Most overrated sci-fi book?
M. Tettnanger
No offense, but my vote is Dune. Quite interesting premise,
but I lost interest in the plot about halfway through. Maybe
I'll have to take another hack at it soon.
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person M. Tettnanger <marktet...@hotmail.com> said
Meaningless question - the only available rating of 'how good a book is'
is what the average opinion of 'group X' (usually all the readers) about
the book is. Thus each and every book is rated exactly right.
Now if you want to ask 'for which SF books is my personal rating the
most different from the average rating', that'd make sense ... just
don't pretend there is any objective quality measure in there anywhere.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
David T. Bilek
Tettnanger) wrote:
I thing the question is phrased poorly, but I'll go with _Hominids_.
-David
FussyKatie
chapter. Maybe I'll try again.
Katie
M. Tettnanger <marktet...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2015f42e.03090...@posting.google.com...
Robert J. Kolker
M. Tettnanger wrote:
-Dune- does have its heavy moments. But it is an interesting story. It
is the first sci fi novel I read based on an ecological premis.
Bob Kolker
The Spice Must Flow.
Dave Riggleman
> Meaningless question - the only available rating of 'how good a book is'
> is what the average opinion of 'group X' (usually all the readers) about
I think he was just asking for a personal opinion from each individual,
not doing a Gallup poll.
gsei...@removesentex.net
Tettnanger) wrote:
American Gods. OK, it's not sci-fi, but I've been itching to say it
and this is my chance.
Gary
Mad Scientist Labs
>I tried to read "Stranger in a Strange Land," and gave up after the first
chapter. Maybe I'll try again.>
I'd have to second that. Actually butted through the whole thing and don't
remember anything worth a damn about it. Considering I can generally remember
at least a synopsis of almost every book I've ever read.
Also, just to be able to say it publicly, 'Battlefield Earth.' No more need be
said.
Best,
Me
Petrazickis
I liked /Dune/ and the sequels. It's not perfect -- I don't much care
for the gender mechanics of the Kwisatz Haderach or for the dystopian
idea of no computers -- but it's entertaining and it draws you in.
My vote goes to Turtledove's /Worldwar: Whatever/. I don't know if it's
actually overrated, but it's a horrible book set in a horrible universe
with horrible characters and a horrible plot. Also, the plot seems to be
designed for sequel generation rather than closure.
A couple years ago I wrote the following about it:
"There is a flaw in the WW2 series. He's pandering to the jingoistic
my-species-is-better- than-any-other-species market that everyone who's
not me seems to belong to. If you have both aliens and humans in your
story, the humans should not be extremely lucky, extremely intelligent,
extremely well-hung, etc. because that's not believable."
Bah.
Leons Petrazickis
import java.lang.disclaimer;
Patrick D. Rockwell
"Mad Scientist Labs" <thepl...@aol.commandant> wrote in message
news:20030904233223...@mb-m23.aol.com...
I read "Stranger In A Strange Land" all the way through. There were things
about it that I liked. I like alien stories. The more alien the aliens, the
more I like it.
I thought that it was original for Robert A. Heinlein to give his Martians
three legs. But I couldn't like the title character or any of his friends.
Robert A. Heinlein's
characters tend to be a bit juvenile sometimes IMHO. But, it was written in
the 60's.
:-)
--
-------------------------------
Patrick D. Rockwell
potemkin9
series.
These are by no means the worst novels I've read; but the most
disappointing to me compared with their acclaim:
Clarke/ Rendezvous with Rama
Harrison, M. John/ The Centauri Device
Vinge/ A Fire Upon the Deep
Carroll/ After Silence
Stephenson/ Diamond Age
Kress/ Beggers in Spain
Miéville/ Perdido Street Station
Gaiman/ American Gods
--Potempkin9
Louann Miller
Tettnanger) wrote:
Were you disappointed when it turned from the "Duke Leto maneuvers for
control of Dune by conventional political means" segment into fire and
explosions and snotty-kid-in-the-desert? I thought I was the only one.
Louann
Christian Weisgerber
> Also, just to be able to say it publicly, 'Battlefield Earth.' No more
> need be said.
But _Battlefield Earth_ is widely considered to be trash or at most
mediocre, so it certainly isn't overrated.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Christian Weisgerber
> What is the most overrated book, in -your- opinion?
> No offense, but my vote is Dune.
I'm loath to talk in terms of superlatives, but here are some books
that I found remarkably disappointing considering the hype surrounding
them:
Isaac Asimov's _Foundation_ trilogy
This may have been a milestone of the genre once, but nowadays
it is just mediocre. It isn't actively bad, it is still readable,
but it sure isn't worth your time.
Gregory Benford, _Timescape_
Not only did this turd win a Nebula, there are also still people
around who proclaim this to be the greatest time-travel novel
of all time. I found it excrutiatingly boring, clichéd, badly
written, and lacking a resolution.
Alfred Bester, _The Demolished Man_
Didn't do anything for me. Any originality was lost on me.
Pierre Boulle, _La planète des singes_ (Planet of the Apes)
The setting is ridiculous, the protagonist an unbearable idiot.
Okay, this is probably a fable and should be judged as such
rather than as genre SF. I suppose the author was trying to
make some point, but I don't have the faintest idea what he
wanted to tell us.
Stephen Donaldson's _Gap_ series
Unreadable. Entirely insane, demented caricatures of characters
that keep torturing each other in absurdly convoluted ways.
I'm not sure what bizarre sexual preferences the author caters
too, but some aberration seems required to enjoy these depictions.
Philip José Farmer, _To Your Scattered Bodies Go_
Won a Hugo for its central idea, which is only original if you
have never heard of ancestor emulation. Cardboard characters,
no plot to speak of.
Amitav Gosh, _The Calcutta Chromosome_
It won the 1997 Arthur C. Clarke Award, so I guess that means
there must be somebody who liked it. A boring mainstream book
that doesn't make much sense and hasn't anything going for it.
Fritz Leiber, _The Big Time_
A shameles rip-off recycling Jack Williamson's _The Legion of
Time_ into a stage play, which is not my cup of tea.
Robert Sawyer, _The Terminal Experiment_
The author picks a fraction of the ideas Greg Egan used in
_Permutation City_, doesn't develop them to any comparable
degree... and wins a Nebula for that. Huh?
Bruce Sterling (ed.), _Mirror Shades_
Supposedly the definitive cyberpunk anthology. After reading it,
I'm not even sure any longer what cyberpunk is supposed to be.
Uneven, with some stories being actively bad or not making much
sense at all, and no outstanding material for compensation.
If nothing else, it confirmed my distaste for anthologies.
Bram Stoker, _Dracula_
How did this barely readable exercise in Victorian boredom ever
manage to impress anybody?
James Wright
"Patrick D. Rockwell" <hnh...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> I read "Stranger In A Strange Land" all the way through. There were things
> about it that I liked. I like alien stories. The more alien the aliens, the
> more I like it.
> I thought that it was original for Robert A. Heinlein to give his Martians
> three legs. But I couldn't like the title character or any of his friends.
> Robert A. Heinlein's
> characters tend to be a bit juvenile sometimes IMHO. But, it was written in
> the 60's.
Heh? Tripod Martians (machines, at least) were in War of the Worlds. I
agree though it was a good stab at ALIEN aliens, and how a human raised
with them is affected by their culture.
Some of his satire tended to be silly, and lost it's power because of
it, imho.
JIm
Doom & Gloom Dave
The Man in the High Castle
to a lesser extent everything else I've read by PKD
Luna
nnsc...@sneakemail.com (potemkin9) wrote:
> I remember enjoying Dune, but I lost interest after the third in the
> series.
>
> These are by no means the worst novels I've read; but the most
> disappointing to me compared with their acclaim:
>
> Clarke/ Rendezvous with Rama
I loved this one.
> Harrison, M. John/ The Centauri Device
> Vinge/ A Fire Upon the Deep
> Carroll/ After Silence
> Stephenson/ Diamond Age
> Kress/ Beggers in Spain
I loved this one too, but I didn't know it had any "acclaim" when I read it.
> Miéville/ Perdido Street Station
Didn't like this one at all.
> Gaiman/ American Gods
Thought this was "eh"
>
> --Potempkin9
--
-Michelle Levin (Luna)
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
http://www.mindspring.com/~designbyluna
Luna
Luna
> M. Tettnanger wrote:
> > What is the most overrated book, in -your- opinion?
> >
> > No offense, but my vote is Dune. Quite interesting premise,
> > but I lost interest in the plot about halfway through. Maybe
> > I'll have to take another hack at it soon.
>
>
I'll vote for Neuromancer. It was hard to understand, and not interesting
enough to make me want to understand.
lal_truckee
> Bram Stoker, _Dracula_
> How did this barely readable exercise in Victorian boredom ever
> manage to impress anybody?
I liked it: it had Cowboys in Transylvania. What more could you ask?
lal_truckee
> What is the most overrated book, in -your- opinion?
Dune: better the reader should read _Seven Pillors of Wisdom_ and a good
history of Chinese Gordan and the Mahdi and skip this poor pastiche.
Paul
Tettnanger) wrote:
I agree completely with Dune. Very underwhelming. I'd also nominate
Ringworld. Also, I'm not sure why people feel the need to argue about
the semantics of stuff like this. Quality is subjective? Wow, I'm
really glad that I came to the newsgroup to get insight and discussion
like that.
Paul
Paul Vader
>These are by no means the worst novels I've read; but the most
>disappointing to me compared with their acclaim:
>
>Clarke/ Rendezvous with Rama
Gosh, I can't see this for a second. Admittedly it is a form of SF rarely
seen these days, but it's still a wonderful piece of work.
>Vinge/ A Fire Upon the Deep
A modern masterpiece. Try reading it again.
>Stephenson/ Diamond Age
I don't really think this book was 'acclaimed' very much. It's almost
universally considered a failure. If it wasn't for the fact that the plot
wanders off and dies, I would say it was a pretty good book. But I can't
recommend it because of the early Stephenson ending.
>Gaiman/ American Gods
Certainly I think this was vastly overrated, but it was still a darn good
read. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
@hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
Weisgerber) wrote:
>Mad Scientist Labs <thepl...@aol.commandant> wrote:
>
>> Also, just to be able to say it publicly, 'Battlefield Earth.' No more
>> need be said.
>
>But _Battlefield Earth_ is widely considered to be trash or at most
>mediocre, so it certainly isn't overrated.
Calling it trash is insulting to decent trash, so yes, it probably is
overrated.
Chuk Goodin
Paul <phd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>No offense, but my vote is Dune. Quite interesting premise,
>>but I lost interest in the plot about halfway through. Maybe
>>I'll have to take another hack at it soon.
>
>I agree completely with Dune. Very underwhelming.
Yeah, I barely made it through Dune myself -- I found Doon to be a much
superior book.
--
chuk
David Cowie
>
> I thing the question is phrased poorly, but I'll go with _Hominids_.
>
Are you saying that _Hominids_ is nowhere near as good as everyone else
says? wouldn't that imply that a lot of people think _Hominids_ is really
good?
--
David Cowie david_cowie at lineone dot net
Jeff Walther
was ground breaking at the time, but now lacks umph, because all of it's
original ideas have been spread and absorbed and diluted since it was
published. I read and just couldn't see why anyone cared, unless they
were obsessed with catholic school or something.
"Stand on Zanzibar" Again, I'm willing to read that this is actually a
great book once you get past page n. I have failed to penetrate past
page 50 because I find it completely impenetrable and can't see why anyone
would punish himself trying to read it.
I tend to disagree with the "Dune" naysayers. If you include the sequels
as part of "Dune", then I would agree. Frank Herbert's treatment of the
Dune sequels was what finally prompted me to develop the personal rule of
not reading series until they're either clearly finished, or the author is
dead (apparently their heirs need to be killed too). But "Dune" by
itself was incredibly ground breaking. There were few if any books with
the depth of background, ecology and world building which Dune had at the
time. Now, many authors provide such depth to their settings, but at the
time, it truly was revolutionary.
--
A friend will help you move. A real friend will help you move a body.
Velvet Elvis
> What is the most overrated book, in -your- opinion?
>
> No offense, but my vote is Dune. Quite interesting premise, but I lost
> interest in the plot about halfway through. Maybe I'll have to take
> another hack at it soon.
Stranger in a Strange Land. Most Heinlein, for that matter.
lal_truckee
> "A Canticle for Liebowitz" Although, I'm willing to read that this story
> was ground breaking at the time, but now lacks umph, because all of it's
> original ideas have been spread and absorbed and diluted since it was
> published.
CLIP
>
> I tend to disagree with the "Dune" naysayers. CLIP
> But "Dune" by
> itself was incredibly ground breaking. There were few if any books with
> the depth of background, ecology and world building which Dune had at the
> time. Now, many authors provide such depth to their settings, but at the
> time, it truly was revolutionary.
Sounds like you just praised Dune and panned Canticle for the *very same
thing*.
The incredible artificiality and shallowness of Dune's background,
ecology and world building makes Dune overrated IMO. YMMV.
That and Herbert's having so blatantly ripped off the plot from recent
history. One thing that does bothers me is that modern dunefans don't
seem to even know it's drawn from HISTORY, not imagination!
Herbert also seems to take his pastiche so seriously. Dune is in fact, a
very funny book - it's just that Herbert didn't seem to know it. Maybe
it can be redeemed as a comedy by future generations?
Anthony Nance
Jeff Walther <tr...@io.com> wrote:
>"A Canticle for Liebowitz" Although, I'm willing to read that this story
>was ground breaking at the time, but now lacks umph, because all of it's
>original ideas have been spread and absorbed and diluted since it was
>published. I read and just couldn't see why anyone cared, unless they
>were obsessed with catholic school or something.
>
>
>I tend to disagree with the "Dune" naysayers. If you include the sequels
>as part of "Dune", then I would agree. Frank Herbert's treatment of the
>Dune sequels was what finally prompted me to develop the personal rule of
>not reading series until they're either clearly finished, or the author is
>dead (apparently their heirs need to be killed too). But "Dune" by
>itself was incredibly ground breaking. There were few if any books with
>the depth of background, ecology and world building which Dune had at the
>time. Now, many authors provide such depth to their settings, but at the
>time, it truly was revolutionary.
Hmmm. I've read your note three times, and I can't shake the idea that
you are using the exact same reasons against "Canticle" to prop up your
disagreement with the "Dune" naysayers. (e.g. ground breaking; ideas have
been absorbed)
Did I miss something?
Tony
Randy Money
:)
I think the first section in Transylvania could be a clinic for young
writers in how to build and maintain suspense. After that, the parry &
thrust of Victorian society starts taking up more room and the story
loses momentum. Better some of that had been dumped than the excellent
"Dracula's Guest" chapter.
Randy M.
Christian Weisgerber
> I'd also nominate Ringworld.
_Ringworld_ is very nice IF you read it as the culminating work of
Niven's Known Space books and stories. It doesn't stand very well
on its own, though. IMHO.
Nicholas Whyte
<luna...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <bja8r3$bo5$1...@news1.usf.edu>,
> "Doom & Gloom Dave" <dwh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> M. Tettnanger wrote:
>> > What is the most overrated book, in -your- opinion?
>> >
>> > No offense, but my vote is Dune. Quite interesting premise,
>> > but I lost interest in the plot about halfway through. Maybe
>> > I'll have to take another hack at it soon.
>>
>>
>
>I'll vote for Neuromancer. It was hard to understand, and not interesting
>enough to make me want to understand.
I second that. I know I've read it several times but I can't remember
a thing about the plot. Same with most of Gibson (though I remember
one with a bridge and a cybernetic girlfriend).
Nicholas
Nicholas Whyte
>"Stand on Zanzibar" Again, I'm willing to read that this is actually a
>great book once you get past page n. I have failed to penetrate past
>page 50 because I find it completely impenetrable and can't see why anyone
>would punish himself trying to read it.
I skipped about in it after page 50 (partly becuase I was trying to
track down the bit set in Ireland for my Irish sf page at
http://explorers.whyte.com/sf/irsf.htm ) but it doesn't get any
better.
Nicholas
Jeff Walther
na...@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) wrote:
> Hmmm. I've read your note three times, and I can't shake the idea that
> you are using the exact same reasons against "Canticle" to prop up your
> disagreement with the "Dune" naysayers. (e.g. ground breaking; ideas have
> been absorbed)
>
> Did I miss something?
Perhaps I was not clear.
As far as I know, Canticle was not ground breaking. It just read as
boring to me. Now, if some one wishes to inform me that at the time it
was published, Canticle was indeed ground breaking, and for what reason, I
would consider changing my opinion.
Mike Schilling
"Nicholas Whyte" <nichol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f58f56...@news.cis.dfn.de...
I don't recall any of SoZ being set in Ireland.
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person Paul <phd...@hotmail.com> said
'overrated' is just someone's opinion, is the point. There are no
'generally overrated' books. If you'd ask 'which ones do *I*/*YOU*
diverge most from general opinion' or 'which ones have the widest spread
of opinions', then that'd mean something.
'Most overrated' does not compute .. 'rating' being subjective, 'over
rated' means 'subjectively incorrect' .. hmm, as compared to what?
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
GSV Three Minds in a Can
from the wonderful person Luna <luna...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> said
>In article <bja8r3$bo5$1...@news1.usf.edu>,
> "Doom & Gloom Dave" <dwh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> M. Tettnanger wrote:
>> > What is the most overrated book, in -your- opinion?
>> >
>> > No offense, but my vote is Dune. Quite interesting premise,
>> > but I lost interest in the plot about halfway through. Maybe
>> > I'll have to take another hack at it soon.
>>
>> The Man in the High Castle
>>
>> to a lesser extent everything else I've read by PKD
>
>Oh, that's so sad. He's one of my favorites.
I like a lot of his books, but not that one. 8<,
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Nicholas Whyte" <nichol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3f58f56...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:29:44 -0500, tr...@io.com (Jeff Walther) wrote:
>>
>> >"Stand on Zanzibar" Again, I'm willing to read that this is actually a
>> >great book once you get past page n. I have failed to penetrate past
>> >page 50 because I find it completely impenetrable and can't see why
>anyone
>> >would punish himself trying to read it.
I enjoyed the fragments; I admit they don't begin to cohere into a
story until somewhere after page n where n is a number somewhere in
the high two digits.
>> I skipped about in it after page 50 (partly becuase I was trying to
>> track down the bit set in Ireland for my Irish sf page at
>> http://explorers.whyte.com/sf/irsf.htm ) but it doesn't get any
>> better.
It does if you don't skip around. Yes, it's hard to follow at first,
but it _does_ all fall together eventually if you haven't skipped the
key parts.
>I don't recall any of SoZ being set in Ireland.
I don't either. The ending of _The Sheep Look Up_ is, though.
Guy Middleton
M. Tettnanger <marktet...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What is the most overrated book, in -your- opinion?
>
> No offense, but my vote is Dune. Quite interesting premise,
> but I lost interest in the plot about halfway through. Maybe
> I'll have to take another hack at it soon.
I agree. I have tried to read it at least three times, and never finished.
Everybody I know thinks I'm crazy -- they all says this is a great book.
Karl Johanson
I liked all of Frank Herbert's Dune books. At that though, I got part way
into Dune the first time I read it & put it down for a few years. Most of it
was trouble pronouncing (in my head) such things as Quisatch Haderach or
Bene Tlliluxu* (and all these years later likely can't spell them
correctly). My only suggestions would have been dropping one of Paul
Atradies' numerous names & titles (as the made for TV movie did when it
dropped his second 'secret' Fremen name "Usal".) I'd also have been less
subtle about the specifics of why God Emperor Leto bottled up humans &
imposed 3,000 years of peace. It was the 4th time I read it that I got it.
Cool bit though.
*Niven managed the difficult to pronounce thing on occasion. Sometimes I
just say in my head, 'the "K" character" for "Kwasajaronjajok". Then
Ringworld Engineers had "Harkabeepoparolyn" and "Harilloprillilar" in the
same story. Ooooooooo.
Harvard Lampoon's Doon, cracked me up. Especially when Paul's sister started
spouting Bene Gesserit recipes, which needed the cook to use an "IX Master".
But, of course, you'd need to be the Cumquat Haagen-Dazs to use it
correctly.
Karl (my spell checker didn't like this post) Johanson
Paul
Weisgerber) wrote:
>Paul <phd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd also nominate Ringworld.
>
>_Ringworld_ is very nice IF you read it as the culminating work of
>Niven's Known Space books and stories. It doesn't stand very well
>on its own, though. IMHO.
Fair enough. I don't think it's advertised as the end of the known
space novels though, but rather as the beginning of the Ringworld
series.
Paul
Anthony Cerrato
"James Wright" <a...@printDIESPAMDIEconcepts.com> wrote in
message
news:art-9E6A18.1...@tribune.sj.sys.us.xo.net...
> In article
<7sW5b.4864$nX5....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Patrick D. Rockwell" <hnh...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > I read "Stranger In A Strange Land" all the way through.
There were things
> > about it that I liked. I like alien stories. The more
alien the aliens, the
> > more I like it.
> > I thought that it was original for Robert A. Heinlein to
give his Martians
> > three legs. But I couldn't like the title character or
any of his friends.
> > Robert A. Heinlein's
> > characters tend to be a bit juvenile sometimes IMHO.
But, it was written in
> > the 60's.
>
> Heh? Tripod Martians (machines, at least) were in War of
the Worlds. I
> agree though it was a good stab at ALIEN aliens, and how a
human raised
> with them is affected by their culture.
>
> Some of his satire tended to be silly, and lost it's power
because of
> it, imho.
>
> JIm
Yes, it was pure nonsense! I thought it a disgrace to the
genre of SF and was very mad at the mainstream sell-out
smell about it. I guess I was mostly just very disappointed
since this was the classic SF author I grew up with--I felt
betrayed. ...tonyC
Jerry Brown
<karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>*Niven managed the difficult to pronounce thing on occasion. Sometimes I
>just say in my head, 'the "K" character" for "Kwasajaronjajok". Then
>Ringworld Engineers had "Harkabeepoparolyn" and "Harilloprillilar" in the
>same story. Ooooooooo.
A friend of mine regularly refers to the protagonist of the first part
of Niven's Protector as Pisspot, although later on (and rarely for
Niven) we are actually given an approximation of how the name should
be pronounced).
I also recall somewhere in the Leiber Swords books, Fafhrd and the
Gray Mouser temporarily going their separate ways over an argument
about the GM's pronunciation of Fahrd's name (GM uses 'Faferd', the
correct version being 'Fafhrud').
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
how...@brazee.net
On 5-Sep-2003, "David Cowie" <see...@lineone.net> wrote:
> Are you saying that _Hominids_ is nowhere near as good as everyone else
> says? wouldn't that imply that a lot of people think _Hominids_ is really
> good?
To be overrated, all you need is one person to think a bad book is good.
To contend for the "most overrated" title, you need evidence that sufficient
people think a bad book is good. The Hugo is support for "sufficient
people think it is good".
how...@brazee.net
On 4-Sep-2003, thepl...@aol.commandant (Mad Scientist Labs) wrote:
> >I tried to read "Stranger in a Strange Land," and gave up after the first
> chapter. Maybe I'll try again.>
>
> I'd have to second that. Actually butted through the whole thing and
> don't
> remember anything worth a damn about it. Considering I can generally
> remember
> at least a synopsis of almost every book I've ever read.
>
> Also, just to be able to say it publicly, 'Battlefield Earth.' No more
> need be
> said.
Except for Scientologists - not many people rate _Battlefield Earth_ highly.
Lots and lots of people have rated _Stranger In A Strange Love_ very
highly. But it was a book of its time, and fewer people these days rate it
so highly.
James Nicoll
What about Shakespeare, assuming Tolstoy was correct (Note: I
do not)? Tens of thousands of productions and probably hundreds of films
based on the work of one Elizabethan hack. Nothing in SF will come close.
--
It's amazing how the waterdrops form: a ball of water with an air bubble
inside it and inside of that one more bubble of water. It looks so beautiful
[...]. I realized something: the world is interesting for the man who can
be surprised. -Valentin Lebedev-
John F. Carr
Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> wrote:
>
>I also recall somewhere in the Leiber Swords books, Fafhrd and the
>Gray Mouser temporarily going their separate ways over an argument
>about the GM's pronunciation of Fahrd's name (GM uses 'Faferd', the
>correct version being 'Fafhrud').
The meeting scene in _Ill Met in Lankhmar_ goes like this:
"Name's Fafhrd."
"Excuse me, but how exactly do you pronounce that?"
On the page it's a helpful way for the author to state the
pronunciation of a character's name in the next paragraph,
"Faf-erd" as opposed to "Faf-hrud". If you try to think of
it as real dialogue it sounds stupid. "Hi, I'm John." "Uh,
how do you pronounce that?" "Just like I said it."
I prefer Brust's approach: put a pronunciation key in the front.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Luna
I like it when they just make you guess. Or you could wait until the movie
comes out.
--
-Michelle Levin (Luna)
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
http://www.mindspring.com/~designbyluna
Mike Schilling
failed most badly to meet your expectations.
For me, it was _Neuromancer_. A Hugo-winner (when that meant something),
the inspiration for a new sub-genre, the work that made Gibson one of the
bright new lights of SF. But the book is incoherent, a mish-mash, all
attitude and atmosphere. And the prime conceit, Chandleresque computer
programming (cyperpunks high on designer drugs replacing PIs drunk on rye)
is just silly. It's my least favorite of the Hugo novles I've read (almost
all of them through _Barrayar_), including _They'd Rather Be Right_, which
is no worse than standard 50s Analog.
Luna
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I was very disappointed with Perdido Street Station, after all the praise
I'd read here. It had a lot of elements I liked, but I thought it was put
together wrong.
I was slightly disappointed with American Gods, because I loved Sandman so
much. I still liked AG, but it could have been better.
Mike Schilling
"John F. Carr" <j...@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:3f59ff19$0$579$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> I prefer Brust's approach: put a pronunciation key in the front.
Did anyone else notice, by the way, that the pronunciation key in _The Book
of Athyra_ is the same one as in _The Book of Jhereg_? It includes
characters who only appear in TBoJ but none of the new ones from TBoA.
Mike Schilling
"John F. Carr" <j...@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:3f59ff19$0$579$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> wrote:
> >
> >I also recall somewhere in the Leiber Swords books, Fafhrd and the
> >Gray Mouser temporarily going their separate ways over an argument
> >about the GM's pronunciation of Fahrd's name (GM uses 'Faferd', the
> >correct version being 'Fafhrud').
>
> The meeting scene in _Ill Met in Lankhmar_ goes like this:
>
> "Name's Fafhrd."
>
> "Excuse me, but how exactly do you pronounce that?"
>
> On the page it's a helpful way for the author to state the
> pronunciation of a character's name in the next paragraph,
> "Faf-erd" as opposed to "Faf-hrud". If you try to think of
> it as real dialogue it sounds stupid. "Hi, I'm John." "Uh,
> how do you pronounce that?" "Just like I said it."
Yes, it's Leiber making a *joke*.
Jeff Stehman
mscotts...@hotmail.com says...
>
> For me, it was _Neuromancer_.
This gets my vote, too. There are some aspects of the book I enjoyed,
but over, no.
--Jeff Stehman
Karl Johanson
news:h9djlvk0lf2u9qjop...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 03:26:03 GMT, "Karl Johanson"
> <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >*Niven managed the difficult to pronounce thing on occasion. Sometimes I
> >just say in my head, 'the "K" character" for "Kwasajaronjajok". Then
> >Ringworld Engineers had "Harkabeepoparolyn" and "Harilloprillilar" in the
> >same story. Ooooooooo.
>
> A friend of mine regularly refers to the protagonist of the first part
> of Niven's Protector as Pisspot, although later on (and rarely for
> Niven) we are actually given an approximation of how the name should
> be pronounced).
A creative solution without needing to cluck one's tounge. I'll give Niven
full points for giving the one Puppeteer the name "Nessus", rather than
spelling his name which 'sounded like a car crash set to music'.
> I also recall somewhere in the Leiber Swords books, Fafhrd and the
> Gray Mouser temporarily going their separate ways over an argument
> about the GM's pronunciation of Fahrd's name (GM uses 'Faferd', the
> correct version being 'Fafhrud').
I remember hearing an article on Halley's comet. Most people pronounce the
first part of the name as "Hail". Apparently at the time though, the more
common pronunciation for the first part was "Hal". Further though,
apparently Halley's family pronounced the first part of the name "Hall".
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
> > I prefer Brust's approach: put a pronunciation key in the front.
>
> I like it when they just make you guess. Or you could wait until the
movie
> comes out.
I did that with Dune. Started reading it. Put it down due to all the
unpronouncables (to me). Watched the movie. Then read the book & enjoyed it.
Although I don't think they ever said "Tliluxu" in the movie.
They didn't have Nessus' name pronounced properly in the cartoon version of
Niven's "The Soft Weapon" / "The Slaver Weapon". Of course, Nessus was
played by Spock, so it made sense.
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
> The meeting scene in _Ill Met in Lankhmar_ goes like this:
>
> "Name's Fafhrd."
>
> "Excuse me, but how exactly do you pronounce that?"
I'm reminded of the movie Top Secret.
French Resistance Member: "It would seem you have become, how do you say,
Indispensible".
Nick Rivers: "Indispensible."
French Resistance Member: "I thought so."
Karl Johanson
Dan Clore
>
> What is the most overrated book, in -your- opinion?
>
> No offense, but my vote is Dune. Quite interesting premise,
> but I lost interest in the plot about halfway through. Maybe
> I'll have to take another hack at it soon.
Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_, hands down. Completely
worthless on all levels as a work of fiction, filled with
moronic speeches putting forth a dogma that can't be taken
seriously by anyone with any knowledge of philosophy or
science (including one speech infamously over sixty pages
long), and praised to the heavens as an absolute masterpiece
by a cult of robotized Randroid pseudo-individualists.
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608
MPorcius
>failed most badly to meet your expectations.
This is sadly easy for me. I spent the last few weeks telling everyone who
would listen how brilliant _The Book of the New Sun_ is, and then I started
_Urth of the New Sun_, and am finding it heart-breakingly disappointing. Maybe
I should have waited longer before starting it, but I couldn't resist after the
high I was on after finishing _Citadel of the Autarch_.
People here have hinted that _Book of the New Sun_ is certainly the peak of
Wolfe's career, so I wouldn't neccesarily consider _Urth_ overrated, but it is
very disappointing. Now I am wondering if I should have bought _The Book of
the Long Sun_, and how long I should wait before I start it.
Jeff Walther
Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> I'd also have been less
> subtle about the specifics of why God Emperor Leto bottled up humans &
> imposed 3,000 years of peace. It was the 4th time I read it that I got it.
> Cool bit though.
It's been years (over a decade?) since I read them. Why did the GE bottle
up humans for 3000 years. And was this contained in the first four
books, or was the reason in one of hte later books? I only read the first
four.
Robert J. Kolker
Dan Clore wrote:
> Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_, hands down. Completely
> worthless on all levels as a work of fiction, filled with
> moronic speeches putting forth a dogma that can't be taken
> seriously by anyone with any knowledge of philosophy or
> science (including one speech infamously over sixty pages
> long), and praised to the heavens as an absolute masterpiece
> by a cult of robotized Randroid pseudo-individualists.
A S. is NOT science fiction. It is philosophical and political polemic.
Bob Kolker
>
Htn963
>Katie said thusly:
>
>>I tried to read "Stranger in a Strange Land," and gave up after the first
>chapter. Maybe I'll try again.>
>
>I'd have to second that. Actually butted through the whole thing and don't
>remember anything worth a damn about it. Considering I can generally
>remember
>at least a synopsis of almost every book I've ever read.
That's near the top (or should I say bottom) of my list. I've rarely read
anything so nauseatingly precious, self-indulgent and *un*sexy. Heinlein
writes about free love about as well as well as Brittany Spears sings.
I was about to add _Red Mars_ but that seems universally destined for
infamy so there's no need.
Hmm...and _A Canticle for Leibowitz_. Not a bad book, but somewhat
tedious, preachy, and lacking in emotional resonance and character sympathies
-- not deserving to me of the universal adoration heaped upon it. Its <spoiler>
Man-never-learns-and-history-repeats-itself theme could have been dramatized
more succinctly and movingly.
--
Ht
|Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
--John Donne, "Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions"|
Htn963
>For me, it was _Neuromancer_. A Hugo-winner (when that meant something),
>the inspiration for a new sub-genre, the work that made Gibson one of the
>bright new lights of SF. But the book is incoherent, a mish-mash, all
>attitude and atmosphere. And the prime conceit, Chandleresque computer
>programming (cyperpunks high on designer drugs replacing PIs drunk on rye)
>is just silly.
Ah, yes, I forgot about this one. We finally agree on something.
> It's my least favorite of the Hugo novles I've read (almost
>all of them through _Barrayar_),
Do you also mean _Barrayar_ was a poor Hugo winner? I thought that was
one of Bujold's better books.
David T. Bilek
>"Mike Schilling" wrote:
>
>> It's my least favorite of the Hugo novles I've read (almost
>>all of them through _Barrayar_),
>
> Do you also mean _Barrayar_ was a poor Hugo winner? I thought that was
>one of Bujold's better books.
He means that he's read the Hugo "Best Novel" winner through the year
that Barrayar won. 199x?
-David
Mike Schilling
"Htn963" <htn...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030906191419...@mb-m17.news.cs.com...
> "Mike Schilling" wrote:
>
> >For me, it was _Neuromancer_. A Hugo-winner (when that meant something),
> >the inspiration for a new sub-genre, the work that made Gibson one of the
> >bright new lights of SF. But the book is incoherent, a mish-mash, all
> >attitude and atmosphere. And the prime conceit, Chandleresque computer
> >programming (cyperpunks high on designer drugs replacing PIs drunk on
rye)
> >is just silly.
>
> Ah, yes, I forgot about this one. We finally agree on something.
>
> >all of them through _Barrayar_),
>
> Do you also mean _Barrayar_ was a poor Hugo winner? I thought that
was
> one of Bujold's better books.
coverage is much spottier. I think _Barrayar_ is a fine winner, so we agree
on at least two things.
Mike Schilling
"David T. Bilek" <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5ctklvcjiog8mbs70...@4ax.com...
There's a list at http://www.mcpl.lib.mo.us/readers/awards/adult/hugo.htm
(The 1946 entry there is a retro-Hugo, I presume.) _Barrayar_ was 1992.
Actually, I also read (and liked) the 1993 winner, _Doomsday Book_, so I
should have named that one instead.
Karl Johanson
news:trag-06090...@aus-as2-084.io.com...
> In article <ftc6b.904491$ro6.18...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>, "Karl
> Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > I'd also have been less
> > subtle about the specifics of why God Emperor Leto bottled up humans &
> > imposed 3,000 years of peace. It was the 4th time I read it that I got
it.
> > Cool bit though.
>
> It's been years (over a decade?) since I read them. Why did the GE bottle
> up humans for 3000 years. And was this contained in the first four
> books, or was the reason in one of hte later books? I only read the first
> four.
Eventually someone would invent a self replicating killing device which
would wipe out humanity. Humanity could survive if they were bottled up so
strongly they would scatter so far in all directions (to avoid falling under
the reign of another Leto), so that the replicators couldn't catch them all.
He was also breeding for the ability to not have one's future predicted, so
the replicators couldn't track them all down. In all possible timelines Leto
could see, humanity died out, except the one with the scattering & the genes
to avoid having one's future determined.
Karl Johanson
Christopher Adams
> What is the most overrated book, in -your- opinion?
"Stranger In A Strange Land". It's not terrible, but it's no classic as far as I
am concerned. Most of Robert Heinlein's juveniles are better written, better
plotted, and more interesting, let alone far more entertaining.
It's a novel my father has always praised highly, but I suspect that this is
because he was reading SF when it originally came out, and was blown away by its
(supposed) originality and daring. He was ten when it was published, though I
suspect he first got hold of it in while living in Canada in his mid-teens,
since I doubt he would have been able to get hold of it as a ten-year-old in an
Australian country town. It's probably one of the only novels we've ever
strongly disagreed about; it also occurs to me that he might have been more
impressed by it because by the time I read it (when I was twelve or so) I was
already familiar with the concept of "questioning Western civilisation", to
paraphrase the jacket copy, especially questioning mainstream religious ideas.
--
Christopher Adams - SUTEKH Functions Officer 2003
When I awakened, I was not as I had been.
"A portfolio of erotic 'Buffy' fan-fiction does not a writer make."
- Neil, www.goats.com
Christopher Adams
> The Man in the High Castle
>
> to a lesser extent everything else I've read by PKD
I thought "The Man In The High Castle" was excellent. I suspect I would have
hated it had I not already known it was not a "real" alternate-history story.
Mad Hamish
Weisgerber) wrote:
>
>Bram Stoker, _Dracula_
> How did this barely readable exercise in Victorian boredom ever
> manage to impress anybody?
I thought it was somewhat dated but still readable and enjoyable,
which puts it well ahead of Frankenstein...
But I'd be surprised if the number of people who've read either of
them was anything near the number of people who judge them off the
multiple movie versions
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
h_l...@aardvark.net.au
Mad Hamish
<luna...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <bja8r3$bo5$1...@news1.usf.edu>,
> "Doom & Gloom Dave" <dwh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> M. Tettnanger wrote:
>> > What is the most overrated book, in -your- opinion?
>> >
>> > No offense, but my vote is Dune. Quite interesting premise,
>> > but I lost interest in the plot about halfway through. Maybe
>> > I'll have to take another hack at it soon.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Man in the High Castle
>>
>> to a lesser extent everything else I've read by PKD
>
>Oh, that's so sad. He's one of my favorites.
To test a theory can you tell us what drugs you take when you read
them?
Do you match what Dick was on at the time he wrote them?
John Hill
>>>What is the most overrated book, in -your- opinion?
> 'overrated' is just someone's opinion, is the point. There are no
> 'generally overrated' books.
Very funny.
_The Wasp Factory_.
Okay, it's not SF, but I heard about it here. Some readers
were pleased, frightened, ecstatic, disgusted. I was bemused.
--
John Hill
Brian Henderson
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>For me, it was _Neuromancer_. A Hugo-winner (when that meant something),
>the inspiration for a new sub-genre, the work that made Gibson one of the
>bright new lights of SF. But the book is incoherent, a mish-mash, all
>attitude and atmosphere. And the prime conceit, Chandleresque computer
>programming (cyperpunks high on designer drugs replacing PIs drunk on rye)
>is just silly. It's my least favorite of the Hugo novles I've read (almost
>all of them through _Barrayar_), including _They'd Rather Be Right_, which
>is no worse than standard 50s Analog.
Can we just call cyberpunk a disappointing genre? Come on, the whole
concept is ridiculous. I can buy megacorporations, but the whole
"let's chop off my arm so I can replace it!" is utter nonsense.
Glad to see it die, I'm not sorry to see it go.
Eric Walker
>On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:12:57 +0000 (UTC), na...@mips.inka.de
>(Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>
>>Bram Stoker, _Dracula_
>> How did this barely readable exercise in Victorian
>> boredom ever manage to impress anybody?
>
>I thought it was somewhat dated but still readable and
>enjoyable, which puts it well ahead of Frankenstein...
>
>But I'd be surprised if the number of people who've read
>either of them was anything near the number of people who
>judge them off the multiple movie versions
It is exceedingly unfair to judge those, or any, works outside
the context in which they appeared. I don't, by that, mean
that they are works for the ages--works for the ages, by
definition, surpass contemporary circumstances--but I do mean
that their impact on their times is not fairly to be judged by
how we today, in hindsight, see them. Victorians applied
Victorian standards.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, webmaster
Great Science-Fiction & Fantasy Works
http://greatsfandf.com
Peter D. Tillman
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hmm, I could take "the book is incoherent, a mish-mash, all attitude and
atmosphere" and apply it pretty cogently to DUNE, which has already
taken its knocks in the parent thread.
OTOH, I'm quite fond of NEUROMANCER, and think it holds up well to
rereading. Obviously, YMMV.
Now let's see: the most disappointing SF book *ever*. So many
candidates: Cryptonomicon, the dire late Heinleins, Doomsday Book, the
bad Niven collabs, dah dah dah...
But I'll pick the most recent Bruce Sterling, whose title I have
successfully blotted out, the 'Leggy Starlitz and his Dad' one, with the
Bad Girl Band. I've never much cared for the Starlitz stories, but I
never expected a Sterling book to be *boring*. Tedious enough that I
quit, about where the ridiculous Hobo Dad stuff got thick, and never
returned. And I used to think Bruce Sterling was God....
Disappointedly, PT
--
"You can't grep dead goats." --Jens Kilian, rasfw
Ilweran
>first part of the name as "Hail". Apparently at the time though, the more
>common pronunciation for the first part was "Hal".
we named a cat after Halley's comet. even back then the conversation usually
went:
me: This is our new cat Halley.
friend: Halley?
me: yes, named after the comet.
friend, oh you mean Hailey
me: no, his name is Halley.
so even if you do say a name, doesnt mean other people will pronounce it
properly.
Christopher Adams
> Luna wrote:
>> "Doom & Gloom Dave" wrote:
>>>
>>> to a lesser extent everything else I've read by PKD
>>
>> Oh, that's so sad. He's one of my favorites.
>
> To test a theory can you tell us what drugs you take when you read
> them?
I don't take any mind-altering substances at all, unless you count caffeine, and
I like P.K. Dick.
erilar
_Dahlgren_, because before that I had enjoyed Delaney's work. It's the
only supposedly sf book I tried repeatedly to continue reading and never
finished. There have been other awful books(some written by L. Ron
Hubbard) I have, form time to time, actually finished, looking in vain
for improvement as I waded through them, but none I remember having high
hopes for that came anywhere near being half as disappointing.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
perspicuitas enim argumentatione elevator--Cicero
(The clearest subjects are often obscured by lengthened reasoning)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
erilar
<h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:12:57 +0000 (UTC), na...@mips.inka.de (Christian
> Weisgerber) wrote:
>
> >
> >Bram Stoker, _Dracula_
> > How did this barely readable exercise in Victorian boredom ever
> > manage to impress anybody?
>
> I thought it was somewhat dated but still readable and enjoyable,
> which puts it well ahead of Frankenstein...
>
>
> But I'd be surprised if the number of people who've read either of
> them was anything near the number of people who judge them off the
> multiple movie versions
A very small percentage, I fear. As for enjoying both of them, a major
factor may be whether you enjoy other early novelists' work.
erilar
Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I also read (and liked) the 1993 winner, _Doomsday Book_, so I
> should have named that one instead.
I liked it myself. Particularly after reading _Timeline_. Knowing too
much medieval history can make time-travel books irritating at times.
erilar
"Christopher Adams" <mhacde...@spammity-spammity-spam.yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> "Stranger In A Strange Land". It's not terrible, but it's no classic as
> far as I
> am concerned. Most of Robert Heinlein's juveniles are better written,
> better
> plotted, and more interesting, let alone far more entertaining.
>
> It's a novel my father has always praised highly, but I suspect that this
> is
> because he was reading SF when it originally came out, and was blown away
> by its
> (supposed) originality and daring.
Yes, it does make a difference when you first read it. I also read it
when it first came out, and, though well past my teen years, shared your
father's reaction. It made a difference what else you had to compare it
with.
Luna
Mad Hamish <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 15:18:20 GMT, Luna
> <luna...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <bja8r3$bo5$1...@news1.usf.edu>,
> > "Doom & Gloom Dave" <dwh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> M. Tettnanger wrote:
> >> > What is the most overrated book, in -your- opinion?
> >> >
> >> > No offense, but my vote is Dune. Quite interesting premise,
> >> > but I lost interest in the plot about halfway through. Maybe
> >> > I'll have to take another hack at it soon.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The Man in the High Castle
> >>
> >> to a lesser extent everything else I've read by PKD
> >
> >Oh, that's so sad. He's one of my favorites.
>
> To test a theory can you tell us what drugs you take when you read
> them?
> Do you match what Dick was on at the time he wrote them?
According to Dick, he did not do drugs. It was something Harlan Ellison
said about him in the anthology "Dangerous Visions" but Dick said Ellison
was lying.
Drugs are definitely an element in Dick's work, but I see it as just one of
many ways of playing with reality that he uses. He also uses virtual
reality, false memories, insanity, alternate universes, religious visions.
What attracts me to his work is not the drug usage, but the "playing with
reality" theme. At his best, he does this better than any other writer
I've come across. I've always been attracted to stories like that, where
the main character can't trust his or her senses, doesn't know what's real
and what's a simulation/drug trip/implanted memory.
--
-Michelle Levin (Luna)
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
http://www.mindspring.com/~designbyluna
Chris Lund
read and enjoyed better than half of the ones that seem have a consensus
of disappointment. I think I'm just a sucker for pulp or pulp-like works.
John Andrew Fairhurst
says...
> Isaac Asimov's _Foundation_ trilogy
> This may have been a milestone of the genre once, but nowadays
> it is just mediocre. It isn't actively bad, it is still readable,
> but it sure isn't worth your time.
>
I don't think I would recommend it as the trilogy to get some one
interested in Science Fiction, but it's a series that ought to be read at
some stage just so you can see where science fiction has come from.
> Gregory Benford, _Timescape_
> Not only did this turd win a Nebula, there are also still people
> around who proclaim this to be the greatest time-travel novel
> of all time. I found it excrutiatingly boring, clichéd, badly
> written, and lacking a resolution.
>
I'll definitely agree with this though. Thankfully I'd borrowed it from
the library (for the book: I couldn't harm it. Fortunately for me: I
didn't have to have it lying about the house :-))
> Stephen Donaldson's _Gap_ series
> Unreadable. Entirely insane, demented caricatures of characters
> that keep torturing each other in absurdly convoluted ways.
> I'm not sure what bizarre sexual preferences the author caters
> too, but some aberration seems required to enjoy these depictions.
>
I think I started the series, but I can't remember anything about it, if
so and certainly never felt any inclination to read the rest of it.
> Robert Sawyer, _The Terminal Experiment_
> The author picks a fraction of the ideas Greg Egan used in
> _Permutation City_, doesn't develop them to any comparable
> degree... and wins a Nebula for that. Huh?
>
Wouldn't give it an award, but it was nice enough. IF I'm going to
believe Amazon.co.uk's copyright dates, you might be more correct to say
that Greg Egan built on Sawyer...
--
John Fairhurst
In Association with Amazon worldwide:
http://www.johnsbooks.co.uk/
Your One-Stop Site for Classic SF!
Updated for 2003 Publications
Johnny1A
>
> Can we just call cyberpunk a disappointing genre? Come on, the whole
> concept is ridiculous. I can buy megacorporations, but the whole
> "let's chop off my arm so I can replace it!" is utter nonsense.
>
My initial first reaction is to agree with that. But then I consider
the prevalence of such things as extensive piercings, tongue-forking,
etc, which provide no real benefit except psychological satisfaction
(if that). If bionics actually provided definite benefits (even at
cost monetarily and psychologically and health-wise), I can imagine
people voluntarily replacing parts. I think it would be a bad, bad
idea, but I can imagine it.
Shermanlee
Nick Ryan
finishing all I can say about the book is "WTF?" How is this anything
better than a second-rate porn novel, and how is it even remotely sci-fi?
erilar wrote:
> Just reacting to the subject line...
>
> _Dahlgren_, because before that I had enjoyed Delaney's work. It's the
> only supposedly sf book I tried repeatedly to continue reading and never
> finished. There have been other awful books(some written by L. Ron
> Hubbard) I have, form time to time, actually finished, looking in vain
> for improvement as I waded through them, but none I remember having high
> hopes for that came anywhere near being half as disappointing.
>
--
Nick Ryan (MVP for DDK)
Daniel Frankham
<je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> wrote:
>I also recall somewhere in the Leiber Swords books, Fafhrd and the
>Gray Mouser temporarily going their separate ways over an argument
>about the GM's pronunciation of Fahrd's name (GM uses 'Faferd', the
>correct version being 'Fafhrud').
"Lean Times in Lankhmar". The alleged dispute was over the correct
spelling of Fafhrd's name. (It was one of several possible
explanations for their separation.)
--
Daniel Frankham
Captain Button
Chris Lund <seal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Don't be either. Tastes vary widely, and as noted upthread, this sort of
thread can't help but be subjective, for all that some may claim otherwise.
Unless you are an academic, editor, or author [1], you are almost certianly
reading things because you enjoy them. So any book you enjoy is a good
book for you, and any book you don't enjoy is almost certainly a bad book.
For you.
There are lots of people here who like to toss off their particular
personal preferences like they are undisputable eternal cosmic verities.
Take any such with a large grain of salt. Over time you may get a feel for
which posters have similar tastes to yours, and weight their opinions more
heavily. You may also learn who generally dislike books you like, and use
that as a way to find others you like, by seeing what they dilike for
similar reasons.
[1] Members of these groups may have to read things they don't enjoy as
part of their work. But at least they get paid for it, in theory, anyway.
--
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in
tolerance and free speech," - David Brin
Captain Button - but...@io.com
JJ Karhu
Labs) wrote:
>Katie said thusly:
>
>>I tried to read "Stranger in a Strange Land," and gave up after the first
>chapter. Maybe I'll try again.>
>
>I'd have to second that. Actually butted through the whole thing and don't
>remember anything worth a damn about it. Considering I can generally remember
>at least a synopsis of almost every book I've ever read.
Thirded. Couldn't finish the damn thing. And I've even read "I Will
Fear No Evil" and "A Cat That Walks Through Walls".
// JJ
John M. Gamble
Paul <phd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 19:48:23 +0000 (UTC), na...@mips.inka.de (Christian
>Weisgerber) wrote:
>
>>Paul <phd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd also nominate Ringworld.
>>
>>_Ringworld_ is very nice IF you read it as the culminating work of
>>Niven's Known Space books and stories. It doesn't stand very well
>>on its own, though. IMHO.
>
>Fair enough. I don't think it's advertised as the end of the known
>space novels though, but rather as the beginning of the Ringworld
>series.
>
Ouch, are they? Too bad. At the time, it looked like Niven was
wrapping up Known Space and moving on to other story settings
(*Protector* came out later, but that was his story "The Adults"
with a follow-up added to make it a novel.)
I wish he'd return to the Leshy (sp?) Circuit. There were some
interesting conceits in that, and the background could be best
described as Hard Science Cthulian.
--
-john
February 28 1997: Last day libraries could order catalogue cards
from the Library of Congress.
r.r...@thevine.net
>On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:12:57 +0000 (UTC), na...@mips.inka.de (Christian
>Weisgerber) wrote:
>
>>
>>Bram Stoker, _Dracula_
>> How did this barely readable exercise in Victorian boredom ever
>> manage to impress anybody?
>
>I thought it was somewhat dated but still readable and enjoyable,
>which puts it well ahead of Frankenstein...
>
>But I'd be surprised if the number of people who've read either of
>them was anything near the number of people who judge them off the
>multiple movie versions
When I read Dracula, I remember thinking that there was a good story
in there that was badly hampered by the style in which it was written.
As was popular at that time, the book consists (mainly, entirely? I
forget which now) of letters, diary entries, and excerpts from
newspaper articles. One example of the drawbacks of this technique is
that the scene in which van Helsing and the rest stake Lucy is relayed
to us by Mina in her diary. She got the information from her husband,
but wasn't actually there. Given that Dracula is variously described
as an action, horror, or suspense story, this kind of third-person
narrative drains a lot of the life out of the story. Which is
probably why I find _The Dracula Tapes_ to be so much better.
Rebecca
potemkin9
-- Lafferty can be great, but enough is finally too much.
Bester/ Computer Connection [-1]
-- My first reading of Bester was Fondly Fahrenheit (1954) and The
Stars My Destination (1956). Long downhill to The Deceivers, which I
didn't have the heart to plow through after Computer Connection.
Sheckley/ Compton Divided [-2]
-- I don't know if Sheckley was fueled like Lafferty and Bester, but
this seems to be written from the same barstool-bard sensibility. A
writer's writer? Huh?
Shepard/ Green Eyes [+1]
-- A disappointment because I had hoped this would be as sharp as his
shorter works; and movie reviews.
Cherryh/ Downbelow Station [-U]
-- I had high hopes for this, but found I had to continually reparse
her vegematic syntax, so I tossed it. I'll give it another try if I
can find an English translation.
I check out a lot of writers new to me, hoping to find a few that
click. On the bright side I've come across the fairly obscure
Barrington Bayley and Jeffrey Ford; dissimilar, except both make
reading sf fascinating to me. Here are a few I've read in the last two
years that made me wonder why I bother:
Brust/ Taltos [-1]
Banks/ Walking on Glass [-2]
Donaldson/ Lord Foul's Bane [-2]
Kessel/ Corrupting Dr. Nice [-2]
Miéville/ Perdido Street Station [-2]
Morrow/ City of Truth [-2]
Reed/ Beyond The Veil Of Stars [-3]
Watson/ The Embedding [-3]
--Potemkin9
Christopher J. Henrich
Luna <luna...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
> In article <3f59ff19$0$579$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
> j...@mit.edu (John F. Carr) wrote:
> >
> > I prefer Brust's approach: put a pronunciation key in the front.
Which had the piss taken out of it by Mary Gentle in _Grunts_. The
phonetic spelling of each name was identical to the spelling used in
the narrative.
>
> I like it when they just make you guess. Or you could wait until the movie
> comes out.
Oh don't do that. It denies you the pleasure of finding fault with the
pronunciations chosen in the movie.
--
Chris Henrich
"Nanotechnology could be huge."
-- Lord Sainsbury, Science and Innovation Minister (UK)
Jeff Walther
Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> "Jeff Walther" <tr...@io.com> wrote in message
> news:trag-06090...@aus-as2-084.io.com...
> > Why did the GE bottle
> > up humans for 3000 years.
>
> Eventually someone would invent a self replicating killing device which
> would wipe out humanity. <snip> In all possible timelines Leto
> could see, humanity died out, except the one with the scattering & the genes
> to avoid having one's future determined.
Thank you.
--
A friend will help you move. A real friend will help you move a body.
Richard Horton
<til...@aztec.asu.edu> wrote:
>But I'll pick the most recent Bruce Sterling, whose title I have
>successfully blotted out, the 'Leggy Starlitz and his Dad' one, with the
>Bad Girl Band. I've never much cared for the Starlitz stories, but I
>never expected a Sterling book to be *boring*. Tedious enough that I
>quit, about where the ridiculous Hobo Dad stuff got thick, and never
>returned. And I used to think Bruce Sterling was God....
_Zeitgeist_.
While I disagree with some of your previous examples (I loved
_Cryptonomicon_ for example), I think you are right on about this one.
And, too, in order to forestall the predicted response, I do think I
GOT it. It just wasn't worth GETTING.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Chris Lund
>John F. Carr quoth:
>
> I prefer Brust's approach: put a pronunciation key in the front.
In _Foragers_, Oberndorf does this for such "letters" as /, !, //, and
"the not equals symbol" (equals sign with a slash through it.) In this
case, the key is not only useful, it's practically mandatory.
That said, I'd cite _Foragers_ as the book that I just couldn't get into.
--
Christopher Lund
Chris Lund
> Don't be either. Tastes vary widely, and as noted upthread, this sort of
> thread can't help but be subjective, for all that some may claim otherwise.
Agreed. Not to mention that even a perfect online consensus is still
just a subset of the SF readers.
> So any book you enjoy is a good
> book for you, and any book you don't enjoy is almost certainly a bad book.
> For you.
Agreed once again. I know that most of my love of "pulp" comes from
books that I read as a kid. _Battlefield Earth_, for one, is definitely
in that category. So my appreciation for the book is as much a comment
on my childhood as it is the work itself.
Christopher Adams
> Yes, it does make a difference when you first read it. I also read it
> when it first came out, and, though well past my teen years, shared your
> father's reaction. It made a difference what else you had to compare it
> with.
Heinlein is still Heinlein, even when he's disappointing. There's a charm about
his writing which makes "Stranger In A Strange Land" worth an occasional thought
or two, even leaving aside its historical importance to SF as a field.
Still, overrated for this reader. ;)
Robert St. Amant
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 16:28:08 +1000, Mad Hamish
> <h_l...@aardvark.net.au> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:12:57 +0000 (UTC), na...@mips.inka.de (Christian
> >Weisgerber) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Bram Stoker, _Dracula_
> >> How did this barely readable exercise in Victorian boredom ever
> >> manage to impress anybody?
> >
> >I thought it was somewhat dated but still readable and enjoyable,
> >which puts it well ahead of Frankenstein...
> >
> >But I'd be surprised if the number of people who've read either of
> >them was anything near the number of people who judge them off the
> >multiple movie versions
>
> When I read Dracula, I remember thinking that there was a good story
> in there that was badly hampered by the style in which it was written.
> As was popular at that time, the book consists (mainly, entirely? I
> forget which now) of letters, diary entries, and excerpts from
> newspaper articles.
I'm not an expert, but I believe that the epistolary novel form had
significantly dropped off in popularity by the time Dracula was
published. But it does fit into that genre, though I think romances
(e.g., Dangerous Liaisons) were a lot more common.
> One example of the drawbacks of this technique is that the scene in
> which van Helsing and the rest stake Lucy is relayed to us by Mina
> in her diary. She got the information from her husband, but wasn't
> actually there. Given that Dracula is variously described as an
> action, horror, or suspense story, this kind of third-person
> narrative drains a lot of the life out of the story.
I like your wording of the last sentence; very appropriate. But I
think that while the letters work against an action story, they still
allow for a reasonable amount of suspense. For example, Jonathan
writes his letters knowing that they won't be read by Mina for some
weeks (if ever), and so he can speculate explicitly about what may
have happened to him by the time she gets them, in a way that would be
awkward in a third person narration ("Little did he know that. . .")
At least, this is as far as I remember; I haven't read the book in
years.
--
Rob St. Amant
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~stamant
Randy Money
Hmmmm... I like the noir-ish elements of cyberpunk in small doses, but I
think one of its stronger accomplishments was to open up s.f. to
consideration of the effects of high tech on the economic lower classes.
I'm not sure this observation will bear scrutiny, but cyberpunk appears
to me to have opened up a space for work by others that was less
punk-ish and perhaps a bit more rigorous in examining tech and the poor:
Octavia Butler and Maureen McHugh might stand as examples, though I've
read little of the former and just heard about the latter's work.
Randy M.
(if anyone wishes to disabuse me of this notion, go right ahead; i can
take it)