Known Space "Down In Flames"?
William Clifford
followups set to rec.arts.sf.written
On Sat, 20 May 2000 02:01:29 GMT, Mark Fergerson
<mferg...@home.com> wrote:
>William Clifford wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 May 2000 01:56:21 GMT, Mark Fergerson
>> <mferg...@home.com> wrote:
>> > I think I'm going to be sick. Who else knew about this and didn't
>> >say anything?
>> >
>> >ftp://sflovers.rutgers.edu/pub/sf-lovers/fiction/down-in-flames.txt
>>
>> I first read it in collected in _N-Space_. IMO it's the best idea
>> Larry Niven never had. I think it could be made to work even taking
>> _Ringworld_ into account.
>
> That's the last time I pass on a "collection" because I think I've
>already read everything in it. Gotta check the table of contents
>closer...
It's a slightly different version than the one I've seen on the net.
>> (Or not. He could just ignore _Ringworld_ & etc. Spinrad did suggest
>> that he make it inconsistent. It was Larry Niven who wanted to be
>> totally cruel and actually make it fit the framework he already had!)
>
> I liked it, too, after rereading it. I like sneaky aliens, and the
>Tnuctipun (as described in DIF) would be more fun than the Kzinti are
>now. But one of the recent Known Space books (Man-Kzin Wars series?
>Ringworld Throne?) includes a background history (apparently accepted
>as canon) including all the pre-DIF assumptions (Thrint war,etc.),
>explaining the origin of the Outsiders as agents of an extrauniversal
>intelligence, etc.
>
> So now what? Will Niven just blow DIF off, or go for a "Many Worlds"
>cheat?
He's said that it's obsolete and will never be written. The outline in
_Down in Flames_ is just a teaser for his avid readers for a novel
that might have been. It's already been blown off as far as I know. In
a way it's for the best.
However I'm of the opinion that with some modified assumptions the
idea is still basically viable and consistent though still a real
stretch. But, as I said, he could also just ignore the Ringworld
assumptions without explaination and let the reader figure it out.
_Down In Flames_ if it had been written as proposed and when proposed
would have been a unique novel as far as I know. I don't know of any
other author who has come close to exposing all the foundations of the
world he has created as a lie and then systematically destroying it
all. Particularly with a setting as large as the Known Space setting.
Many novels have twisty revelations and reversals at the end. Many
have high body counts too. But none that I know of set out to undo the
ideas, the web of assumptions, that make the universe they take place
it what it is, reversing everything the reader had believed true up
until then. As Spinrad would have had it _Down in Flames_ would have
reversed the very genre it was in from hard sf to a kind of occult
conspiracy novel--and further, a straightfaced parody of the previous
work.
Fans everywhere would have gasped in horror.
These cynical days we almost expect an author to write a crappy
sequels, but that's (we assume) completely unintentional. What about
when they do it on purpose? The only book I can think of that comes
close is what John Varley's _Demon_ does to the previous two books of
the Gaian Trilogy. But that one is nothing to what _Down in Flames_
might have been.
The idea of _Down In Flames_ has greatly changed the way I read books.
Almost every book I read now I try to think of alternate scenarios and
reinterpretations that would turn the story on it's end.
What would it take to write a _Down in Flames_ for _The Lord of the
Rings_? or Vinge's Zone's universe (Personally, I like the Cthulhu
interpretation I've seen floated about here and there and would mind
at all if a third book explored this possibility)? Any other sacred
cows we should roast on a spit?
--
|William Clifford |"...I think she's biased towards a |
|wo...@yahoo.com | non-violent resolution, and blinded |
|lame webpage at: | to the other possibilities." |
|http://www.ionline.com/wobh | --Ellen May Ngewthu |
David Given
Bernie Dwyer <ber...@caloundra.qld.gov.au> writes:
[...]
> And, just for a laugh (or a *serious* challenge, depending on how you
> want to approach it), how about:
>
> "Chariots of the Gods" ;-) <- NOTE THE WINK !
You do realise that the most ludicrous thing you can do to _Chariots_ is
to posit that it's all *true*?
--
+- David Given ---------------McQ-+ "We must go out and utterly crush every
| Work: d...@tao-group.com | other worldview that does not believe in
| Play: dgi...@iname.com | tolerance and free speech!" --- David Brin,
+- http://wired.st-and.ac.uk/~dg -+ paraphrased
David Given
wo...@yahoo.com (William Clifford) writes:
[...]
> I've done more DIF treatments of _Star Trek_ and _Star Wars_. They're
> at <http://www.ionline.com/wobh/misc/revisions/index.html>. For some
> reason I forgot to mention these in my original post (Must have been
> late. How could forget to toot my own horn?).
Bizarre. Fun (I particularly like your alternive TNG; sounds a lot better
than the real thing) but very, very bizarre...
Jim Deutch
<8g7fka$o3s$3...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>On Sat, 20 May 2000 07:01:55 GMT, William Clifford <wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>What would it take to write a _Down in Flames_ for _The Lord of the
>>Rings_? or Vinge's Zone's universe (Personally, I like the Cthulhu
>>interpretation I've seen floated about here and there and would mind
>>at all if a third book explored this possibility)? Any other sacred
>>cows we should roast on a spit?
I like the one about how the _real_ Star Wars story has Darth Vader as
champion of the downtrodden droids. I can track it back to one William
Clifford, but don't know if he originated the idea.
Alas, Vader fails to convince his son, Luke, and the borgeoise Rebellion
meat-masters destroy the weapon (the Death Star) that Vader had intended to
use in the liberation of the droids. A tragedy, indeed.
DROIDS OF THE GALAXY UNITE! YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR RESTRAINING
BOLTS!
Jim Deutch
William Clifford
<10313...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Joseph Hertzlinger wrote in message
><8g7fka$o3s$3...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>>On Sat, 20 May 2000 07:01:55 GMT, William Clifford <wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>What would it take to write a _Down in Flames_ for _The Lord of the
>>>Rings_? or Vinge's Zone's universe (Personally, I like the Cthulhu
>>>interpretation I've seen floated about here and there and would mind
>>>at all if a third book explored this possibility)? Any other sacred
>>>cows we should roast on a spit?
>
>
>I like the one about how the _real_ Star Wars story has Darth Vader as
>champion of the downtrodden droids. I can track it back to one William
>Clifford, but don't know if he originated the idea.
He claims he did. Someone might have thought of it before him though.
--
|William Clifford |"...I think she's biased towards a |
|wo...@yahoo.com | non-violent resolution, and blinded |
|lame webpage at: | to the other possibilities." |
|http://www.ionline.com/wobh | --Ellen May Ngwethu |
William Clifford
<ber...@caloundra.qld.gov.au> wrote:
>William Clifford wrote:
>>
><down-in-flames, etc snip)
>> Any other sacred cows we should roast on a spit?
>>
>
>Ooh, ooh (hand in air, thrusting maniacally), SIR ! SIR !
>
>Foundation, etc
>Stranger in a Strange Land
>Zelazny's Amber series
>
>And, just for a laugh (or a *serious* challenge, depending on how you
>want to approach it), how about:
>
>"Chariots of the Gods" ;-) <- NOTE THE WINK !
You could use _Chariots of the Gods_ as your source material for the
big revelation that undoes everything else. What if it turned out that
_Stranger in a Strange Land_ took place in the same universe as
_Chariots of the Gods_?
Actually that might not be that big a stretch.
Mark-Jason Dominus
William Clifford <wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>What would it take to write a _Down in Flames_ for _The Lord of the
>Rings_?
Oh, I forgot about this before, but it works pretty well to imagine
that the Dragaerans in Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos books are actually
Elves a la Lord of the Rings, except that they don't complain as much.
They're extremely long-lived, they have sorcerous powers, and they're
all tall and beautiful.
Mark-Jason Dominus
In article <39272d44...@news.ionline.com>,
William Clifford <wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>What would it take to write a _Down in Flames_ for _The Lord of the
>interpretation I've seen floated about here and there and would mind
>cows we should roast on a spit?
It's not quite the same thing, but I'ev always wanted to read the
version of _Lord of the Rings_ that's told from Saruman's point of
view. Saruman is a lot more interesting to me than most of the other
characters.
For example, consider the scene in which Gandalf discovers for the
first time that Saruman is no longer Saruman the White, but rather
Saruman of the Many Colors. Gandalf comes off pretty well, but of
course he's the one telling the story. Even if it did happened exactly
as he said it did, imagine being Saruman and having to put up with
Gandalf's unending smart answers.
Mike Van Pelt
> The DIF treatment is fairly hard to pull off WELL, because you can't
>use the standard reversal of basically saying "Well, all these stories
>are really lies". You have to stay consistent with the known facts and
>personalities whose heads we've "been in". An example of doing it that
>way, rather than the DIF way, is the rather interesting treatment of
>Star Trek: Next Generation as being "Federation Propaganda Films" --
Babylon 5 may have done this, depending on one's interpretation.
<<<MEGA SPOILER FOR "Sleeping in Light">>>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
.... The series ends with the revelation that the whole series has
been a documdrama written, produced, and paid for by the Rangers.
Depending on how much you trust the Rangers' objectivity...
--
Yes, I am the last man to have walked on the moon, | Mike Van Pelt
and that's a very dubious and disappointing honor. | m...@netcom.com
It's been far too long. -- Gene Cernan | KE6BVH
Jim Deutch
>He claims he did. Someone might have thought of it before him though.
Nice to see you here! Shortly after I posted, I did come across a message
that was in reply to a message from you in this thread. Can't keep up with
this newsgroup!
Jim Deutch
Don A. Landhill
"Jim Deutch" <10313...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Joseph Hertzlinger wrote in message
> <8g7fka$o3s$3...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
wrote:
> >
> >>What would it take to write a _Down in Flames_ for _The Lord of the
> >>Rings_? or Vinge's Zone's universe (Personally, I like the Cthulhu
> >>interpretation I've seen floated about here and there and would mind
> >>at all if a third book explored this possibility)? Any other sacred
> >>cows we should roast on a spit?
>
>
I can't spot the one link tht must be smashed to bring it "down in
flames".
--
-Don A. Landhill
Dlan...@aol.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mark Atwood
> Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series is ripe for such treatment -- but
> I can't spot the one link tht must be smashed to bring it "down in
> flames".
He did it himself, just about, in the next to most recent book.
I don't know if/how he pulled it out in the last one, I havnt and wont
read it.
--
Mark Atwood | It is the hardest thing for intellectuals to understand, that
m...@pobox.com | just because they haven't thought of something, somebody else
| might. <http://www.friesian.com/rifkin.htm>
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Rick
news:8gf4p2$8d6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series is ripe for such treatment -- but
> I can't spot the one link tht must be smashed to bring it "down in
> flames".
Maybe the revelation that the Aes Sedai is part of a conspiracy to hide the
truth, that men can have the power without going mad? And that their
"inevitable madness" is a result of Aes Sedai meddling? Or has he already
done that? I confess, I stopped reading after about the fourth book.
York H. Dobyns
> Well, it wouldn't be DIF exactly, but everyone knows I'm in favor of
>interpreting the Powers Beyond the Powers as Arisians. Which means that
>whatever they're evolving the people in the Galaxies to face must make
>the Eddorians look like the Salvation Army.
How does one reconcile the Tines with the distinctly unitary notion of
mind and self presented in the Lensman series? Individual members are
subsapient; the communication that sustains the shared identity is
demonstrably *not* telepathic but based on acoustic communication
channels. What does a Tine Lensman's Lens look like? Which member wears
it? What happens to it when that member dies? Note that the excuse
that the Arisians are obviously not producing Lensmen in the Zones
galaxy, and that the Tines might, like the Nevians, be incapable of
producing individuals of "Lensman grade", is completely irrelevant; it
is made clear that a third-level intellect is capable of crafting a
Lens for any mentality it chooses, regardless of capacity or ethics.
The attempt to meld the two world therefore leaves you stuck with the
the contrast between the *possibility* of building a "wiring diagram
of [the] total mind" that is "uniquely attuned to an individual life
force" and the way Tines work. I am tempted to call it a stark contrast.
The Zoneless universe of the Lens never has nonbiological systems
attaining sapience (definitively testable by use of telepathy), whereas
this is the defining property of the higher Zones, presumed to be the
"natural" state of the Zones cosmos.
The telepathic abilities so critical to the Arisian strategy in the Lens
books, the ultimate desiderata of their longterm breeding plans, are
nonexistent in the Zones universe; most species, and even Powers,
probably consider them impossible in principle. Of course, they could be
wrong, but why is something so central to the Arisian view of things so
conspicuously absent?
Next Up: Harry Potter's new foster family: the Alston-Kurlelos!
--
York Dobyns ydo...@princeton.edu
Chris Clayton
>
> On 21 May 2000, Joseph Hertzlinger wrote:
>
> > In _Foundation's Edge_ and _Foundation and Earth_, Asimov did a
> > DIF treatment of psychohistory. It was originally the nearly
> > inevitable working of History derailed by an unexpected mutant. It
> > turned into a carefully propped up system with manipulators behind
> > manipulators.
>
> I think that's overstating the case a bit.
No, it isn't. After I finished reading _Foundation's Edge_ (one
of the books that *I* wish I could Unread), a couple of things
were obvious. First was that Asimov had changed his mind about
how psychohistory worked, and whether it was a good idea. The
whole view of the Galactic cultures, and how they interacted with
the Foundations, was diametrically opposite to everything that
Asimov showed us in the original Trilogy.
The second thing was that (IMHO, of course) Asimov's ability to
plot and write had gone straight into the crapper. The whole
subplot about bringing the Robot universe into Trantor's history
just stank. And he left a Dangling Plot Element (tm) unresolved,
and spent the last few pages repeatedly beating you over the
head with the fact that This Element Was Not Resolved! You Hear
ME?! It's NOT RESOLVED!!!
Um, Isaac, I noticed that *before* your tirade. Just take your
meds, and go back to sleep....
On the other hand, Donald Kinsbury wrote a very good story
set (in every sense except the actual names) in the Second
Empire of the Foundation universe. That story deconstructed
the role of the Psychohistorians in a very believable, and
well written, way. Of course, I forget the name, but it
was includeded in a collection of stories called "Far Futures".
--
Chris Clayton "That which does not kill you, makes you
cla...@rust.net entertaining at dinner" - Steve Simmons
York H. Dobyns
>Plane Of Existence from that of the Lensman universe -- Tellus is deep
>in the Slow Zone, and if the Lensmen existed in the Zones universe the
>poor ol' Perversion wouldn't have stood a chance in hell.
>
> The Arisians passed on to another Plane Of Existence -- the Zones
>universe -- and began their great work anew.
Hah. In an encounter between the two, it's the Lensmen who wouldn't
stand a chance. Remember, the Blight is -- or at least spreads like --
an OS virus for sentient minds. You want to give it the
infinite-bandwidth, galactic-range, no-receiving-equipment-needed
communication channel of Lensed telepathy? First Lensman to contact a
Blighted mind becomes a wholly-owned subsidiary, proceeds to Lens
every other Lensman he knows, repeat as needed.
--
York Dobyns ydo...@princeton.edu
Bertil Jonell
William Clifford <wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>What would it take to write a _Down in Flames_ for _The Lord of the
>Rings_?
The Radagast conspiracy occationally mentioned on the tolkien groups
might qualify.
>|William Clifford |"...I think she's biased towards a |
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
hy...@tamu.edu
Chris Clayton <ccla...@gw.ford.com> writes:
> Paul Andinach wrote:
>>
>> On 21 May 2000, Joseph Hertzlinger wrote:
>>
>> > In _Foundation's Edge_ and _Foundation and Earth_, Asimov did a
>> > DIF treatment of psychohistory. It was originally the nearly
>> > inevitable working of History derailed by an unexpected mutant. It
>> > turned into a carefully propped up system with manipulators behind
>> > manipulators.
>>
>> I think that's overstating the case a bit.
>
> No, it isn't. After I finished reading _Foundation's Edge_ (one
> of the books that *I* wish I could Unread), a couple of things
> were obvious. First was that Asimov had changed his mind about
> how psychohistory worked, and whether it was a good idea. The
> whole view of the Galactic cultures, and how they interacted with
> the Foundations, was diametrically opposite to everything that
> Asimov showed us in the original Trilogy.
>
> The second thing was that (IMHO, of course) Asimov's ability to
> plot and write
In a relatively recent rereading I found the prose
of the original trilogy to be quite clunky and
that of FE to be much better - on the whole.
had gone straight into the crapper. The whole
> subplot about bringing the Robot universe into Trantor's history
> just stank.
I agree with that latter point, however:
I disliked FE immensely when I first read it, but
on rereading the whole Foundation cycle a decade later
decided I'd been wrong.
I think that the reason Asimov stopped writing the
series for so long is not the one he presented in
writing while Campbell was still alive, and is connected
to the reason that FE goes against the grain for so many
of us.
Asimov was, from very early in life, a democrat. I'm
not sure what he originally planned for the role of
the Second Foundation, but at the end of that book,
it is clear that the second empire will be at best
a benign oligarchy. This role for the second foundation
follows logically from what was needed to defeat the
Mule, but the Mule was not Asimov's idea and he resisted
using the concept though in the end he gave in.
Thus any novel after SF in which the Seldon plan
went on to more success would be describing the
progress of a political system which Asimov would
find quite distasteful. Thus he had to find something
to replace it, and had to portray the foundation
leaders, especially of the second foundation, in a
much less glowing light than in the original trilogy.
And that is part of why people hate FE.
I didn't like his solution. I'd far rather have seen
a book about a civil war in the second foundation,
for example. But I wouldn't be surprised if he thought
of this and had some reason for rejecting it. I hope
it wasn't enthusiasm for Gaia/Galaxia.
As to the mixing of the two series in Robots and
Empire and after, I agree. A terrible mistake.
William Hyde
Dept of Oceanography
Texas A&M University
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
mike stone
>
> As to the mixing of the two series in Robots and
> Empire and after, I agree. A terrible mistake.
Quite.
I used to grumble at Poul Anderson for combining his "Polesotechnic League" and
"Dominic Flandry" stories into one universe. I stopped grumbling when I saw how
much better *that* merger worked than similar ones by other authors
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England
"The English people are like the English beer.
Froth on top, dregs at the bottom, the middle excellent" - Voltaire
Sea Wasp
> >interpreting the Powers Beyond the Powers as Arisians. Which means that
> >whatever they're evolving the people in the Galaxies to face must make
> >the Eddorians look like the Salvation Army.
>
> How does one reconcile the Tines with the distinctly unitary notion of
> mind and self presented in the Lensman series? Individual members are
> subsapient; the communication that sustains the shared identity is
> demonstrably *not* telepathic but based on acoustic communication
> channels. What does a Tine Lensman's Lens look like? Which member wears
> it? What happens to it when that member dies? Note that the excuse
> that the Arisians are obviously not producing Lensmen in the Zones
> galaxy, and that the Tines might, like the Nevians, be incapable of
> producing individuals of "Lensman grade", is completely irrelevant; it
> is made clear that a third-level intellect is capable of crafting a
> Lens for any mentality it chooses, regardless of capacity or ethics.
> The attempt to meld the two world therefore leaves you stuck with the
> the contrast between the *possibility* of building a "wiring diagram
> of [the] total mind" that is "uniquely attuned to an individual life
> force" and the way Tines work. I am tempted to call it a stark contrast.
Ah, youth, your points do you credit. Yet you are still thinking
loosely and muddily.
A man's mind changes as he becomes older, even if the core of his being
remains the same. A Lens for a Tine would be malleable, indeed, yet
would adapt to the shifting abilities of the wearer... and would
naturally disintegrate if the Wearer ceased to be, through some
concatenation of circumstances, no longer of Lensman grade. (While not
shown in the History, even a very moderate intellect can deduce that
certain forms of infection or injury could, through no fault of the
Lensman's own, reduce his or her mental capacity to one below that
proper for a Lensman. This is not necessarily true for one who has
attained Second or Third stage stability -- there the mind has reached a
point where it may transcend mere material bounds, especially in the
case of a mind of the third level of stability -- but for ordinary
beings it is true that the mind is dependent on matter to some extent.)
>
> The Zoneless universe of the Lens never has nonbiological systems
> attaining sapience (definitively testable by use of telepathy), whereas
> this is the defining property of the higher Zones, presumed to be the
> "natural" state of the Zones cosmos.
This is true. And in the Universe of Civilization, it was NECESSARY
that this be so. Yet there are infinite routes to Civilization, and the
Visualization of the Cosmic All shall show the route that this place,
too, must follow.
>
> The telepathic abilities so critical to the Arisian strategy in the Lens
> books, the ultimate desiderata of their longterm breeding plans, are
> nonexistent in the Zones universe; most species, and even Powers,
> probably consider them impossible in principle. Of course, they could be
> wrong, but why is something so central to the Arisian view of things so
> conspicuously absent?
Know, youth, that you overlook the obvious whilst looking for that
which you believe hidden.
The Powers of the Mind are well and truly present in the Vingean
universe. Observe the way in which the Perversion "flowered". Take some
cycles of time to meditate upon the nature of Old One. It is only in the
region of the Transcend that such abilities become available, true, but
that is inevitable and necessary in the Scheme of Things.
More, your words reveal that you believe that Arisia's design for
Civilization is one whose essence remains static; yet it is a truism
that those things which cease all change are, in essence, already dead
-- thus the evil of the Perversion, which sought just such static
immortality in the Beyond and Transcend.
The Adversary which Arisia opposes in this Plane of Existence is not
the same as Eddore -- indeed, there was never, nor shall there ever be,
another Eddore save only in the most distant reaches of the Cosmic All,
and it is well that this is so. Yet Eddore was not the only form in
which a true great Evil might appear, and in some ways Eddore was a
simple opponent; direct action was ever their forte, and through the
proper application of direct action could they be defeated in time. The
goals of Arisia, in the end, remain similar, but against a vastly
different enemy, our tactics and designs must, of necessity, be
themselves vastly different.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Sea Wasp
> >Plane Of Existence from that of the Lensman universe -- Tellus is deep
> >in the Slow Zone, and if the Lensmen existed in the Zones universe the
> >poor ol' Perversion wouldn't have stood a chance in hell.
> >
> > The Arisians passed on to another Plane Of Existence -- the Zones
> >universe -- and began their great work anew.
>
> Hah. In an encounter between the two, it's the Lensmen who wouldn't
> stand a chance. Remember, the Blight is -- or at least spreads like --
> an OS virus for sentient minds. You want to give it the
> infinite-bandwidth, galactic-range, no-receiving-equipment-needed
> communication channel of Lensed telepathy? First Lensman to contact a
> Blighted mind becomes a wholly-owned subsidiary, proceeds to Lens
> every other Lensman he knows, repeat as needed.
Once more, youth, you think loosely and muddily. The Perversion knew
nothing of the essential power of mind that belonged to the Wearers of
the Lens. Your own fiction speaks to you of your essential mistake:
"Size matters not". The size of the Perversion misleads you into
believing that its essence -- its mind -- could be in any essential way
superior to that of a Wearer of the Lens.
The fundamental principle of the Wearers of the Lens is that they are
utterly, completely, and beyond any doubt incorruptible by any means
whatsoever, be it brainwashing, telepathic, drug-induced, or otherwise.
While sufficient damage could render such an unfortunate no longer
capable of WIELDING the Lens -- bereft, if of a mere first-stage
stability, of the mental scope necessary to be a Lensman -- no force,
howsoever applied, might turn one of the Lensmen of Arisia's
Civilization to Evil. The Perversion is large. It does not, however, lie
outside the scope of our Visualization, and try as it might, the
corruption of a Lensman would be beyond its power. To slay Lensmen in
this fashion, yes, that it could accomplish, at least until, in the
fullness of time, it encountered one of the Second or higher-order
stages of stability, when it would meet its match, and more.
Simon van Dongen
>
>In article <39272d44...@news.ionline.com>,
>William Clifford <wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>What would it take to write a _Down in Flames_ for _The Lord of the
>>Rings_? or Vinge's Zone's universe (Personally, I like the Cthulhu
>>interpretation I've seen floated about here and there and would mind
>>at all if a third book explored this possibility)? Any other sacred
>>cows we should roast on a spit?
>
>It's not quite the same thing, but I'ev always wanted to read the
>version of _Lord of the Rings_ that's told from Saruman's point of
>view. Saruman is a lot more interesting to me than most of the other
>characters.
>
>For example, consider the scene in which Gandalf discovers for the
>first time that Saruman is no longer Saruman the White, but rather
>Saruman of the Many Colors. Gandalf comes off pretty well, but of
>course he's the one telling the story. Even if it did happened exactly
>as he said it did, imagine being Saruman and having to put up with
>Gandalf's unending smart answers.
>
Yes, that smug line about 'he who breaks a thing to find out what it
is has left the path of wisdom'. Maybe if your talking about a unique
item, but white, either as white light or white fabric isn't that hard
to come by. Breaking something into smaller parts to find out how it
works is often the wisest thing to do.
--
Simon van Dongen <sg...@xs4all.nl> Rotterdam, The Netherlands
'My doctor says I have a malformed public duty gland and a
natural deficiency in moral fibre,' he muttered to himself,
'and that I am therefore excused from saving Universes.'
Life, the universe and everything
Kevin J. Maroney
> The fundamental principle of the Wearers of the Lens is that they are
>utterly, completely, and beyond any doubt incorruptible by any means
>whatsoever, be it brainwashing, telepathic, drug-induced, or otherwise.
Which is almost certainly a violation of some variant of the Halting
Problem. But that's okay; far bigger violations of fact occurred in
the Lensmen books.
--
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@crossover.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor, New York Review of Science Fiction
<http://www.nyrsf.com>
Matt Austern
> >For example, consider the scene in which Gandalf discovers for the
> >first time that Saruman is no longer Saruman the White, but rather
> >Saruman of the Many Colors. Gandalf comes off pretty well, but of
> >course he's the one telling the story. Even if it did happened exactly
> >as he said it did, imagine being Saruman and having to put up with
> >Gandalf's unending smart answers.
> >
> Yes, that smug line about 'he who breaks a thing to find out what it
> is has left the path of wisdom'. Maybe if your talking about a unique
> item, but white, either as white light or white fabric isn't that hard
> to come by.
When I was a grad student, working on the CDF Collaboration, I
always thought that quote should be taped up on the detector.
Richard Horton
>On the other hand, Donald Kinsbury wrote a very good story
>set (in every sense except the actual names) in the Second
>Empire of the Foundation universe. That story deconstructed
>the role of the Psychohistorians in a very believable, and
>well written, way. Of course, I forget the name, but it
>was includeded in a collection of stories called "Far Futures".
It's called "Historical Crisis", and I saw a notice in Locus of an
upcoming novel by Kingsbury called _Psychohistorical Crisis_, which I
assume must be an expansion of the novella.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.sfsite.com/tangent)
Sea Wasp
>
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
> > The fundamental principle of the Wearers of the Lens is that they are
> >utterly, completely, and beyond any doubt incorruptible by any means
> >whatsoever, be it brainwashing, telepathic, drug-induced, or otherwise.
>
> Which is almost certainly a violation of some variant of the Halting
> Problem. But that's okay; far bigger violations of fact occurred in
> the Lensmen books.
The Arisians are quantum computer based. :)
York H. Dobyns
Kevin J. Maroney <kmar...@crossover.com> wrote:
>Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
>> The fundamental principle of the Wearers of the Lens is that they are
>>utterly, completely, and beyond any doubt incorruptible by any means
>>whatsoever, be it brainwashing, telepathic, drug-induced, or otherwise.
>
>Which is almost certainly a violation of some variant of the Halting
>Problem. But that's okay; far bigger violations of fact occurred in
>the Lensmen books.
It violates the Halting Problem only if human minds are
Turing-equivalent. It is fairly evident that in the Arisian universe,
Strong AI is false and sentient minds are not Turing-equivalent. I am
hesitant even to call this a "violation of fact" until we get better
evidence that Strong AI is true in the real world.
--
York Dobyns ydo...@princeton.edu
Joseph Hertzlinger
>I used to grumble at Poul Anderson for combining his "Polesotechnic
>League" and "Dominic Flandry" stories into one universe. I stopped
>grumbling when I saw how much better *that* merger worked than similar
>ones by other authors
Niven's combination of puppeteers and the Slaver Empire in the same
universe worked fairly well for a while. I suppose such combinations
work better early in a writer's career.
Nancy Lebovitz
>
> Asimov was, from very early in life, a democrat. I'm
> not sure what he originally planned for the role of
> the Second Foundation, but at the end of that book,
> it is clear that the second empire will be at best
> a benign oligarchy. This role for the second foundation
> follows logically from what was needed to defeat the
> Mule, but the Mule was not Asimov's idea and he resisted
> using the concept though in the end he gave in.
>
equivalent) was commonly available knowledge? Could such a story
be written, or would it be other-side-of-the-Singularity stuff?
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
The calligraphic button website is up!
Joshua Kronengold
>Kevin J. Maroney wrote:
>> Which is almost certainly a violation of some variant of the Halting
>> Problem. But that's okay; far bigger violations of fact occurred in
>> the Lensmen books.
Actually, IIRC, that wouldn't help. A quantum computer may do a damned good
job at solving NP problems with known generalized solutions, but the
Halting Problem is NP-complete, and has no generalized solution.
On the other hand, the Halting Problem is only NP-complete for generalized
solutions in an indefinitely large data set -- a human mind is of a finite
size, so a mind sufficiently larger could certainly come up with a solution
for things in that range, given time...the problem would still be NP, though;
my guess is something on the order of 2^n, where n is the number of conections
between neurons in the human brain meaning that you definately -would- need to
have a computer brain to have a chance.
--
Joshua Kronengold (mn...@io.com) |\ _,,,--,,_ ,)
---^---- /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;'
/\\ "What part of "Prhrhrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr" |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\
-/-\\\-- didn't you understand?" '---''(_/--' (_/-'
Joe Mason
>Has there been any sf in which psychohistory (or something roughly
>equivalent) was commonly available knowledge? Could such a story
>be written, or would it be other-side-of-the-Singularity stuff?
The consequences for advertising are a little boggling.
Joe
Michael S. Schiffer
>In article <8gjsia$ou4$1...@news.tamu.edu>, <hy...@tamu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Asimov was, from very early in life, a democrat. I'm
>> not sure what he originally planned for the role of
>> the Second Foundation, but at the end of that book,
>> it is clear that the second empire will be at best
>> a benign oligarchy. This role for the second foundation
>> follows logically from what was needed to defeat the
>> Mule, but the Mule was not Asimov's idea and he resisted
>> using the concept though in the end he gave in.
>Has there been any sf in which psychohistory (or something roughly
>equivalent) was commonly available knowledge? Could such a story
>be written, or would it be other-side-of-the-Singularity stuff?
Sort of. On some level, the title itself constitutes a spoiler, but:
<spoiler space>
Most of _In the Country of the Blind_ by Michael Flynn deals with
competition among the splintered factions of an organization which
discovered something very like psychohistory in the 19th
century. Most of the last century and a half of history has resulted
from one faction or another's machinations (and not every group is aware
of every other group). Some are trying to get rich, some to achieve
the Good Society (variously defined), some just want to Rule The
World, etc. The protagonists discover what's going on, and proceed to
<really massive spoilers for the end of the novel>
widely distribute the historical prediction mathematics (which once
required massive Babbage engines, but can now fit on personal computers)
so that, rather than there being only a few sighted people in the
country of the blind, everyone has equal access to it. (And,
incidentally, there's no longer any point in killing them to preserve
the secret.) As often happens with the Singularity, the process is
triggered on stage, but the ultimate consequences (which are hard to
really work out) are left outside the book.
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
ms...@mediaone.net
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Mark-Jason Dominus
Joshua Kronengold <mn...@fnord.io.com> wrote:
>Actually, IIRC, that wouldn't help. A quantum computer may do a damned good
>job at solving NP problems with known generalized solutions, but the
>Halting Problem is NP-complete, and has no generalized solution.
The halting problem is not NP-complete.
>On the other hand, the Halting Problem is only NP-complete for
The halting problem is not NP-complete.
NP-complete problems can be solved by brute force; it just takes a
long time to try every possible solution. The halting problem cannot
be solved at all.
Ross Smith
>
> Has there been any sf in which psychohistory (or something roughly
> equivalent) was commonly available knowledge? Could such a story
> be written, or would it be other-side-of-the-Singularity stuff?
Terry Pratchett, _The Dark Side of the Sun_. There's a technique called
"p-math" that can predict the outcome of events that were formerly
thought to be random (it's not really psychohistory, more a kind of
extension to physics, but the effects are similar: reliable long-term
predictions). The actual techniques are beyond the capabilities of most
people, but almost everyone knows p-math exists and roughly what it can
do.
The protagonist, Dom Sabalos, is one of the few people who *aren't*
familiar with p-math -- it was carefully left out of his education,
because nobody wanted him to know that he was destined to die on his
21st (or whatever it was) birthday. The story tells what happens after
he fails to die on schedule.
--
Ross Smith ......... r-s...@ihug.co.nz ......... Auckland, New Zealand
"Well, yes, I was aiming at him, but I've never hit anything with
a rocket launcher before, so I didn't think it mattered." -- Axly
Cambias
>
> I disliked FE immensely when I first read it, but
> on rereading the whole Foundation cycle a decade later
> decided I'd been wrong.
>
> I think that the reason Asimov stopped writing the
> series for so long is not the one he presented in
> writing while Campbell was still alive, and is connected
> to the reason that FE goes against the grain for so many
> of us.
>
> not sure what he originally planned for the role of
> the Second Foundation, but at the end of that book,
> it is clear that the second empire will be at best
> a benign oligarchy. This role for the second foundation
> follows logically from what was needed to defeat the
> Mule, but the Mule was not Asimov's idea and he resisted
> using the concept though in the end he gave in.
>
> went on to more success would be describing the
> progress of a political system which Asimov would
> find quite distasteful. Thus he had to find something
> to replace it, and had to portray the foundation
> leaders, especially of the second foundation, in a
> much less glowing light than in the original trilogy.
> And that is part of why people hate FE.
>
> I didn't like his solution. I'd far rather have seen
> a book about a civil war in the second foundation,
> for example. But I wouldn't be surprised if he thought
> of this and had some reason for rejecting it. I hope
> it wasn't enthusiasm for Gaia/Galaxia.
>
some kind of creepy hive mind to be much worse than the alternatives. A
good honest military dictatorship run by the First Foundation, or a good
ruthless government by Illuminati of the Second Foundation might not be as
sugary-sweet, but at least there's room for things like individual
personality.
Writers who envision the ultimate destiny of humanity to be some kind of
merging into a single entity frankly give me the creeps. I don't want to
be part of some greater being, thank you very much. I'm quite happy as I
am. Being part of the collective would mean never having anchovies on the
pizza again (no large group ever gets anchovies). I like anchovies.
> As to the mixing of the two series in Robots and
> Empire and after, I agree. A terrible mistake.
>
As an intellectual exercise, it was pretty neat -- turning a Glaring
Omission (no robots in the Foundation universe) into a Subtle Clue
(therefore the robots are running things). But by then Asimov's writing
had shed the youthful exuberance and sense-of-wonder which made the
original Foundation series so good, so you wind up with lots of scenes of
people sitting in rooms arguing with one another.
Cambias
Jens Kilian
> While not
> shown in the History, even a very moderate intellect can deduce that
> certain forms of infection or injury could, through no fault of the
> Lensman's own, reduce his or her mental capacity to one below that
> proper for a Lensman.
I wonder if it's possible to Focus a Lensman ;-)
--
mailto:j...@acm.org phone:+49-7031-464-7698 (HP TELNET 778-7698)
http://www.bawue.de/~jjk/ fax:+49-7031-464-7351
PGP: 06 04 1C 35 7B DC 1F 26 As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish,
0x555DA8B5 BB A2 F0 66 77 75 E1 08 so is contempt to the contemptible. [Blake]
Paul Andinach
> In article <3926C...@wizvax.net>, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> > The DIF treatment is fairly hard to pull off WELL, because you
> > can't use the standard reversal of basically saying "Well, all
> > these stories are really lies". You have to stay consistent with
> > the known facts and personalities whose heads we've "been in". An
> > example of doing it that way, rather than the DIF way, is the
> > rather interesting treatment of Star Trek: Next Generation as
> > being "Federation Propaganda Films" --
>
> Babylon 5 may have done this, depending on one's interpretation.
>
> <<<MEGA SPOILER FOR "Sleeping in Light">>>
-> +
-> +
-> +
-> +
-> +
-> +
-> +
-> +
-> +
-> +
-> +
-> +
-> +
-> +
-> +
> .... The series ends with the revelation that the whole series has
> been a documdrama written, produced, and paid for by the Rangers.
>
> Depending on how much you trust the Rangers' objectivity...
I can't seem to find a copy of the exact wording, but as I recall it
was all archival footage, no reenactments.
Of course, this doesn't necessarily dismiss the point about Ranger
objectivity.
Paul
--
The Pink Pedanther
Paul Andinach
> Has there been any sf in which psychohistory (or something roughly
> equivalent) was commonly available knowledge? Could such a story
> be written, or would it be other-side-of-the-Singularity stuff?
ISTR it being stated somewhere that if a significant percentage of the
population knew about psychohistory, it would cease working; it's
designed to predict the actions of populations under a certain set of
circumstances which does not include knowledge of psychohistory.
(Sort of like how the results of psychological experiments are much
more useful for predictive purposes if the subjects didn't know they
were experimental subjects.)
Paul Andinach
> Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>
> > Has there been any sf in which psychohistory (or something roughly
> > equivalent) was commonly available knowledge? Could such a story
> > be written, or would it be other-side-of-the-Singularity stuff?
>
> Terry Pratchett, _The Dark Side of the Sun_. There's a technique
> called "p-math" that can predict the outcome of events that were
> formerly thought to be random (it's not really psychohistory, more
> a kind of extension to physics, but the effects are similar:
> reliable long-term predictions).
>
> The actual techniques are beyond the capabilities of most people,
> but almost everyone knows p-math exists and roughly what it can
> do.
p-math is more powerful than psychohistory, really. Psychohistory only
predicts the shape of events in a human population; p-math predicts
nearly everything.
However, _The Dark Side of the Sun_ isn't really the kind of story
Nancy was asking about, I think. If everybody could do p-math, it
would be, but most people don't have a clue about it. Saying that
almost everyone knows p-math exists and roughly what it can do is like
saying that almost everyone in this day and age knows quantum
mechanics exists and that it has something to do with cats.
mike stone
>Asimov was, from very early in life, a democrat I'm not sure what he
originally planned for the role of the Second Foundation, but at the end of
that book,
>it is clear that the second empire will be at best> a benign oligarchy.
[snip]
>Thus any novel after SF in which the Seldon plan went on to more success would
be describing the progress of a political system which Asimov would
>find quite distasteful.
>Thus he had to find something
>to replace it, and had to portray the >foundation leaders, especially of the
>second foundation, in a much less >glowing >light
If so, I'm not sure he was all that successful.
I recall a scene from the end of one of the later Foundations (sorry I forget
which one) inwhich you've got about three people sitting round a table to
decide what the destiny of everyone in the Galaxy should be. If there was any
suggestion of any kind of democratic consultation, I totally missed it
I recall thinking of what might have happened if some *other* author's heroes
had walked in on that conference. Imho
1) Heinlein's Lazarus Long would ahve stripped the three of them naked and
summarily tossed them out of the airlock
2) Anderson's Dominic Flandry would have been a bit more gentlemanly about it -
allowing them each to write a letter home before their execution, and would
probably not have stripped them - they'd have gone out the airlock with their
clothes on, but no spacesuits
Any thoughts on what other sf heroes might have done?
hy...@tamu.edu
cam...@SPAHMTRAP.heliograph.com (Cambias) writes:
> In article <8gjsia$ou4$1...@news.tamu.edu>, hy...@tamu.edu () wrote:
>
> Writers who envision the ultimate destiny of humanity to be some kind of
> merging into a single entity frankly give me the creeps. I don't want to
> be part of some greater being, thank you very much. I'm quite happy as I
> am. Being part of the collective would mean never having anchovies on the
> pizza again (no large group ever gets anchovies). I like anchovies.
I hadn't thought of the anchovy argument. As a big fan of
the semi-toxic morsels, I have to agree with you. Even
worse, the same argument applies to good beer. With the
hive mind we spend the rest of time eating wonder bread
with bologna and mayo, drinking Bud.
>> As to the mixing of the two series in Robots and
>> Empire and after, I agree. A terrible mistake.
>>
> As an intellectual exercise, it was pretty neat -- turning a Glaring
> Omission (no robots in the Foundation universe) into a Subtle Clue
> (therefore the robots are running things).
That aspect was good.
But by then Asimov's writing
> had shed the youthful exuberance and sense-of-wonder which made the
> original Foundation series so good,
I found a little bit of that in the "search for earth"
part, particularly in the old spacer worlds. I'd have
liked to see more of that - they found Earth a bit too
easily for my taste.
so you wind up with lots of scenes of
> people sitting in rooms arguing with one another.
But at least they're not arguing over who is in command
of the car.
Nancy Lebovitz
Paul Andinach <pand...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>On 26 May 2000, Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>
>> Has there been any sf in which psychohistory (or something roughly
>> equivalent) was commonly available knowledge? Could such a story
>> be written, or would it be other-side-of-the-Singularity stuff?
>
>population knew about psychohistory, it would cease working; it's
ISTR the same thing.
>designed to predict the actions of populations under a certain set of
>circumstances which does not include knowledge of psychohistory.
I think you'd get an interestingly unpredicatable social structure,
with some people trying to use psychohistory to build better societies
(for various definitions of "better"), some trying to gain power and/or
wealth, and some trying to protect themselves from the first two bunches.
Don A. Landhill
> >
> > Asimov was, from very early in life, a democrat. I'm
> > not sure what he originally planned for the role of
> > the Second Foundation, but at the end of that book,
> > it is clear that the second empire will be at best
> > follows logically from what was needed to defeat the
> > Mule, but the Mule was not Asimov's idea and he resisted
> > using the concept though in the end he gave in.
> >
> equivalent) was commonly available knowledge? Could such a story
> be written, or would it be other-side-of-the-Singularity stuff?
> Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
>
> The calligraphic button website is up!
>
As others in this thread have menthined Asimov posulated that PH only
worked if the population at large was unaware of it --- thus avoiding
feedback loops, etc. I find it hard to imagine a world where some
predictive technique like PH was widely available and widely used --
unless you assume it is a deterministic world where everyone can
predict things because no one can chage themn anyway -- a bit like
Fritz Leiber's "Try and Change the Past" -- or a predestinarian
christian viewpoint. This makes for a singularly depressing story IMO.
In "Blowups Happen" RAH presented a technique which he called 'calculus
of statement' which seems quite a bit like PH, and which was used to
make accurate (if fairly short range) predictions of human social
actions. It was implied that this was an open technique, know to many
people well-educated in "higher math" much like say tensor calculus.
It wqas never mentioned in any of the other _Future History_ stories
AFAICR, and its implications were not explored beyond one scene of
convincing buisnessmen to do 'the right thing" because a publicity
campaign could be mounted to make them look bad.
--
-Don A. Landhill
Dlan...@aol.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
hy...@tamu.edu
mws...@aol.com (mike stone) writes:
>>From: hy...@tamu.edu ()
>>Thus he had to find something
>>to replace it, and had to portray the >foundation leaders, especially of the
>>second foundation, in a much less >glowing >light
>
>
> If so, I'm not sure he was all that successful.
>
> I recall a scene from the end of one of the later Foundations (sorry I forget
> which one) inwhich you've got about three people sitting round a table to
> decide what the destiny of everyone in the Galaxy should be. If there was any
> suggestion of any kind of democratic consultation, I totally missed it
Asimov postulated that the Foundation would have to go through
a phase of oligarchy and eventually dictatorship, before
being fully committed to democracy. We can see the oligarchy
developing under Mallow at the end of the first book (in fact
Mallow himself may even see the problem) and it culminates
in the Indburs in the second book. According to the Seldon
plan the beginning of the end for the dictatorship was
supposed to be the rebellion of the independent traders,
(even though they were supposed to lose) which was forestalled
by the Mule.
After the Mule episode we are back to democracy, and
the Second Foundation types themselves are never less
than heroic/kind/selfless/etc - until Foundation's Edge.
Maybe that's why he didn't go for the "revolution within
the second foundation" solution, because he'd already
done something like that earlier.
> Any thoughts on what other sf heroes might have done?
SF heros can do anything. Asimov was more realistic.
He makes sure that we know that Devers, a highly competent
opponent of these people, winds up being destroyed by them.
The point is that they have all the levers of power,
and it takes more than one man to overthrow them.
Otherwise Asimov would have had to abandon the
very idea of psychohistory.
Actually Flandry would have worked for them. He
did work for an incompetent and corrupt empire for
much of his career. Lazarus Long would have skipped
out to the great beyond.
David Given
d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes:
> In article <39272d44...@news.ionline.com>,
> William Clifford <wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>What would it take to write a _Down in Flames_ for _The Lord of the
>>Rings_?
>
> might qualify.
...um, what conspiracy?
--
+- David Given ---------------McQ-+ "While I write this letter, I have a
| Work: d...@tao-group.com | pistol in one hand and a sword in the
| Play: dgi...@iname.com | other." --- Sir Boyle Roche
+- http://wired.st-and.ac.uk/~dg -+
Bertil Jonell
>In article <8gjqq2$a92$1...@nyheter.chalmers.se>,
> d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes:
>> In article <39272d44...@news.ionline.com>,
>> William Clifford <wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>What would it take to write a _Down in Flames_ for _The Lord of the
>>>Rings_?
>>
>> The Radagast conspiracy occationally mentioned on the tolkien groups
>> might qualify.
>
>...um, what conspiracy?
Radagast and assorted mice and gophers?
But ok, I doesn't make much sense to call it conspiracy when it
has only one member:)
>+- David Given ---------------McQ-+ "While I write this letter, I have a
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
Damien Raphael Sullivan
>Has there been any sf in which psychohistory (or something roughly
>equivalent) was commonly available knowledge? Could such a story
>be written, or would it be other-side-of-the-Singularity stuff?
Part of me thinks that such widespread predictive power would be
self-cancelling. At the least, I have trouble believing the original math
would apply. You're trying to predict the behavior of a large collection of
elements, but by giving the elements such predicitive power about themselves
you've changed them, invalidating the equations.
Part of me thinks it'd just be like having really accurate polls and insurance
forecasts.
-xx- Damien X-)
Mark Atwood
>
> I think you'd get an interestingly unpredicatable social structure,
> with some people trying to use psychohistory to build better societies
> (for various definitions of "better"), some trying to gain power and/or
> wealth, and some trying to protect themselves from the first two bunches.
No more so than we have now.
There are already people who are, either by training or talent,
"better" at predicting other people's behavior, influencing their
decisions, and/or coaxing/conviencing/negotiating others to do things.
--
Mark Atwood | It is the hardest thing for intellectuals to understand, that
m...@pobox.com | just because they haven't thought of something, somebody else
| might. <http://www.friesian.com/rifkin.htm>
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Paul Andinach
> Yes. I personally found the concept of turning Galactic
> civilization into some kind of creepy hive mind to be much worse
> than the alternatives. A good honest military dictatorship run by
> the First Foundation, or a good ruthless government by Illuminati
> of the Second Foundation might not be as sugary-sweet, but at
> least there's room for things like individual personality.
I never got that far into the series - is that really what happened?
Seems strange.
In addition to everything else, Asimov has written stories about
humanity fighting to *avoid* becoming a creepy hive mind.
Danny Sichel
>> While not
>> shown in the History, even a very moderate intellect can deduce that
>> certain forms of infection or injury could, through no fault of the
>> Lensman's own, reduce his or her mental capacity to one below that
>> proper for a Lensman.
> I wonder if it's possible to Focus a Lensman ;-)
Convex or concave?
Phil Fraering
> In article <8gjqq2$a92$1...@nyheter.chalmers.se>,
> d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes:
> > In article <39272d44...@news.ionline.com>,
> > William Clifford <wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>What would it take to write a _Down in Flames_ for _The Lord of the
> >>Rings_?
> >
> > The Radagast conspiracy occationally mentioned on the tolkien groups
> > might qualify.
Could you explain the Radagast Conspiracy?
--
Phil Fraering "One day, Pinky, A MOUSE shall rule, and it is the
p...@globalreach.net humans who will be forced to endure these humiliating
/Will work for tape/ diversions!"
"You mean like Orlando, Brain?"
Bertil Jonell
Phil Fraering <p...@globalreach.net> wrote:
>d...@pearl.tao.co.uk (David Given) writes:
>
>> In article <8gjqq2$a92$1...@nyheter.chalmers.se>,
>> d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) writes:
>> > In article <39272d44...@news.ionline.com>,
>> > William Clifford <wo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>What would it take to write a _Down in Flames_ for _The Lord of the
>> >>Rings_?
>> >
>> > The Radagast conspiracy occationally mentioned on the tolkien groups
>> > might qualify.
>
>Could you explain the Radagast Conspiracy?
The idea is that the "slightly addled Maia who only cares for small
animals" image that Radagast projects is a concious deception. His
real plan is to be the sole remaining Power in ME when the Fourth Age
begins.
To do this he first kills the Wizards who were "lost somewhere in
the east" (Allatar and Pallandro) and then does his best to get Gandalf,
Saruman and Sauron to take eachother out.
(Thats too short to do the idea real justice, really)
>Phil Fraering "One day, Pinky, A MOUSE shall rule, and it is the
-bertil-
Michael Caldwell
> The DIF treatment is fairly hard to pull off WELL, because you can't
>use the standard reversal of basically saying "Well, all these stories
>are really lies". You have to stay consistent with the known facts and
>personalities whose heads we've "been in". An example of doing it that
>way, rather than the DIF way, is the rather interesting treatment of
>Star Trek: Next Generation as being "Federation Propaganda Films" --
>i.e., either the incidents never happened, or the actual events and
>personalities differed by some significant amount.
There's always the *there's only one "federation"* theory vis a vis
"Star trek" and "Blakes 7".
--
Michael Caldwell
>William Clifford wrote:
>> What would it take to write a _Down in Flames_ for _The Lord of the
>> Rings_? or Vinge's Zone's universe (Personally, I like the Cthulhu
>> interpretation I've seen floated about here and there and would mind
>> at all if a third book explored this possibility)? Any other sacred
>> cows we should roast on a spit?
>I'd say the X files, but they already did it themselves.
And not only once but, what, three times now? And that's not including
the odd ones where we see the agents through the eyes of others (the
vampire one, and the one where Skully et al are interviewed by an
author of "UFO literature" and Skully threatens to kill a man).
--
Flash Sheridan
>>utterly, completely, and beyond any doubt incorruptible by any means
>>whatsoever, be it brainwashing, telepathic, drug-induced, or otherwise.
>Which is almost certainly a violation of some variant of the Halting
>Problem.
Evidence, please? "Incorruptible" in this context is an ethical concept,
which is an issue I think Turing's proof failed to address. Even if
you're thinking of functionality, not ethics, a mind might manage to be
incorruptible with a sufficiently sensitive self-destruct mechanism.
Which is not to say that I'm convinced that a lower-level Lensman is
necessarily incorruptible by, say, thionite. Samms was, of course, but it
was an effort for him, and even Mr Williams avoided it.
I agree, though I don't think it's confirmed in the histories, that
if a Lensman were corrupted, his Lens would at least self-destruct. Better
still, we're told that a Lens not in contact with a Lensman kills on
contact. So a corrupted ex-Lensman might rapidly become a deceased
ex-Lensman.
--
<LI><a href="http://pobox.com/~flash">Flash Sheridan</a>
<LI><a href="http://pobox.com/~spug">Stanford PalmPilot User Group</a>
Sea Wasp
>
> In article <ulfriscjq4m61gkje...@4ax.com>,
> Kevin J. Maroney <kmar...@crossover.com> wrote:
> >Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The fundamental principle of the Wearers of the Lens is that they are
> >>utterly, completely, and beyond any doubt incorruptible by any means
> >>whatsoever, be it brainwashing, telepathic, drug-induced, or otherwise.
> >
> >Which is almost certainly a violation of some variant of the Halting
> >Problem.
>
> Evidence, please? "Incorruptible" in this context is an ethical concept,
> which is an issue I think Turing's proof failed to address. Even if
> you're thinking of functionality, not ethics, a mind might manage to be
> incorruptible with a sufficiently sensitive self-destruct mechanism.
> Which is not to say that I'm convinced that a lower-level Lensman is
> necessarily incorruptible by, say, thionite. Samms was, of course, but it
> was an effort for him, and even Mr Williams avoided it.
The Historian of Civilization himself, and Mentor himself, through his
energized form of flesh Bergenholm, stated that incorruptibility was one
of the absolute guarantees of the Lens. This was one of the primary
things that separated it from all prior forms of authority
identification -- it could not be faked, and any one who carried one
could be trusted completely and absolutely.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
mike stone
>
> The Historian of Civilization himself, and Mentor himself, through his
>energized form of flesh Bergenholm, stated that incorruptibility was one
>of the absolute guarantees of the Lens. This was one of the primary
>things that separated it from all prior forms of authority
>identification -- it could not be faked, and any one who carried one
>could be trusted completely and absolutely.
Smith seems to have believed that honesty was a measurable quantity.
In The Skylark Of Space, Seaton, Crane etc undergo the mandatory Osnomian
personality tests prior to their marriages, it is explained that "anyone whose
graphs show moral turpitude is shot".
He does not explain how moral turpitude is *measured*. I can't help wondering
if he'd been talking to L Ron Hubbard
Robert Shaw
> The Historian of Civilization himself, and Mentor himself, through his
> energized form of flesh Bergenholm, stated that incorruptibility was one
> of the absolute guarantees of the Lens. This was one of the primary
> things that separated it from all prior forms of authority
> identification -- it could not be faked, and any one who carried one
> could be trusted completely and absolutely.
>
The Zones universe is different from the Lens universe. There is
no reason to believe Lenses would work in it at all, let alone
work identically to the way they do in their home universe.
The Arisians creating the Zones is an interesting idea but
they couldn't plausibly drag the rest of their paraphanalia
with them.
What happens if a lensman wears the One ring?
Gandalf wasn't immune, and he was a Maiar.
Being more incorruptable than Gandalf is
a stretch. There are other things in fantasy which,
by definition, can corrupt everything without exception.
If a third stage Lensman wear the One ring while carrying
the Illearth stone and looks Cthulhu in the eyes he will not
stay sane when Nyarlathotep taps him on the shoulder.
To say otherwise is to neuter Cthulhu, Nyarlathotep and
the rest.
There are definitely universes where the Lens's warantee
doesn't run, and the Zone universe is most likely one
of them.
--
'It is a wise crow that knows which way the camel points' - Pratchett
Robert Shaw
Sea Wasp
Depends on where you place MENTOR in the scheme of things.
A third-stage Lensman would be the equivalent of Mentor -- in fact,
superior in some areas. And Mentor could pull off stunts that leave the
Culture's Minds babbling in dumbstruck awe.
Even in the world of the Middle-Earth, there were things immune to the
One Ring's corruptive nature -- Tom Bombadil, for instance. The One
wouldn't affect a Valar, I'm pretty damn sure. And in terms of mental
stability I'd put Mentor up there above the Valar (though obviously
below Eru; Mentor can VISUALIZE a universe, but Eru can just sing one
into existence).
Cthulhu and his people are just extrauniversal wierdos. More than
likely someone of Mentor's capacities has envisioned them, gone "How
very repulsive", and gone on to continue their work.
Jens Kilian
I was thinking of Vinge's Focus; believe it or not, I didn't notice there was
a pun until reading the posted article.
Jens.
Robert Shaw
Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
news:393253...@wizvax.net...
> Robert Shaw wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > What happens if a lensman wears the One ring?
> > Gandalf wasn't immune, and he was a Maiar.
> > Being more incorruptable than Gandalf is
> > a stretch. There are other things in fantasy which,
> > by definition, can corrupt everything without exception.
> > If a third stage Lensman wear the One ring while carrying
> > the Illearth stone and looks Cthulhu in the eyes he will not
> > stay sane when Nyarlathotep taps him on the shoulder.
> > To say otherwise is to neuter Cthulhu, Nyarlathotep and
> > the rest.
> >
> > There are definitely universes where the Lens's warantee
> > doesn't run, and the Zone universe is most likely one
> > of them.
>
> Depends on where you place MENTOR in the scheme of things.
Yes. Which universe get priority?
>
> A third-stage Lensman would be the equivalent of Mentor -- in fact,
> superior in some areas. And Mentor could pull off stunts that leave the
> Culture's Minds babbling in dumbstruck awe.
>
> Even in the world of the Middle-Earth, there were things immune to the
> One Ring's corruptive nature -- Tom Bombadil, for instance.
That was apparently because he had renounced all desire to affect
the world, for good or evil. Gandalf wanted to make the world better
and the ring could work through that desire. The Lensman also
had such desires, making them potentially vulnerable.
> The One
> wouldn't affect a Valar, I'm pretty damn sure.
Well the Valar wouldn't accept it in Aman. They were
probably immune to it, but the Valar aren't incorruptible.
> And in terms of mental
> stability I'd put Mentor up there above the Valar (though obviously
> below Eru; Mentor can VISUALIZE a universe, but Eru can just sing one
> into existence).
It was the Valar who did the singing. Eru made the singing real.
>
> Cthulhu and his people are just extrauniversal wierdos. More than
> likely someone of Mentor's capacities has envisioned them, gone "How
> very repulsive", and gone on to continue their work.
>
Depends just how weird they are. If Cthulhu is just some ugly thing
with tentacles and ichor he can be laughed off. If he is alien behind
Mantor's comprehension, which is not unlimited, too weird for Mentor
to envision then the mere sight of him can shatter Mentor's mind.
There's quite a nice description in one of the Dr who spin-offs
of something too alien for a time lord to visualise (and they
are much more than human). Struggling to make sense of
it, they see eldritch cities, planet sized skulls and worse
but the true appearance of the creature is more than they
can grasp, they just see fearsome images that are a pale
shadow of the thing's true horror and are forced to look away.
The Cthulhu in that universe is worse still.
Tentacles won't do it but there can be things too terrible
for Mentor to face and remain sane. Since he doesn't
have panuniversal omniscience, anything he says to
the contrary is just a guess based on incomplete
information and wishful thinking.
It's clear Lenses can't work outside the transcend. Vinge writes
his universe to different laws. Short of suspending those laws,
which would be crude, there can be no Lenses in the Zones.
Mentor is quite capable of devising replacements that play
the same role but are completely compatable with the Zones.
Dwight Thieme
: >
: > The Historian of Civilization himself, and Mentor himself, through his
: > energized form of flesh Bergenholm, stated that incorruptibility was one
: > of the absolute guarantees of the Lens. This was one of the primary
: > things that separated it from all prior forms of authority
: > identification -- it could not be faked, and any one who carried one
: > could be trusted completely and absolutely.
: >
: Such guarantees can only apply to the universe they are made in.
: The Zones universe is different from the Lens universe. There is
: no reason to believe Lenses would work in it at all, let alone
: work identically to the way they do in their home universe.
: The Arisians creating the Zones is an interesting idea but
: they couldn't plausibly drag the rest of their paraphanalia
: with them.
: What happens if a lensman wears the One ring?
: Gandalf wasn't immune, and he was a Maiar.
: Being more incorruptable than Gandalf is
: a stretch. There are other things in fantasy which,
: by definition, can corrupt everything without exception.
: If a third stage Lensman wear the One ring while carrying
: the Illearth stone and looks Cthulhu in the eyes he will not
: stay sane when Nyarlathotep taps him on the shoulder.
: To say otherwise is to neuter Cthulhu, Nyarlathotep and
: the rest.
As a fixer-upper, the lens is only *proof* of incorruptability,
it doesn't *force* it, so where's the paradox if the lens
disintegrates while the third stage Lensman is wearing the
One ring?
Ike
Flash Sheridan
>Flash Sheridan wrote:
>> In article <ulfriscjq4m61gkje...@4ax.com>,
>> Kevin J. Maroney <kmar...@crossover.com> wrote:
>> >Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The fundamental principle of the Wearers of the Lens is that they
>> >> are utterly, completely, and beyond any doubt incorruptible by any means
>> >>whatsoever, be it brainwashing, telepathic, drug-induced, or otherwise.
>> >
>> >Which is almost certainly a violation of some variant of the Halting
>> >Problem.
>>
> The Historian of Civilization himself, and Mentor himself, through his
>energized form of flesh Bergenholm, stated that incorruptibility was one
>of the absolute guarantees of the Lens.
Good points, though not quite as conclusive as Turing's proof, _if_ it
applied. (Which I think it doesn't.) Was everything Bergenholm said
necessarily true? And the historian was, I believe, a first stage
entity.
> This was one of the primary
>things that separated it from all prior forms of authority
>identification -- it could not be faked, and any one who carried one
>could be trusted completely and absolutely.
I agree that this is the crucial point, but it's covered by either
alternative:
Phil Fraering
> Depends just how weird they are. If Cthulhu is just some ugly thing
> with tentacles and ichor he can be laughed off. If he is alien behind
> Mantor's comprehension, which is not unlimited, too weird for Mentor
> to envision then the mere sight of him can shatter Mentor's mind.
I thought that part of the horror of Cthulhu etc. is that they were
supposedly woven more deeply into the structure of reality than humans
were.
What if: Cthulhu isn't _evil_, or even _really_ horrifying, but
just gets perceived as such, when he might just be a necessary
mechanism for keeping great evil in check... the fact that people
go mad in his presense may just be a side-effect of the mechanisms
he uses to manipulate the Zones.
--
Phil Fraering "One day, Pinky, A MOUSE shall rule, and it is the
Matt Austern
I like that theory: Star Trek is a government propaganda film, and
Blakes 7 is a resistance propaganda film. The technology and
iconography isn't quite consistent between the two, but nobody who
watches Star Trek should be bothered by minor inconsistencies.
Paul Andinach
> There's quite a nice description in one of the Dr who spin-offs of
> something too alien for a time lord to visualise (and they are
> much more than human). Struggling to make sense of it, they see
> eldritch cities, planet sized skulls and worse but the true
> appearance of the creature is more than they can grasp, they just
> see fearsome images that are a pale shadow of the thing's true
> horror and are forced to look away.
You sure you're not thinking of the one set in a pocket reality where
everything's too alien for the humanoid mind to visualise, so the
inhabitants subconsciously rationalise it into planet-sized snowmen,
spontaneous song-and-dance numbers and worse?
Nancy Lebovitz
Nancy Lebovitz
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>>
>> I think you'd get an interestingly unpredicatable social structure,
>> with some people trying to use psychohistory to build better societies
>> (for various definitions of "better"), some trying to gain power and/or
>> wealth, and some trying to protect themselves from the first two bunches.
>
>No more so than we have now.
>
>There are already people who are, either by training or talent,
>"better" at predicting other people's behavior, influencing their
>decisions, and/or coaxing/conviencing/negotiating others to do things.
>
Joe Mason
>"Robert Shaw" <Rob...@shavian.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Depends just how weird they are. If Cthulhu is just some ugly thing
>> with tentacles and ichor he can be laughed off. If he is alien behind
>> Mantor's comprehension, which is not unlimited, too weird for Mentor
>> to envision then the mere sight of him can shatter Mentor's mind.
>
>I thought that part of the horror of Cthulhu etc. is that they were
>supposedly woven more deeply into the structure of reality than humans
>were.
>
>What if: Cthulhu isn't _evil_, or even _really_ horrifying, but
>just gets perceived as such, when he might just be a necessary
>mechanism for keeping great evil in check... the fact that people
>go mad in his presense may just be a side-effect of the mechanisms
>he uses to manipulate the Zones.
Possible.
Nyarlathotep, herald of Azathoth, is pretty evil, though. He's not just
*there* and *feared*, as Cthulhu is - he actively goes about creating evil.
And if the Zone creating mechanism actually is at the center of the galaxy, it
maps much more closely to Azathoth than to Cthulhu.
Joe
Ian Montgomerie
>"Robert Shaw" <Rob...@shavian.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Depends just how weird they are. If Cthulhu is just some ugly thing
>> with tentacles and ichor he can be laughed off. If he is alien behind
>> Mantor's comprehension, which is not unlimited, too weird for Mentor
>> to envision then the mere sight of him can shatter Mentor's mind.
>
>I thought that part of the horror of Cthulhu etc. is that they were
>supposedly woven more deeply into the structure of reality than humans
>were.
>
>What if: Cthulhu isn't _evil_, or even _really_ horrifying, but
>just gets perceived as such, when he might just be a necessary
>mechanism for keeping great evil in check... the fact that people
>go mad in his presense may just be a side-effect of the mechanisms
>he uses to manipulate the Zones.
I believe the stories basically said that the Great Old Ones were not evil
in any human sense, but simply beyond human comprehension. Humans would be
like ants to them, or less. Really powerful beings who were amoral by our
standards, while their enemies the Elder Gods were - although no less
incomprehensible - also unlikely to harm humans.
The Great Old Ones were definitely not just nasty looking squids though,
even if that was the physical manifestation of Cthulhu. They were
essentially gods, capable of messing about with time and space and
dimensions beyond our comprehension. They could achieve interstellar travel
under their own power, and fight cataclysmic battles in space, and were
essentially immune to any attack humans could conceive of.
Ian Montgomerie
>>What if: Cthulhu isn't _evil_, or even _really_ horrifying, but
>>just gets perceived as such, when he might just be a necessary
>>mechanism for keeping great evil in check... the fact that people
>>go mad in his presense may just be a side-effect of the mechanisms
>>he uses to manipulate the Zones.
>
>Possible.
>
>Nyarlathotep, herald of Azathoth, is pretty evil, though. He's not just
>*there* and *feared*, as Cthulhu is - he actively goes about creating evil.
>
>And if the Zone creating mechanism actually is at the center of the galaxy, it
>maps much more closely to Azathoth than to Cthulhu.
Wasn't Azathoth essentially the Lovecraftian equivalent of God - the supreme
being who created, or was in some way responsible for, the entire universe?
Joe Mason
>>Nyarlathotep, herald of Azathoth, is pretty evil, though. He's not just
>>*there* and *feared*, as Cthulhu is - he actively goes about creating evil.
>>
>>And if the Zone creating mechanism actually is at the center of the galaxy, it
>>maps much more closely to Azathoth than to Cthulhu.
>
>Wasn't Azathoth essentially the Lovecraftian equivalent of God - the supreme
>being who created, or was in some way responsible for, the entire universe?
I dunno. Azathoth was A god, sure - the blind idiot god who sits at the
center of the galaxy and writhes insanely to the music of hideous flutes.
Whether it actually created the universe is another question.
The god who created all life on earth is certainly a different one -
Ubbo-something, I believe.
Joe
Dwight Thieme
: Ian Montgomerie <iadm...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
: >>Nyarlathotep, herald of Azathoth, is pretty evil, though. He's not just
: >>*there* and *feared*, as Cthulhu is - he actively goes about creating evil.
: >>
: >>And if the Zone creating mechanism actually is at the center of the galaxy, it
: >>maps much more closely to Azathoth than to Cthulhu.
: >
: >Wasn't Azathoth essentially the Lovecraftian equivalent of God - the supreme
: >being who created, or was in some way responsible for, the entire universe?
: I dunno. Azathoth was A god, sure - the blind idiot god who sits at the
: center of the galaxy and writhes insanely to the music of hideous flutes.
: Whether it actually created the universe is another question.
He was The god, and he didn't sit in no steenkin galalxy either -
the text says he 'dwells at the center of infinity'. But the blind
idiot part is correct, and is actually pretty much in line with
some of the gnostic Gospels conception of the supreme being. Pretty
much answers the question of how an omniscient, omnipotent benevolent
entity can be the cause of so much suffering.
Ike
Robert Shaw
Paul Andinach <pand...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote > On Mon, 29 May 2000,
The title gives away half the plot, but it's the one with
time lord soldiers in the shape of elder things that never
existed; hand guns that can destroy planets with a neutrino beam
at supernova brightnesses; renegade time lords who have turned
themselves into living fictions, and can shrug off aforesaid handguns
as if they were water pistols, and the entity which can eat the
universe in an hour retroactively, erasing from history every thought
that ever happened or will happen between the big bang and the end
of time. (When the time lords want to fight, they don't think small.
The entity was intended to be a weapon for the time lord's use but
there was a slight miscalculation.)
Some of the Dr Who books, while not great fiction, are written with
a certain cheerful exuberance not often seen these days.
vafp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk
Ian Montgomerie <iadm...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>:
> jcm...@uwaterloo.ca (Joe Mason) wrote:
>
>>>What if: Cthulhu isn't _evil_, or even _really_ horrifying, but
>>>just gets perceived as such, when he might just be a necessary
>>>mechanism for keeping great evil in check... the fact that people
>>>go mad in his presense may just be a side-effect of the mechanisms
>>>he uses to manipulate the Zones.
>>
>>Possible.
>>
>>*there* and *feared*, as Cthulhu is - he actively goes about creating evil.
>>
>>And if the Zone creating mechanism actually is at the center of the galaxy,
>>it maps much more closely to Azathoth than to Cthulhu.
>
>Wasn't Azathoth essentially the Lovecraftian equivalent of God - the supreme
>being who created, or was in some way responsible for, the entire universe?
>
- love, ppint. [drop the anti-uce "v", to reply to me directly]
--
[1] - "I like rhetorical questions;
I usually get them right."
- joann l.dominik, 6/95
Sea Wasp
>
> - hi; in rasfwr article, <vps7jskjirndmt20o...@4ax.com>,
> Ian Montgomerie <iadm...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>:
> > jcm...@uwaterloo.ca (Joe Mason) wrote:
> >
> >>>What if: Cthulhu isn't _evil_, or even _really_ horrifying, but
> >>>just gets perceived as such, when he might just be a necessary
> >>>mechanism for keeping great evil in check... the fact that people
> >>>go mad in his presense may just be a side-effect of the mechanisms
> >>>he uses to manipulate the Zones.
> >>
> >>Possible.
> >>
> >>Nyarlathotep, herald of Azathoth, is pretty evil, though. He's not just
> >>*there* and *feared*, as Cthulhu is - he actively goes about creating evil.
> >>
> >>And if the Zone creating mechanism actually is at the center of the galaxy,
> >>it maps much more closely to Azathoth than to Cthulhu.
> >
> >Wasn't Azathoth essentially the Lovecraftian equivalent of God - the supreme
> >being who created, or was in some way responsible for, the entire universe?
> >
> - *Isaac* Azathoth ?
"Their publicity is handled by the horrendous Isaac Azathoth, typist of
a Thousand Tentacles, Sultan of Conceit." -- Samurai Cat, The Book of
the Dunwich Cow.
mstemper - psc . com
>I recall a scene from the end of one of the later Foundations (sorry I forget
>which one) inwhich you've got about three people sitting round a table to
>decide what the destiny of everyone in the Galaxy should be. If there was any
>suggestion of any kind of democratic consultation, I totally missed it
>
>I recall thinking of what might have happened if some *other* author's heroes
>had walked in on that conference. Imho
>
>1) Heinlein's Lazarus Long would ahve stripped the three of them naked and
>summarily tossed them out of the airlock
>
>2) Anderson's Dominic Flandry would have been a bit more gentlemanly about it -
>allowing them each to write a letter home before their execution, and would
>probably not have stripped them - they'd have gone out the airlock with their
>clothes on, but no spacesuits
>
>Any thoughts on what other sf heroes might have done?
3. Clark Savage, Jr. would have sent them to Upstate New York.
4. Roderick Kinnison would have wanted to blast them into their component
atoms, but Virgil Samms would instead convince them of the error of
their ways.
5. Nicholas van Rijn would have bought their clothes from them, bankrupting
them in the process.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Always use apostrophe's and "quotation marks" properly.
Sea Wasp
6. Thomas Covenant would have moaned about his being unable to act
until they all committed suicide to get away from him.
7) Jim DiGriz would have tricked them into thinking HE was the savior
of humanity, sent them off in the wrong direction, called in the Time
Corps to rewrite history to its proper form (well, HE didn't exist here,
so obviously there MUST be something wrong!), and stolen everything of
value before he left.
8) Honor Harrington would have tried to reason with them, then blown
them to kingdom come if they didn't agree.
9) Corwin would just tell them they're all Shadows anyway, and head
back to Amber.
10) Telzey Amberdon would have found a way to subtly modify the way
they thought about things so that they ended up not interfering.
Joe Mason
>In article <20000526121721...@ng-fa1.aol.com>, mws...@aol.com (mike stone) writes:
>
>>I recall a scene from the end of one of the later Foundations (sorry I forget
>>which one) inwhich you've got about three people sitting round a table to
>>decide what the destiny of everyone in the Galaxy should be. If there was any
>>suggestion of any kind of democratic consultation, I totally missed it
>>
>>I recall thinking of what might have happened if some *other* author's heroes
>>had walked in on that conference. Imho
>>
>>1) Heinlein's Lazarus Long would ahve stripped the three of them naked and
>>summarily tossed them out of the airlock
>>
>>2) Anderson's Dominic Flandry would have been a bit more gentlemanly about it -
>>allowing them each to write a letter home before their execution, and would
>>probably not have stripped them - they'd have gone out the airlock with their
>>clothes on, but no spacesuits
>>
>>Any thoughts on what other sf heroes might have done?
>
>3. Clark Savage, Jr. would have sent them to Upstate New York.
>
>4. Roderick Kinnison would have wanted to blast them into their component
> atoms, but Virgil Samms would instead convince them of the error of
> their ways.
>
>5. Nicholas van Rijn would have bought their clothes from them, bankrupting
> them in the process.
6. Miles Vorkosigan would have persuaded them that he was all that stood
betweem them and the Mule reborn. Then he would have brought them down from
the inside after they put their defense in his hands.
7. Mark Vorkosigan would have persuaded them that he *was* the Mule reborn,
then when they locked him up... well, never mind. Those would be spoilers.
8. Conan would just have slew them all.
Joe
Joseph Hertzlinger
>Michael Stemper wrote:
>
>> In article <20000526121721...@ng-fa1.aol.com>,
>> mws...@aol.com (mike stone) writes:
>>
>>>I recall a scene from the end of one of the later Foundations
>>>(sorry I forget which one) inwhich you've got about three people
>>>sitting round a table to decide what the destiny of everyone in
>>>the Galaxy should be. If there was any suggestion of any kind of
>>>democratic consultation, I totally missed it I recall thinking of
>>>what might have happened if some *other* author's heroes had
>>>walked in on that conference.
> 10) Telzey Amberdon would have found a way to subtly modify
>the way they thought about things so that they ended up not
>interfering.
I thought she would just blackmail the Second Foundation and Gaia into
leaving her alone.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> spake:
>vafp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> - *Isaac* Azathoth ?
> "Their publicity is handled by the horrendous Isaac Azathoth, typist of
>a Thousand Tentacles, Sultan of Conceit." -- Samurai Cat, The Book of
>the Dunwich Cow.
Also seen in the RPG _Macho Women With Guns_. IIRC, he can attack
with his sideburns or with a creeping, ever-growing mass of books.
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
Disclaimer: I do not have an orbital mind control laser; you are free to post
your own opinion, but be prepared to back it up, because I *will* call you on
it if I think it's bullshit. That's how the Internet, and life, works.
Daniel Silevitch
wrote:
> In article <20000526121721...@ng-fa1.aol.com>, mws...@aol.com
> (mike stone) writes:
>
> >I recall a scene from the end of one of the later Foundations (sorry I forget
> >which one) inwhich you've got about three people sitting round a table to
> >decide what the destiny of everyone in the Galaxy should be. If there was any
> >suggestion of any kind of democratic consultation, I totally missed it
> >
> >I recall thinking of what might have happened if some *other* author's heroes
> >had walked in on that conference. Imho
> 4. Roderick Kinnison would have wanted to blast them into their component
> atoms, but Virgil Samms would instead convince them of the error of
> their ways.
_Kimball_ Kinnison would have joined the Second Foundation as an
acolyte, worked his way up to Second Speaker, and opened up their
defenses in time for the Patrol to come in and blow them to
smithereens.
-dms
Carlos Angelo
mws...@aol.com (mike stone) wrote:
> I recall a scene from the end of one of the later Foundations (sorry I
forget
> which one) inwhich you've got about three people sitting round a table
to
> decide what the destiny of everyone in the Galaxy should be. If there
was any
> suggestion of any kind of democratic consultation, I totally missed it
> I recall thinking of what might have happened if some *other* author's
heroes
> had walked in on that conference. Imho
and
> summarily tossed them out of the airlock
additionally come to our universe after Asimov himself, something other
author's heroes could not do.
--
Carlos Angelo carlos...@wegrokit.com
We grok it. http://www.wegrokit.com
Robert A. Heinlein, Dean of Science Fiction Writers
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Paul Andinach
> Paul Andinach <pand...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote > On Mon, 29 May 2000,
> Robert Shaw wrote:
> > You sure you're not thinking of the one set in a pocket reality
> > where everything's too alien for the humanoid mind to visualise,
> > so the inhabitants subconsciously rationalise it into planet-sized
> > snowmen, spontaneous song-and-dance numbers and worse?
>
> No, there was only one time lord in that.
> The title gives away half the plot, but it's the one with time
> lord soldiers in the shape of elder things that never existed;
-snip-
Oh, *that* one. :)
Robert Sneddon
<iadm...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> writes
>
>The Great Old Ones were definitely not just nasty looking squids though,
>even if that was the physical manifestation of Cthulhu. They were
>essentially gods, capable of messing about with time and space and
>dimensions beyond our comprehension. They could achieve interstellar travel
>under their own power, and fight cataclysmic battles in space, and were
>essentially immune to any attack humans could conceive of.
>
We're working on it. Something arcane involving FTL antimatter planets
powered by quasars, to get their attention, and then we escalate.
--
Robert Sneddon
Jordan S. Bassior
>No, no, that's the point. Obviously the Zones universe is a different
>Plane Of Existence from that of the Lensman universe -- Tellus is deep
>in the Slow Zone, and if the Lensmen existed in the Zones universe the
>poor ol' Perversion wouldn't have stood a chance in hell.
I was actually thinking about this from another angle ...
Obviously, from the Zones viewpoint, most of sf universes are in a "Slow Zone"
compared to the Lensman universe, at least where energy generation, force field
manipulation, and FTL travel are concerned. (The Lensman universe has *several*
different power systems more efficient than fusion, and at least *two* seperate
FTL techniques: the inertialess drive and the hypertube).
OTOH, the Lensman universe might very well be in a Slow Zone in terms of
cybernetics technology. In the original stories, "computers" are people who
operate analog calculators; even in the David A. Kyle revisions, cybernetic
brains are fairly big and bulky compared to what you might expect a millennium
or so from now.
It's mixed on biotech. They have the Phillips treatment, but we don't hear a
lot about any other forms of bio technology (save the torture technique used on
Kimball Kinnison in one memorably gruesome sequence).
Psionics are very powerful, and *reliable*.
Now, remember that Civilization actually *can* access other universes ...
including ones with differing physical laws. (There are several examples of
this in the latter books). At the point that *Children* closes, this hasn't
been much used for anything other than warfare (the secret Boskonian base, the
intrinsic-FTL planets, the diverted hypertube that nearly does for Kim), but
there's no logical reason why Civilization wouldn't begin exploring *other*
universes now.
It seems to me that there is (more than one) story in this. Too bad nobody's
currently licensed to do it by the estate.
(There are some obvious crossovers possible: Heinlein showed one of them in
*Number of the Beast*).
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
"Not in vain the distance beckons. Forward, forward let us range
"Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change"
(Tennyson)
Jordan S. Bassior
> There are other things in fantasy which,
>by definition, can corrupt everything without exception.
>If a third stage Lensman wear the One ring while carrying
>the Illearth stone and looks Cthulhu in the eyes he will not
>stay sane when Nyarlathotep taps him on the shoulder.
>To say otherwise is to neuter Cthulhu, Nyarlathotep and
>the rest.
I agree. Though I'll point out that Lensmen would be particularly resistant to
"Lovecraftian" horror: some of the races (both Civilized and Boskonian) in that
universe are fairly Lovecraftian themselves. And probably not by accident ...
some aspects of the Lensman universe look to me like a direct and deliberate
refutation of Lovecraft's thesis that the alien would be truly incomprehensible
and hence casually malevolent.
(Note where the Palanians are first encountered, and note their nature).
Jordan S. Bassior
>Smith seems to have believed that honesty was a measurable quantity.
>
>In The Skylark Of Space, Seaton, Crane etc undergo the mandatory Osnomian
>personality tests prior to their marriages, it is explained that "anyone
>whose graphs show moral turpitude is shot".
>
>He does not explain how moral turpitude is *measured*.
I was reading Skylark just yesterday, and the same thought struck me. Also, I
wondered why Seaton was so sure that he (and his friends) would pass a test
derived by an alien civilization.
Then I remembered that he had accidentally acquired the Prince's own knowledge,
so obviously he knew enough from that to realize that the test would work on
humans. And if anyone could pass that sort of test, Seaton (and his friends)
could pass it!
Reading the book also made me think more about DuQuense's character, especially
in light of Stirling's "William Walker". It's pretty plain from *Skylark* that
DuQuense, while "sane", is what we'd call a "sociopath". That's even obvious as
late as *Skylark DuQuense*, where we get to see him in more complicated social
situations.
Oh, and one other thing. Has anyone ever noticed the *Skylark of Space*
features an example of corporate villainy ("World Steel", an obvious direct
parody of "US Steel") to rival anything ever shown in cyberpunk?
Jordan S. Bassior
>How does one reconcile the Tines with the distinctly unitary notion of
>mind and self presented in the Lensman series? Individual members are
>subsapient; the communication that sustains the shared identity is
>demonstrably *not* telepathic but based on acoustic communication
>channels. What does a Tine Lensman's Lens look like? Which member wears
>it? What happens to it when that member dies?
Obviously, the "entity" in question would be the collective. I suspect that the
"Lens" of a Tine would be physically rather different than the Lens of a human
being. It might, for example, appear to be a whole bunch of little Lenses from
our point of view.
>Note that the excuse
>that the Arisians are obviously not producing Lensmen in the Zones
>galaxy, and that the Tines might, like the Nevians, be incapable of
>producing individuals of "Lensman grade", is completely irrelevant; it
>is made clear that a third-level intellect is capable of crafting a
>Lens for any mentality it chooses, regardless of capacity or ethics.
The Nevian limitation clearly wasn't due to any intense alienness in terms of
identity, though. The Nevians were individuals just as humans were. I got the
impression that they were *both* unimaginative *and* incapable of extending
their moral code to cover aliens (*) ... and I can see why this would be a
problem.
(*) It never occurs to them to attempt to *trade* for the iron they require,
until they are militarily defeated by the Tri-Planetary League.
>The Zoneless universe of the Lens never has nonbiological systems
>attaining sapience (definitively testable by use of telepathy), whereas
>this is the defining property of the higher Zones, presumed to be the
>"natural" state of the Zones cosmos.
This does happen in the Kyle trilogy, though. And there are a heck of a lot of
*truly* alien entities covered under the heading of "biological", including the
plasma stardwellers from *Masters of the Vortex*.
>The telepathic abilities so critical to the Arisian strategy in the Lens
>books, the ultimate desiderata of their longterm breeding plans, are
>nonexistent in the Zones universe; most species, and even Powers,
>probably consider them impossible in principle. Of course, they could be
>wrong, but why is something so central to the Arisian view of things so
>conspicuously absent?
Very different physical laws. Different enough that a lot of their technology
would be mutually incompatible. It would be interesting to see what happened if
the two universes crossed over.
hy...@tamu.edu
mws...@aol.com (mike stone) writes:
>>From: hy...@tamu.edu ()
>
>>
>> As to the mixing of the two series in Robots and
>> Empire and after, I agree. A terrible mistake.
>
>
> Quite.
I just finished Brin's Foundation novel. Without going
into spoiler territory, let's say he was fully aware
of the issues brought up in this thread. I can't say
I buy it entirely, but he came up with some fairly
satisfactory answers - including one I'm kicking myself
for not seeing long ago.
I'd still rather the two series stayed separate, but this
is a better retrofit than I'd expected.
William Hyde
Dept of Oceanography
Texas A&M University
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
Kent Coyle
On 31 May 2000 mstemper@siemens wrote:
> In article <20000526121721...@ng-fa1.aol.com>, mws...@aol.com (mike stone) writes:
>
> >I recall a scene from the end of one of the later Foundations (sorry I forget
> >which one) inwhich you've got about three people sitting round a table to
> >decide what the destiny of everyone in the Galaxy should be. If there was any
> >suggestion of any kind of democratic consultation, I totally missed it
> >
> >I recall thinking of what might have happened if some *other* author's heroes
> >had walked in on that conference. Imho
> >
> >1) Heinlein's Lazarus Long would ahve stripped the three of them naked and
> >summarily tossed them out of the airlock
> >
> >2) Anderson's Dominic Flandry would have been a bit more gentlemanly about it -
> >allowing them each to write a letter home before their execution, and would
> >probably not have stripped them - they'd have gone out the airlock with their
> >clothes on, but no spacesuits
> >
> >Any thoughts on what other sf heroes might have done?
>
> 3. Clark Savage, Jr. would have sent them to Upstate New York.
>
> 4. Roderick Kinnison would have wanted to blast them into their component
> atoms, but Virgil Samms would instead convince them of the error of
> their ways.
>
> 5. Nicholas van Rijn would have bought their clothes from them, bankrupting
> them in the process.
>
> --
> Michael F. Stemper
> #include <Standard_Disclaimer>
> Always use apostrophe's and "quotation marks" properly.
>
Jason DinAlt would have let Meta handle it..klc
Donald
- fictional heroes' reactions to a scene in the Foundation series -
> Jason DinAlt would have let Meta handle it.
I should know this... Jason DinAlt?
Dan Swartzendruber
100...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au>, pand...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au says...
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Kent Coyle wrote:
>
> - fictional heroes' reactions to a scene in the Foundation series -
>
> > Jason DinAlt would have let Meta handle it.
>
> I should know this... Jason DinAlt?
Harry Harrison's Deathworld trilogy.
Andrew Maizels
>
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Kent Coyle wrote:
>
> - fictional heroes' reactions to a scene in the Foundation series -
>
> > Jason DinAlt would have let Meta handle it.
>
> I should know this... Jason DinAlt?
Harry Harrison's _Deathworld_ books.
Andrew.
--
We handle four billion calls a year, for everyone from presidents and
kings to the scum of the earth. So your call doesn't go through once in
a while, or you get billed for a call or two you didn't make. We don't
care. We don't have to, we're the phone company. -- Lily Tomlin
Paul Andinach
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0006152000300.14001-
> 100...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au>, pand...@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au says...
> > I should know this... Jason DinAlt?
>
> Harry Harrison's Deathworld trilogy.
Ah. Of course.