>
>That's because they didn't know in time how sick Zelazny was.
Alas, you're probably right. _I_ sure didn't know he was that sick; I
don't think anyone did.
htn963
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:43:17 -0800 (PST), htn963 <htn...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 31, 1:09 pm, Ahasuerus <ahasue...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >But it isn't every month, and not even annually. I count only 25
> >winners.
> >(http://www.sfwa.org/archive/awards/grand.htm) Now if the SFWA does
> >have the power to announce an unlimited number of GMs at any time
> >(does it?) then I see your point.
>
> There's a maximum of one a year under the current rules; no minimum.
>
> It was originally limited to six every ten years, the theory being
> every president of SFWA should have the opportunity to present the
> award and most presidents served two one-year terms, with the sixth
> allowed just in case, but that changed some time between 1985 and 1999
> -- I forget exactly when.
Ah, ok.
>
> ><snip>
>
> >> A "guide to quality SF" is undoubtedly a useful thing -- and there are
> >> quite a few of them
>
> >Not enough reliable ones I says.
>
> >>-- but it's not quite what the GM award is for.
>
> >I know it isn't -- just wanted the title of Grand Master to mean
> >something more than a retirement title. Perhaps I've seen too many
> >kung fu movies.
>
> It's not a retirement title; most Grand Masters keep writing after
> receiving the award. Yeah, most of the twenty-five are dead or
> retired NOW, but they weren't when they got it.
Well, it's often termed a "lifetime achievement award" (for all that
has already been done) so that's how I interpret it as a retirement
title.
> It was invented to give Heinlein an award when it was thought he was
> too ill to ever do much more writing; it was considered unacceptable
> that he'd never won a Nebula despite being so hugely important to the
> SF field. The next several recipients, though, were still quite
> active, and Heinlein recovered after all and wrote several more books.
Shit, now I remember that Heinlein's never gotten a Nebula -- though
it's understandable given that his best books were written before the
Nebula award begun.
> Besides Heinlein, Bester and van Vogt are the only two cases I know of
> where SFWA consciously decided, "We need to give it to them while we
> still can."
>
> It's an award for influencing the field. It is not really a writing
> award as such; if it were, del Rey wouldn't have made the cut.
The thought of an editor being a Grand Master is dangerous.
--
Ht
Strobe
wrote:
>
>While I agree that Obama's prize was awarded based on what the
>committee hoped he accomplishes in the future, asserting "An
>Inconvenient Truth" is fraudulent is simply wrong.*
>
>Chris
>
>*At least, based on what climate scientists say. Certain vested
>interests funding directed think-tanks do claim otherwise.
Al Gore's video contains statements that are so exaggerated that
they no longer have a one-to-one relation with reality.
Szymon Sokół
> Here, James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> an attempt to jump on the Eragon bandwagon
>
> File under "Blurbs of Petrefaction, No Saving Throw".
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is that a cross between "petrification" and "putrefaction"?
--
Szymon Sokół (SS316-RIPE) -- Network Manager B
Computer Center, AGH - University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland O
http://home.agh.edu.pl/szymon/ PGP key id: RSA: 0x2ABE016B, DSS: 0xF9289982 F
Free speech includes the right not to listen, if not interested -- Heinlein H
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Al Gore's video contains statements that are so exaggerated that
>they no longer have a one-to-one relation with reality.
At least Michael Moore is fun.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
Yeah, maybe, but if John Campbell had lived another twenty years I bet
he'd have gotten the award to great approbation, and it wouldn't be
for writing "Who Goes There?"
Mike Schilling
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 08:35:55 -0800 (PST), htn963 <htn...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 1, 1:53 pm, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>
>>> It's an award for influencing the field. It is not really a
>>> writing
>>> award as such; if it were, del Rey wouldn't have made the cut.
>>
>> The thought of an editor being a Grand Master is dangerous.
>
> Yeah, maybe, but if John Campbell had lived another twenty years I
> bet
> he'd have gotten the award to great approbation, and it wouldn't be
> for writing "Who Goes There?"
Boucher too, and not for "The Quest for Saint Aquin". Is Dozois on
the short list, do you think?
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>
>The thought of an editor being a Grand Master is dangerous.
I really enjoyed Pohl as an editor.
Mike Schilling
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 08:35:55 -0800 (PST), htn963 <htn...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> The thought of an editor being a Grand Master is dangerous.
>
> I really enjoyed Pohl as an editor.
Well, sure, he never mangled the title of one of *your* stories.
Robert A. Woodward
<avmvj591tv68u80ff...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 08:35:55 -0800 (PST), htn963 <htn...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 1, 1:53�pm, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> >
> >> It's an award for influencing the field. �It is not really a writing
> >> award as such; if it were, del Rey wouldn't have made the cut. �
> >
> >The thought of an editor being a Grand Master is dangerous.
>
> Yeah, maybe, but if John Campbell had lived another twenty years I bet
> he'd have gotten the award to great approbation, and it wouldn't be
> for writing "Who Goes There?"
I think 10 years (1981) would have been sufficient (and it wouldn't
be for writing "Twilight" either).
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
Robert A. Woodward
<1bad2019-0a17-45a3...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>
,
htn963 <htn...@live.com> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 1:53�pm, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> > Besides Heinlein, Bester and van Vogt are the only two cases I know of
> > where SFWA consciously decided, "We need to give it to them while we
> > still can."
> >
> > It's an award for influencing the field. �It is not really a writing
> > award as such; if it were, del Rey wouldn't have made the cut. �
>
> The thought of an editor being a Grand Master is dangerous.
>
As dangerous as giving one to an agent? Of course, Frederik Pohl
was both.
Rich Horton
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Boucher too, and not for "The Quest for Saint Aquin". Is Dozois on
>the short list, do you think?
Gardner has consistently deflected all such talk as absurd.
But he does get mentioned, yes. It's my feeling that he probably won't
get the nod, because while he has written some marvelous fiction he
hasn't written a lot of it, and because while he is undoubtedly (along
with, I would say, Ellen Datlow) as influential and important an
editor, of magazines, original anthologies, and compilations, as
anyone in the field over the past three decades, the role of editor
seems less world-striding these days than it did when Campbell was all
but inventing the mode.
Rich Horton
Gold was worse at that. (TYRANN?? Really?) So at any rate Pohl learned
from a master.
And besides sometimes he was fabulously correct, as when he chose the
titles for Cordwainer Smith stories.
Chris
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 00:53:48 -0800 (PST), Chris
>
> >On Dec 16 2009, 12:52 am, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>
> >> Joe Haldeman is very much still active -- or at least, when he's
> >> healthy he is.
>
> >I was unaware that he was ill. What is it, please? Is it related to
> >his Vietnam years? Agent Orange exposure?
>
> No. He was hospitalized with pancreatitis a few months ago, and then
> had a succession of secondary infections; he was in the hospital for
> several weeks, got out for a couple of weeks, and then had to go back.
> I believe he was sent home again on Christmas, but last I heard he was
> still on bed rest.
Yikes. An acquaintance of mine (2 actually) recently had pancreatitis.
It's apparently horribly painful. I hope he recovers fully.
>
> >Also, Wiki (which I checked looking for info about his health) says
> >Ridley Scott will direct _Forever War_. Is that in the works or is it
> >vapor-ware?
>
> It's a little more than vaporware, a little less than certain.
Thanks. That would be a pretty good combo.
Chris
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 1, 4:57�pm, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 00:53:48 -0800 (PST), Chris
>>
>> <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 16 2009, 12:52�am, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Joe Haldeman is very much still active -- or at least, when he's
>> >> healthy he is.
>>
>> >I was unaware that he was ill. What is it, please? Is it related to
>> >his Vietnam years? Agent Orange exposure?
>>
>> No. �He was hospitalized with pancreatitis a few months ago, and then
>> had a succession of secondary infections; he was in the hospital for
>> several weeks, got out for a couple of weeks, and then had to go back.
>> I believe he was sent home again on Christmas, but last I heard he was
>> still on bed rest.
>
>Yikes. An acquaintance of mine (2 actually) recently had pancreatitis.
>It's apparently horribly painful. I hope he recovers fully.
He seems to be very much on the mend. I was wrong about him going
home on Christmas, but he DID get home for New Year's.