WIR 18: The Gripping Hand -- Niven and Pournelle
Justin A. Bacon
(Note: In some countries this novel is known as THE MOAT AROUND
MURCHESON'S EYE.)
This is going to be a rather rapid reaction, because the book doesn't
really deserve more than a quick dissection.
First off: DO NOT LOOK AT THE MAP. Good lord. That thing is a cesspool
of spoilers. And not in a "well, now we know where they're going" way,
but in a "they just told us what Rosebud is" kind of way. Unless
you're the type of crazy person who likes reading the last page of a
mystery first, steer clear of the map.
Now, to begin properly, let's discuss what works in THE GRIPPING HAND:
The prose is smooth and, from sentence to sentence, generally
well-written. It's also nice to revisit the Moties and see their
unique culture from a new slant.
Okay, now that we're finished with the strengths, let's look at the
host of flaws which plague this book. Let me count them off:
First, starting off small, there's the recapping. Niven and Pournelle
recap just enough to annoy people who have read the first novel, but
don't manage to cover enough territory to actually fill in those who
haven't. The result is the worst of both worlds: On the one hand,
they're bogging down this book for everyone who read A MOTE IN GOD'S
EYE. On the other hand, they aren't actually making this book
accessible to anyone who hasn't.
Second, and in a similar vein, there's the clumsy and overwhelming
exposition. I was literally stunned by the sheer mass of "as you know,
Bob" lectures peppering the novel - I think they average about one
every ten pages. In some cases, they're even polite enough to
explicitly identify what they're doing. (Quote: "I may have to
lecture. [...] I won't explain that, you got it in high school, but
[insert explanation he just said he wasn't going to give].")
Third, the entire work is plagued by inconsistencies and
contradictions. Mostly these are internal, but there are also several
inconsistencies between MOTE and GRIPPING HAND. And that doesn't even
count the deliberate and ham-fisted retcon which drives the entire
plot. (Something which I found intrinsically annoying. With all of the
interesting possibilities raised by the Moties and the situation at
the end of the first book, why did they feel it was necessary to
resort to a retcon in order to come up with a plot? Heck, they
off-handedly discard another fascinating possibility explicitly. And
even the scenario they use in the book would arguably be more
fascinating WITHOUT the retcon.)
Fourth, there's still no thought put into the setting: A massive
interstellar empire can rule over dozens (possibly hundreds) of star
systems, but can't figure out how to ship produce a thousand klicks
and keep it fresh. The same society possesses Langston fields which
can protect a ship from the fury of a sun, but characters puzzle over
how to keep the Imperial family safe from atom bombs. The leaders of a
colony are quoted as believing that a fireworks display will be the
biggest show since one of their cities was bombed into oblivion (which
would be like a Japanese Prime Minister claiming that a fireworks
display will be the biggest show since Hiroshima). In one sentence
we're told that two colonies have stopped fighting with each other
because they collectively fear war with the Moties; in the next we're
told that they've stopped building defensively because they're no
longer afraid of war. Even accepting the fact that Niven and Pournelle
were constrained by the 20th century analog they had established in A
MOTE IN GOD'S EYE, there's still no depth or thought given to the
technology they show or the society it implies. This is world-building
of the Star Trek variety, and in many cases its even worse.
Fifth, the characters are still as flat as cardboard. In fact, if
anything, they're even more contrived than they were in A MOTE IN
GOD'S EYE: An investigative reporter is allowed to sit in at a meeting
where top secret material is being discussed, and only after the fact
does anyone realize this was probably a really stupid idea. More
retcons are used to justify important decisions. And, yet again,
you've got a couple of people falling in love at first sight and for
no apparent reason. (Perhaps that's the only kind of love there is in
the Second Empire.) It's not that I don't believe in love at first
sight. It's that Niven and Pournelle don't make me believe in love at
first sight.
Finally, this book seems to suffer from many of the same problems that
Niven's RINGWORLD ENGINEERS did: The authors seem to be writing the
book as much from a desire to patch the problems criticized in the
original work as they are from a desire to tell a good story. The
result is predictable, turgid, repetitive, and boring.
That's the long of it.
Here's the short of it: This book is a complete and utter waste. It's
a waste of your time. It's a waste of a perfectly good opportunity. In
many ways, it's a waste of paper.
No matter how tempted you may be after reading THE MOTE IN GOD'S EYE
to discover what happens next, please believe me when I say that the
pain of THE GRIPPING HAND just isn't worth it.
GRADE: D-
THE GRIPPING HAND
Published: 1993
Publisher: Pocket Books
Cover Price: $7.99
ISBN: 0671795740
Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671795740/digitalcomics
(Note: Using the Amazon.com link here gives me a kickback on any
purchases you make within 24 hours of clicking on it. Use it to voice
appreciation for my reactions or avoid it as a cheap shill at your
discretion.)
TO READ LIST
The Misenchanted Sword - Lawrence Watt-Evans
Diaspora - Greg Egan
Schismatrix - Bruce Sterling
The Quiet Pools - Michael Kube-McDowell
The Malazan Empire - Steven Erikson
DDoc
I enjoyed it.
--
Adrian
John F. Carr
Justin A. Bacon <hamle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>What I'm Reading: THE GRIPPING HAND -- Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
I don't expect too many defenders of this book. I'll note
the places where I especially agree.
>(Note: In some countries this novel is known as THE MOAT AROUND
>MURCHESON'S EYE.)
>
>Second, and in a similar vein, there's the clumsy and overwhelming
>exposition.
I point to this and the unnecessary story at the beginning, as
evidence of the missing hand of Heinlein.
>Third, the entire work is plagued by inconsistencies and
>contradictions.
I agree that the writing was good if you overlook the glitches --
exposition, digression, and Nivenisms -- but I couldn't buy the basic
premise. As mentioned in text I cut, they disavow the premise of the
earlier book.
>Niven and Pournelle don't make me believe in love at first sight.
I felt like quoting this sentence fragment for no particular reason.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
D.F. Manno
hamle...@hotmail.com (Justin A. Bacon) wrote:
> GRADE: D-
>
> THE GRIPPING HAND
> Published: 1993
> Publisher: Pocket Books
> Cover Price: $7.99
> ISBN: 0671795740
> Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671795740/digitalcomics
>
> (Note: Using the Amazon.com link here gives me a kickback on any
> purchases you make within 24 hours of clicking on it. Use it to voice
> appreciation for my reactions or avoid it as a cheap shill at your
> discretion.)
IOW, "I hated this book, but please buy it anyway so I can make a few
bucks."
--
D.F. Manno
domm...@netscape.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)
how...@brazee.net
"on the gripping hand" in Byte magazine, and has been imitated on the
internet.
Justin Bacon
>In article <92dc8db5.04012...@posting.google.com>,
> hamle...@hotmail.com (Justin A. Bacon) wrote:
>
>> GRADE: D-
>>
>> THE GRIPPING HAND
>> Published: 1993
>> Publisher: Pocket Books
>> Cover Price: $7.99
>> ISBN: 0671795740
>> Amazon Link:
>>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671795740/digitalcomics
>>
>> (Note: Using the Amazon.com link here gives me a kickback on any
>> purchases you make within 24 hours of clicking on it. Use it to voice
>> appreciation for my reactions or avoid it as a cheap shill at your
>> discretion.)
>
>IOW, "I hated this book, but please buy it anyway so I can make a few
>bucks."
As noted, clicking through the link will activate the kickback whether you
happen to order this particular book or not. And maybe somebody wants to buy
the book despite my negative conclusion. I'll admit that my review of THE
GRIPPING HAND doesn't include many positives, but that's not true of all my
negative reviews.
Mostly it's just a format thing.
<shrug> In any case, click or don't click. It's up to you.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Mike Ward
news:uVkPb.21176$zj7...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> My main objection to _The Gripping Hand_ is that Pournelle started saying
> "on the gripping hand" in Byte magazine, and has been imitated on the
> internet.
>
I was sick to death of reading "on the gripping hand" by the end of that
book. I'm glad I've yet to have the misfortune of reading it anywhere
else.
Mike
Damien R. Sullivan
I never saw him do that. I and people I know use it based on having read the
book.
Blah blah, OTOH blah blah, OTGH blah blah...
It's useful.
-xx- Damien X-)
Wayne Throop
: I was sick to death of reading "on the gripping hand" by the end of
: that book. I'm glad I've yet to have the misfortune of reading it
: anywhere else.
I've used it. I try to keep it from becoming a habit.
It's sometimes useful as a three-part "pro, con, on balance" idiom.
Um... is an "idiom" a cliche used by an idiot?
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
do$feratu
"John F. Carr" <j...@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:400dc4e2$0$571$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> In article <92dc8db5.04012...@posting.google.com>,
> Justin A. Bacon <hamle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >What I'm Reading: THE GRIPPING HAND -- Larry Niven and Jerry
Pournelle
> >
overwhelming
> >exposition.
>
> I point to this and the unnecessary story at the beginning, as
> evidence of the missing hand of Heinlein.
What's that about? Did RAH crit N&P???
Gazza
There is nothing worse, IMO, that authors trying to coin phrases and
invent slang. To me it just sounds contrived and stupid.
g
Andrew Plotkin
On the contrary. It *can* sound contrived and stupid, but sometimes
it's done well.
I don't think "gripping hand" is a great phrase, but it does have
enough resonance that people use it in real life. And I doubt
Niven/Pournelle even expected people to use it in real life. It's the
sort of phrase which could catch on in the fictional world, where
three-armed aliens have suddenly reified the old idiom-joke of "on the
one hand, on the other hand, on the third hand".
What SF idioms and catch-phrases really hit the sweet spot of
plausibility, euphony, and filling-a-gap? (For comparison, I'd say
that "on the gripping hand" scores medium, low, high on those three
scales.)
Niven and Pournelle have to be credited with a direct hit for "Think
of it as evolution in action". I don't know if they invented it, but
it rings very true in _Oath of Fealty_ (and made the jump to fannish
culture instantly).
Much more obscure: In Helen Wright's _A Matter of Oaths_, one
character notes shipboard gossip about another character: "The crew
agrees that he's a darling in the web-room and a stickler in the web."
(The web is the neurolink interface that controls a starship; the
web-room is where the web interfaces are, and thus the place where
people prep, hook up, and then unhook and cool off at the end of a
shift.)
I love that line. You can tell instantly that crews have been saying
it for decades, about a particular kind of officer. You can tell that
it's a compliment. You can gather that while discipline is valued
while on duty, personal familiarity (perhaps even intimacy) is also
valued. And the words flow so nicely.
Other examples?
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Justin Bacon
>There is nothing worse, IMO, that authors trying to coin phrases and
>invent slang. To me it just sounds contrived and stupid.
Have you read THE MOTE IN GOD'S EYE?
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
John F. Carr
do$feratu <do$ferat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"John F. Carr" <j...@mit.edu> wrote in message
>news:400dc4e2$0$571$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
>> >
>> >overwhelming exposition.
>>
>> I point to this and the unnecessary story at the beginning, as
>> evidence of the missing hand of Heinlein.
>
>What's that about? Did RAH crit N&P???
Think of him as the editor of _Mote_. N&P made extensive changes
based on his input. He had them cut the beginning of the novel so
it started with the real plot rather than an introduction.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Justin Bacon
> I enjoyed it.
Would you care to elaborate?
JB
David Cowie
>
> "John F. Carr" <j...@mit.edu> wrote in message
> news:400dc4e2$0$571$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
>>
>> I point to this and the unnecessary story at the beginning, as
>> evidence of the missing hand of Heinlein.
>
> What's that about? Did RAH crit N&P???
Apparently RAH was shown an early draft of _The Mote in God's Eye_ and
made a variety of helpful suggestions. I don't know how often this was
repeated, or how substantial his suggestions were, but I'm sure that
someone here does. So if you know, please enlighten us.
--
David Cowie david_cowie at lineone dot net
Containment Failure + 1635:35
Bill Woods
I don't mind the phrase but I thought it's prominence odd,
since to the best of my recollection it wasn't in _Mote_.
There was use of "on the other hand", and wondering what
a Motie made of that phrase.
Also it doesn't quite work. For a human, "on the one hand X,
on the other hand Y" is a right vs. left thing. For a Motie,
"on the one hand X, on the other hand Y, on the gripping hand Z"
is a right vs. other right vs. left thing, without the strong
contrast between the first two.
--
Bill Woods
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely
mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way
down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."
-- Douglas Adams
Damien R. Sullivan
>What SF idioms and catch-phrases really hit the sweet spot of
>plausibility, euphony, and filling-a-gap? (For comparison, I'd say
Hodgell's "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be." wasn't quite a
catchphrase in the book, and I haven't used it much as a catchphrase, but I
*want* to. I get such a thrill from it. I'm also afraid of seeming like an
arrogant asshole if I use it, and haven't had that much call to use it, but
it's in my quiver.
I guess there's nothing in the phrase itself which betrays SF/fantasy origin.
>Niven and Pournelle have to be credited with a direct hit for "Think
>of it as evolution in action". I don't know if they invented it, but
Yeah. It pisses some people off, but it's definitely successful.
Oh! Heinlein: TANSTAAFL, I think from TMIAHM. (There Ain't No Such Thing As
A Free Lunch. The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.) I don't know how many people
*say* the phrase, but I see the acronym used a fair bit.
I assume we aren't counting widely memorized SF poetry, such as "One Ring to
rule them all..."?
How about 'grok'? I met someone who'd tried to create a 'nest' in college,
and probably someone uses the phrase "water-sharing" or whatever it was.
(_Stranger in a Strange Land_) But grok is fairly common. I don't know if it
filled a gap, but it fit some need.
"Use the Force" and related phrases.
"Beam me up" and "I'm a doctor, not...", but I think they're only applicable
in jokes.
I can't think of anything from Babylon-5 which rose above the level of fans
bonding with each other, except maybe "Yes." as an answer to questions of the
form "A or B?" and that's probably not original to B-5, though it might be the
proximate source. Maybe "The avalanche has already begun" could have
potential, but I've only heard it from a dedicated fan. Though I *have* read
some variation of "They are a dying race, we should let them pass" used
recently, possibly about Israel/Palestine. Okay, maybe there is stuff beyond
fan-bonding, though nothing as ubiqitous as some of the earlier stuff.
Of course B-5 recycled Sagan's "We are all made of starstuff", and his
"billions and billions" also entered the collective conscious.
I wonder how many of all of these have spread beyond readers of the primary
source. I don't know if gripping hand has. I'm pretty sure "evolution in
action" has. (I've never read the source novel, though Niven also spread it
in his essays, which I have read.) I think "grok" has spread.
-xx- Damien X-)
Wayne Throop
: I don't mind the phrase but I thought it's prominence odd, since to
: the best of my recollection it wasn't in _Mote_. There was use of "on
: the other hand", and wondering what a Motie made of that phrase.
:
: Also it doesn't quite work. For a human, "on the one hand X, on the
: other hand Y" is a right vs. left thing. For a Motie, "on the one
: hand X, on the other hand Y, on the gripping hand Z" is a right vs.
: other right vs. left thing, without the strong contrast between the
: first two.
Not at all. For moties, it's a contrast between various extremist
viewpoints represented by their multi-handed side, vs a concluding
synthesis on the single-handled side. The "strong contrast" being
between extremeism vs synthesis. On the one viewpoint, on the
other viewpoint, (switch sides) on ballance.
For that matter, you could think of the multihanded side as
representing extremes because one is up and the other is
the opposite, ie, down, while the other side metaphorically,
and prolly even homologously in biology, represents their fusion.
For a human use of it, I imagine the gripping hand as a tiedown
clamp sticking straight out of my chest. Metaphorically,
not halucinationally. But that's just me.
Anyways, it works much better than you seem to give it credit for.
Overuse sure is annoying, though.
David Tate
> What I'm Reading: THE GRIPPING HAND -- Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
>
> (Note: In some countries this novel is known as THE MOAT AROUND
> MURCHESON'S EYE.)
>
> This is going to be a rather rapid reaction, because the book doesn't
> really deserve more than a quick dissection.
Herebelow follows an exerpt of all the important parts of THE GRIPPING HAND:
"Crottled greep."
We now return you to actual things worth reading.
David Tate
Steve Coltrin
> Herebelow follows an exerpt of all the important parts of THE GRIPPING HAND:
>
> "Crottled greep."
And if you've read _Footfall_, you've already read that scene, under
a different set of forged papers.
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org WWVBF?
"God forbid that a child know what a member of the opposite sex looks
like naked before they're 13 and gangbanging each other in a back alley
after huffing paint." - drdoody
Lewis Scott
(Damien R. Sullivan) wrote:
>Oh! Heinlein: TANSTAAFL, I think from TMIAHM. (There Ain't No Such Thing As
>A Free Lunch. The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.) I don't know how many people
>*say* the phrase, but I see the acronym used a fair bit.
Is that really original to Heinlein? I would find that surprising, but
if so... that's probably the biggest success of this type. I thought
it was just one of those long standing standard cliches - but I guess
they all have to start somewhere.
>I can't think of anything from Babylon-5 which rose above the level of fans
>bonding with each other, except maybe "Yes." as an answer to questions of the
>form "A or B?" and that's probably not original to B-5, though it might be the
>proximate source.
Not even close to original to B5. It's probably been around as a smart
assed answer for exactly as long as the form of the question has been
around.
> Maybe "The avalanche has already begun" could have
>potential, but I've only heard it from a dedicated fan.
...not really original to B5 either, unless you mean the full phrase
"The avalanche has already begun, it is too late for the pebbles to
vote", which I still doubt is original to B5.
(I never saw more than the first couple of episodes of B5
incidentally, one day I'll rectify that but not today).
>I wonder how many of all of these have spread beyond readers of the primary
>source.
A lot.
>I don't know if gripping hand has. I'm pretty sure "evolution in
>action" has. (I've never read the source novel, though Niven also spread it
>in his essays, which I have read.) I think "grok" has spread.
Evolution in action has definitely become a standard insult /
description in the real world. Grok is used widely in geek circles,
often by people who haven't read the source material (e.g. me and at
least one friend of mine), but probably not by people who aren't
*aware* of its source.
On the other hand, on the gripping hand has at least partially entered
the language. It's a phrase I use occasionally, and until about six
months ago during a similar thread I was completely unaware that it
had an SFnal origin. I thought it was just a useful standard phrase.
I think this is because I hang around so many geeks; other people are
probably unaware of it. But it's a phrase that makes sense and is so
clear in context I suspect it will one day take hold.
--Lewis
Jim Cambias
(Damien R. Sullivan) wrote:
> I can't think of anything from Babylon-5 which rose above the level of fans
> bonding with each other, except maybe "Yes." as an answer to questions of the
> form "A or B?" and that's probably not original to B-5, though it might be the
> proximate source. Maybe "The avalanche has already begun" could have
> potential, but I've only heard it from a dedicated fan. Though I *have* read
> some variation of "They are a dying race, we should let them pass" used
> recently, possibly about Israel/Palestine. Okay, maybe there is stuff beyond
> fan-bonding, though nothing as ubiqitous as some of the earlier stuff.
>
"And so it begins" said in a ponderous Kosh voice has entered the
vocabulary of my immediate circle; usually said when one of the kids
learns some new way to endanger life, limb, or sanity.
Cambias
Dwight Thieme
The bottom line is, the phrase OTGH is an attempt to supplant an
already common phrase that means exactly the same thing. And saying
(imho) "look how clever I am." Rather than "Ah, here's an important
insight into Motie psychology."
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Lewis Scott <so...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 23:53:07 +0000 (UTC), dasu...@cs.indiana.edu
>(Damien R. Sullivan) wrote:
>
>>I can't think of anything from Babylon-5 which rose above the level of fans
>>bonding with each other, except maybe "Yes." as an answer to questions of the
>>form "A or B?" and that's probably not original to B-5, though it might be the
>>proximate source.
>
>Not even close to original to B5. It's probably been around as a smart
>assed answer for exactly as long as the form of the question has been
>around.
And especially frequently used by computer people, math people, logic
people and so on.
--
Leif Kjønnøy, Geek of a Few Trades. http://www.pvv.org/~leifmk
Disclaimer: Do not try this at home.
Void where prohibited by law.
Batteries not included.
Justin Bacon
>The bottom line is, the phrase OTGH is an attempt to supplant an
>already common phrase that means exactly the same thing.
What phrase is that?
It's not "on one hand/on the other hand".
It's not "on one hand/on the other hand/on the third hand".
So what phrase is it that "on the gripping hand" is attempting to supplant?
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Andrew Plotkin
to rebranch it back:
What SF contains phrases or idioms which feel plausible *in the world
of the story*? What rings true as a phrase that those people would
keep handy in their vocabulary?
Bonus points if it pithily conveys something about their culture to
the reader. But I'm not (necessarily) looking for phrases that have
caught on in *our* world.
SkyeFire
<erky...@eblong.com> writes:
>
>> There is nothing worse, IMO, that authors trying to coin phrases and
>> invent slang. To me it just sounds contrived and stupid.
>
>On the contrary. It *can* sound contrived and stupid, but sometimes
>it's done well.
And not always authors. One I recently saw *here* in rasfw and instantly
fell in love with was one poster referring to a passing troll: "He's just
pissed off because his Turing test came back negative."
Maybe I'm just easily impressed, but I *love* that one-liner.
David Dyer-Bennet
> The topic has swerved slightly, which is inevitable, but I'll try once
> to rebranch it back:
>
> What SF contains phrases or idioms which feel plausible *in the world
> of the story*? What rings true as a phrase that those people would
> keep handy in their vocabulary?
And of course the Lensman universe is rife with this. "QX" is the
really obvious one -- and one of the few that no origin story at all
is given for. Then there's the use of the Zabriskan Fontema as the
standard of stupidity
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Richard Todd
> And of course the Lensman universe is rife with this. "QX" is the
> really obvious one -- and one of the few that no origin story at all
> is given for. Then there's the use of the Zabriskan Fontema as the
Not in the original Lensman books, no, but in Ellern's _New Lensman_
it's explained that "QX" was the spelling of the "unpronouncable
syllable" the Golden Meteor badges said. Dunno whether this was
something Ellern came up with entirely on his own or something Smith
had told him but had never mentioned in the books, but either way it's
cool.
Dan Tilque
>
> Oh! Heinlein: TANSTAAFL, I think from TMIAHM. (There Ain't
> No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.)
> I don't know how many people *say* the phrase, but I see the
> acronym used a fair bit.
I believe the phrase actually came from some economist, I forget
who. It predates Heinlein by a bit. But earlier forms were
usually TINSTAAFL (There is no ...).
>
> I assume we aren't counting widely memorized SF poetry, such
> as "One Ring to rule them all..."?
Considering poetry, you think Sting counts as a vorpal blade? It
never went snicker-snack...
>
> How about 'grok'? I met someone who'd tried to create a
> 'nest' in college, and probably someone uses the phrase "water-
> sharing" or whatever it was. (_Stranger in a Strange Land_)
> But grok is fairly common. I don't know if it filled a gap,
> but it fit some need.
'Grok' has sufficient usage that it's in some of the larger
dictionaries. It's rare in that it's an outright coinage, not
derived from any other word. 'Hobbit' is another such coinage
that's made it into dictionaries.
--
Dan Tilque
Christopher Adams
> Damien R. Sullivan wrote:
>
>> How about 'grok'? I met someone who'd tried to create a
>> 'nest' in college, and probably someone uses the phrase "water-
>> sharing" or whatever it was. (_Stranger in a Strange Land_)
>> But grok is fairly common. I don't know if it filled a gap,
>> but it fit some need.
>
> 'Grok' has sufficient usage that it's in some of the larger
> dictionaries. It's rare in that it's an outright coinage, not
> derived from any other word.
I said it the other day, and instantly regretted it - I think it sounds so
pretentious, but I couldn't think of another word at the time, for some reason.
I don't even like that novel.
--
Christopher Adams - SUTEKH Functions Officer 2004
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrante.
Dwight Thieme
Hint: you're kidding me, right?
Justin Bacon
>tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote in message
>news:<20040122113036...@mb-m27.aol.com>...
>> Dwight Thieme wrote:
>> >The bottom line is, the phrase OTGH is an attempt to supplant an
>> >already common phrase that means exactly the same thing.
>>
>> What phrase is that?
>>
>> It's not "on one hand/on the other hand".
>>
>> It's not "on one hand/on the other hand/on the third hand".
>>
>> So what phrase is it that "on the gripping hand" is attempting to supplant?
>
No.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
John Johnson
"Christopher Adams" <mhacde...@spammity-spammity-spam.yahoo.com> wrote
in message news:CAXPb.23890$Wa.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Dan Tilque wrote:
> > Damien R. Sullivan wrote:
> >
> >> How about 'grok'? I met someone who'd tried to create a
> >> 'nest' in college, and probably someone uses the phrase "water-
> >> sharing" or whatever it was. (_Stranger in a Strange Land_)
> >> But grok is fairly common. I don't know if it filled a gap,
> >> but it fit some need.
> >
> > 'Grok' has sufficient usage that it's in some of the larger
> > dictionaries. It's rare in that it's an outright coinage, not
> > derived from any other word.
>
> I said it the other day, and instantly regretted it - I think it sounds so
> pretentious, but I couldn't think of another word at the time, for some
reason.
>
> I don't even like that novel.
I don't like the novel either, but the word is useful. I"ve seen it used
outside sfnal circles, but not often.
--
John Johnson
(To reply send email to smileyman2002 at hotmail.com)
Bill Woods
"The bottom line is, ..."?
Rev. Ed Blonski
Rev
Mark Atwood
>
> I don't like the novel either, but the word is useful. I"ve seen it used
> outside sfnal circles, but not often.
I mainly see it used in computer circles.
It's a *very* useful concept there, due to the need for the express
something deeper than just merely "understand".
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right,
m...@pobox.com | people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Wayne Throop
:::: already common phrase that means exactly the same thing.
::: So what phrase is it that "on the gripping hand" is attempting to supplant?
: Bill Woods <wwo...@popd.ix.netcom.com>
: "The bottom line is, ..."?
But that's not part of an idiomatic sequence. One might say,
"one the one hand [...] on the other hand [...] but on ballance [...]"
(or other similar such as "but the bottom line is"), but it's not
really a conclusion for a sequence. There is also "in the first
place [...] in the second place [...] in the third place [...]"
which might be followed up by a "but summing up" kind of phrase,
but it's not common use; normally the in the Nth place sequences
are all supporting one point rather than conflicting points.
So. All in all, I haven't really seen a summarizing "on ballance"
phrase used as part of a conventional sequence. Such uses exist,
but they are ad-hoc, just one doesn't predominate, and their apparance
after a "one hand, another hand" comparison is very rare. In my experience.
And once somebody mentions one, I'll go "D'OH!", and wonder why I didn't
remember it before, but that's for another post.
how...@brazee.net
On 21-Jan-2004, Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
> I don't think "gripping hand" is a great phrase, but it does have
> enough resonance that people use it in real life. And I doubt
> Niven/Pournelle even expected people to use it in real life. It's the
> sort of phrase which could catch on in the fictional world, where
> three-armed aliens have suddenly reified the old idiom-joke of "on the
> one hand, on the other hand, on the third hand".
Except Pournelle used in his Byte column. Often.
Dwight Thieme
The 'pip pop bam' exchange in Bester's TDM strikes my ear as fairly
plausible and fitting. Same for some of the gutter talk in TSMD by
the same author.
Duke of URL
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> radiated into the WorldWideWait:
> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> writes:
>
>> The topic has swerved slightly, which is inevitable, but I'll try
>> once to rebranch it back:
>>
>> What SF contains phrases or idioms which feel plausible *in the
>> world of the story*? What rings true as a phrase that those people
>> would keep handy in their vocabulary?
>
> And of course the Lensman universe is rife with this. "QX" is the
> really obvious one -- and one of the few that no origin story at all
> is given for.
Didn't QX come from the amateur shortwave operators?
Duke of URL
SkyeFire <skye...@aol.com> radiated into the WorldWideWait:
Oh my YES! It's going right into my collection!
Duke of URL
Dan Tilque <dti...@nwlink.com> radiated into the WorldWideWait:
> Damien R. Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Oh! Heinlein: TANSTAAFL, I think from TMIAHM. (There Ain't
>> No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.)
>> I don't know how many people *say* the phrase, but I see the
>> acronym used a fair bit.
>
> I believe the phrase actually came from some economist, I forget
> who. It predates Heinlein by a bit. But earlier forms were
> usually TINSTAAFL (There is no ...).
1922 saloon in Chicago. Can't recall the name. Carved wooden sign over
the bar (where they, of course, offered Free Lunches): "TANSTAAFL".
The owner had an evil sense of humor and wouldn't explain it to anyone
who asked about it. I recall this from one of my history texts.
Duke of URL
Christopher Adams <mhacde...@spammity-spammity-spam.yahoo.com>
radiated into the WorldWideWait:
> Dan Tilque wrote:
>> Damien R. Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>> How about 'grok'? I met someone who'd tried to create a
>>> 'nest' in college, and probably someone uses the phrase "water-
>>> sharing" or whatever it was. (_Stranger in a Strange Land_)
>>> But grok is fairly common. I don't know if it filled a gap,
>>> but it fit some need.
>>
>> 'Grok' has sufficient usage that it's in some of the larger
>> dictionaries. It's rare in that it's an outright coinage, not
>> derived from any other word.
>
> I said it the other day, and instantly regretted it - I think it
> sounds so pretentious, but I couldn't think of another word at the
> time, for some reason.
> I don't even like that novel.
It's an idiotic philosophy presented in the novel, true, but it had
some really good bits. I loved the Gambling Church, the conversations
between the dead people, and the idea of a Certified Witness. You
grok?
David Dyer-Bennet
All the Q-codes I know, or can find online, are 3 characters. And
none of the accompanying lists of other abbreviations (not Q-codes)
lists QX. But I'm not an amateur radio operator, so I dunno if they
actually use QX anyway.
Damien R. Sullivan
>What SF contains phrases or idioms which feel plausible *in the world
>of the story*? What rings true as a phrase that those people would
>keep handy in their vocabulary?
"Shards!" -- Pern
"Barrayarans!" -- Cordelia Naismith. Okay, pretty individual.
"By the Orb!" -- Dragaera. It's a magic-mechanical god.
"Death break me, darkness take me." -- Jame Talissen
I'll renominate "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be." Though
we don't know these are phrases.
Of course, any fantasy world with its own gods can swear by them; it's a cheap
way of making phrases. Swearing in general is cheap; at least the Hodgell
ones I picked go beyond that.
"Blood washes away sin." -- Bujold, presumably with real-world Christian
roots. This one is a real phrase, at least within that family, passed from
Cordelia to Bothari to Miles.
>Bonus points if it pithily conveys something about their culture to
>the reader. But I'm not (necessarily) looking for phrases that have
Whee! This is hard.
-xx- Damien X-)
Andrew Plotkin
Didn't know that.
Before or after _The Gripping Hand_ was published?
Andrew Plotkin
> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote in message news:<buotae$22h$2...@reader2.panix.com>...
> > The topic has swerved slightly, which is inevitable, but I'll try once
> > to rebranch it back:
> >
> > What SF contains phrases or idioms which feel plausible *in the world
> > of the story*? What rings true as a phrase that those people would
> > keep handy in their vocabulary?
> >
> > Bonus points if it pithily conveys something about their culture to
> > the reader. But I'm not (necessarily) looking for phrases that have
> > caught on in *our* world.
>
> plausible and fitting.
Oh, yes. Excellent example. The characters know it's lame but they do
it anyway, because... people are like that. :)
> Same for some of the gutter talk in TSMD by the same author.
--Z
Bill Westfield
of the story*? What rings true as a phrase that those people would
keep handy in their vocabulary?
I always thought Brunner did this quite well. Mucker. Skew. and of
course biological terms applied to computer software...
BillW
how...@brazee.net
On 22-Jan-2004, Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
> > Except Pournelle used in his Byte column. Often.
>
> Didn't know that.
>
> Before or after _The Gripping Hand_ was published?
I'm thinking both. But I could be wrong.
Gary R. Schmidt
> How about "F A B" from the TV show "The Thunderbirds"?
>
Wrong order, the "FAB" (Fully Acknowledged Broadcast as it is claimed on
an LP I used to have) came from the Swinging Sixties use of the word
"fab", i.e. SF as art being affected by real life.
Cheers,
Gary B-)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know
whether you were up them with or not
- Barry Humphries
Gazza
Yes that's a good one liner but that's not what I'm talking about. See
Heinlein's "The Moon Is Harsh Mistress" for a good example of what I'm
talking about. I never read a story where I've liked it when an author
does this, but that's just a matter of my taste more than anything.
Perhaps someone could point out some stories where they think it's
done well?
gary
Mike Schilling
"Gazza" <jeepy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i0n2105eq6e9vv1s0...@4ax.com...
_A Clockwork Orange_ is a classic example.
Wayne Throop
: "By the Orb!" -- Dragaera. It's a magic-mechanical god.
No no, the Orb can only be in once place at a time; the distinction
between gods and other extremely powerful beings/artifacts in the
Dragaeran setting (it is recently revealed by Sethra Lavode) is that
gods can be in more than one place at a time.
So, "It's a sorcerous semi-sentient spherical artifact with god-like power."
Sort of like Yama's correction that the Rakasha aren't actually demons,
in Lord of Light. A demon being an extremely powerful mystical maelific
disembodied creature with nigh-immortality, and the Rakasha are merely
extremely powerful maelific disembodied creatures with nigh-immortality.
Or something to that effect.
Craig Richardson
(Damien R. Sullivan) wrote:
>Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>
>>What SF contains phrases or idioms which feel plausible *in the world
>>of the story*? What rings true as a phrase that those people would
>>keep handy in their vocabulary?
>
>"Shards!" -- Pern
>"Barrayarans!" -- Cordelia Naismith. Okay, pretty individual.
>"By the Orb!" -- Dragaera. It's a magic-mechanical god.
The latter could theoretically also be a Beta Colony idiom, but it
would of course have a completely different set of implications...
--Craig
--
Craig Richardson (Homepage <http://crichard-tacoma.home.att.net>)
"Congressman Kucinich is holding up a pie chart, which is not truly
effective on radio." --NPR Pres. debate moderator Neal Conan
David M
> "John Johnson" <smileyman20...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> I don't like the novel either, but the word is useful. I"ve seen it used
>> outside sfnal circles, but not often.
> I mainly see it used in computer circles.
I see people use it, but I don't produce it.
-David
JXStern
>In article <92dc8db5.04012...@posting.google.com>,
>Justin A. Bacon <hamle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>What I'm Reading: THE GRIPPING HAND -- Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
>
>I don't expect too many defenders of this book.
Tough crowd. I liked it, give it maybe a B compared to an A- for Moat
(I've scanned that thread but that discussion seems to have run its
course, so I'll leave it at that).
If Grip does nothing else, it presents a bunch of fun gedanken
exercises from the Moat universe. It reopens the story in a creative
way. It drops some cute lines all the way through. It gives us a
rather human view of the Blain marriage (ok it's still rather
conceptual, but it's better than the storybook setup in Moat). It
even gives us a more PC resolution that Moat, coexistence through
biotech chemistry. Great STL battles and space tech. A better view
of how Motie society works. Frankly, I could use more on how
CoDominium society works.
Overall the writing is some of the best out of Niven (plus or minus
Pournelle) in decades.
>>Second, and in a similar vein, there's the clumsy and overwhelming
>>exposition.
>
>I point to this and the unnecessary story at the beginning, as
>evidence of the missing hand of Heinlein.
Aw, what's wrong with it? Maybe Moat could live without its
introduction because that was all space opera anyway and the book was
very long even without it. I found the opening chapters of Grip a
little thin, but I like the increasing scope of the story. And hey,
we know (that is, I assume) that Niven has been trying to write his
novels on a screenplay framework since the mid-1980's, not that it's
paid off (yet) in movies that have made it on-screen. I take it the
slow intro is a common screenwriting trope.
BTW I liked Ringworld Engineers, too, in just about this same (for the
fans, gedanken) mode, which is also just about the mode in which I
believe it was written.
>>Third, the entire work is plagued by inconsistencies and
>>contradictions.
>
>I agree that the writing was good if you overlook the glitches --
>exposition, digression, and Nivenisms -- but I couldn't buy the basic
>premise. As mentioned in text I cut, they disavow the premise of the
>earlier book.
I don't grok "retcon" which I guess is what this refers to. Whatever
it is, I think I already paid for it in my comments above.
I can live with the glitches, they may keep the book out of the
category of deathless literature, but what the heck.
I decided to chime in here because, well, I'm trying to figure out the
mindset of this criticism, which seems to draw a lot of agreement of
type, even if there's always variety on the details. It seems that
many posters here want to require a novel, even an sf novel, to read
as not just interesting, and not just credible with a suspension of
disbelief, and not just consistent given the premises, but great
literature to begin with, and not just consistent, but somehow
necessarily true and unassailable. I plain don't get it. Do I have
to burn all my Lensman books, or even any (ie, all) Niven books that
by some strange chance contain the (apparently) evil Nivenisms?
Joshua Stern
Justin Bacon
>I decided to chime in here because, well, I'm trying to figure out the
>mindset of this criticism,
Well, boiling my criticism of the novel down to its most basic level:
1. Too much exposition, most of it clumsily written.
2. Serious inconsistencies within the narrative, and even more inconsistencies
with the original work.
3. A poorly thought-out setting.
4. Cardboard characters.
Which explains why it's poorly written.
More importantly -- and perhaps I didn't emphasize this enough -- the book is
*boring*. The entire plot of the novel (from set-up to resolution) is dispensed
with in a single scene around page 100 and the rest of the novel is nothing but
sound and fury signifying nothing.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Wayne Throop
: I'm trying to figure out the mindset of this criticism, which seems to
: draw a lot of agreement of type, even if there's always variety on the
: details. It seems that many posters here want to require a novel,
: even an sf novel, to read as not just interesting, and not just
: credible with a suspension of disbelief, and not just consistent given
: the premises, but great literature to begin with, and not just
: consistent, but somehow necessarily true and unassailable. I plain
: don't get it. Do I have to burn all my Lensman books, or even any
: (ie, all) Niven books that by some strange chance contain the
: (apparently) evil Nivenisms?
Yes. Yes you must. Resistence is futons... uh fructose... uh futile!
(It's late, I'm tired, I'm hungry... oh, I give up.)
Steve Coltrin
> Frankly, I could use more on how CoDominium society works.
You probably mean Second Empire; the CoDominium is long dead by the
time of tMiGE/tGH. The only other Second Empire works I'm aware of
are Pournelle's _King David's Spaceship_ (previously _A Spaceship for
the King_) and "Motelight", the battle scene Heinlein told N&P to
shitcan from _Moat_.
If you _are_ thinking of the CoD, Baen recently reprinted four of P's
Falkenberg books (some co-written w/ S.M. Stirling) in hernia format.
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org WWVBF?
"God forbid that a child know what a member of the opposite sex looks
like naked before they're 13 and gangbanging each other in a back alley
after huffing paint." - drdoody
Nancy Lebovitz
I thought the slang in _The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress_ was plausible
and satisfying.
On the other hand, I got very tired of the slang in the Barne's _Duke
of Uranium_ books. This might actually be plausible for teen-aged
slang, though.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Now, with bumper stickers
Using your turn signal is not "giving information to the enemy"
Nancy Lebovitz
Christopher Adams <mhacde...@spammity-spammity-spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>Dan Tilque wrote:
>> Damien R. Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>> How about 'grok'? I met someone who'd tried to create a
>>> 'nest' in college, and probably someone uses the phrase "water-
>>> sharing" or whatever it was. (_Stranger in a Strange Land_)
>>> But grok is fairly common. I don't know if it filled a gap,
>>> but it fit some need.
>>
>> 'Grok' has sufficient usage that it's in some of the larger
>> dictionaries. It's rare in that it's an outright coinage, not
>> derived from any other word.
>
>I said it the other day, and instantly regretted it - I think it sounds so
>pretentious, but I couldn't think of another word at the time, for some reason.
>
>I don't even like that novel.
You have been assimilated.
JXStern
wrote:
>You probably mean Second Empire; the CoDominium is long dead by the
>time of tMiGE/tGH.
Oops, yeah.
>If you _are_ thinking of the CoD, Baen recently reprinted four of P's
>Falkenberg books (some co-written w/ S.M. Stirling) in hernia format.
Only glanced at those over the years, and would rather leave it at
that.
J.
Justin McGuire
na...@unix5.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
> In article <CAXPb.23890$Wa.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Christopher Adams <mhacde...@spammity-spammity-spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Dan Tilque wrote:
> >> Damien R. Sullivan wrote:
> >>
> >>> How about 'grok'? I met someone who'd tried to create a
> >>> 'nest' in college, and probably someone uses the phrase "water-
> >>> sharing" or whatever it was. (_Stranger in a Strange Land_)
> >>> But grok is fairly common. I don't know if it filled a gap,
> >>> but it fit some need.
> >>
> >> 'Grok' has sufficient usage that it's in some of the larger
> >> dictionaries. It's rare in that it's an outright coinage, not
> >> derived from any other word.
> >
> >I said it the other day, and instantly regretted it - I think it sounds so
> >pretentious, but I couldn't think of another word at the time, for some reason.
> >
> >I don't even like that novel.
>
> You have been assimilated.
May the force be with you.
--
Please remove "stop" from my email address to reply.
William December Starr
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:
>> I was sick to death of reading "on the gripping hand" by the end
>> of that book. I'm glad I've yet to have the misfortune of reading
>> it anywhere else. [Mike Ward (I think)]
>
> I've used it. I try to keep it from becoming a habit. It's
> sometimes useful as a three-part "pro, con, on balance" idiom.
I prefer "the one hand," "the other hand" and "the other other hand."
Of course, I'm of the group that would prefer "the one hand, the
other hand and glrpp mnock fnipshle" to that gawdawful "gripping
hand" construction.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Doug Muir
> Tough crowd.
I wouldn't say so. Look how many people here are willing to rise to
the defense of... say... Weber's Honor Harrington books. Hell, I'm
willing to defend the first three or four Anita Blake books myself.
> It reopens the story in a creative
> way.
At the end of Mote, we're left wondering if there might be a way to
find a solution.
Early in Moat, we're given the solution. (It turns out to be an
upgrade of the partial solution given in Mote.) The solution is then,
after a great deal of rather pointless running around in circles,
applied.
There are words I'd apply to this, but "creative" isn't really doing
it for me.
> even gives us a more PC resolution that Moat, coexistence through
> biotech chemistry.
Nobody has yet bothered to point out that there are fairly large
problems with this. Probably because people who like the book don't
spot it, and those who hate it have so many other things to hate.
But: there are fairly large problems with this. Here's one: what if
some Moties are resistant? In a few generations they'll outbreed the
rest and then we're back to square one.
Here's another: what if some decide they /want/ to be resistant, or
better yet never infected in the first place? (And what about those
Moties who escaped from the breakout? They never got infected.)
Here's a third: what's going to be done with the really dangerous
Motie castes? I can just barely believe that we might manage to kill
off all the Warriors. (Though that right there is genocide.) I don't
believe for a moment that we'll catch all the Watchmakers.
Long-term Motie-human coexistence doesn't actually seem all that
stable to me. The Moties are smarter than us, they can breed much
faster if they want to, and they're unsentimental and brutal realists
shaped by millions of years of really vicious competition. Is this
really such a good idea?
> Overall the writing is some of the best out of Niven (plus or minus
> Pournelle) in decades.
I couldn't disagree more. I found the writing painfully clunky. Way
too much exposition, much of it very crude "As you know, Bob".
> Aw, what's wrong with it?
I got really tired of being told that Renner and wossname were the
Empire's best intelligence agents. (The authors repeated this in the
exact same words, literally five or six times throughout the book.)
We never once saw them doing anything consistent with this
description; Renner, most particularly, behaves like an idiot
throughout. And the "mystery" in the first chapter... oh, boy.
"Everyone on this planet is using an idiom that's Motie-derived!
There must be Moties here! We might have to nuke them all from
orbit!"
"Wait, the governor was part of the first expedition. He picked up
the idiom in the Mote system, and everyone copied him because he's,
y'know, governor."
"Oh, okay then."
I remember reading that and thinking, /this is the sound of a reader's
intelligence being insulted./
> BTW I liked Ringworld Engineers, too, in just about this same (for the
> fans, gedanken) mode, which is also just about the mode in which I
> believe it was written.
Engineers was OK. It suffered largely from being a full-force attempt
to retcon the Protectors onto the Ringworld. A questionable idea, but
at least an ambitious one; under the circumstances, it did OK.
(Though I'm still rolling my eyes at the vampires.)
Ringworld Throne, now...
> many posters here want to require a novel, even an sf novel, to read
> as not just interesting, and not just credible with a suspension of
> disbelief, and not just consistent given the premises, but great
> literature to begin with, and not just consistent, but somehow
> necessarily true and unassailable.
Nope, not so. Straw man argument.
Most of us are perfectly willing to accept books that are flawed in
one way or another. I don't believe in the society in _The Moon is a
Harsh Mistress_ for one moment, for instance, but I'm still quite fond
of it.
Or, to give a more relevant example: I don't really believe in /any/
of Niven's societies. People say hey're all way too much like an
idealized upper middle class Southern California, and y'know what?
They're right. But that doesn't stop me from enjoying, say, _A Gift
from Earth_. It's not credible with suspension of disbelief, it's not
great literature, but it's still fun.
> I plain don't get it. Do I have
> to burn all my Lensman books, or even any (ie, all) Niven books that
> by some strange chance contain the (apparently) evil Nivenisms?
Mileage varies. Me, I doubt I'll ever read the Lensman books again
except as period pieces, and I won't have the time for that very soon
(small children, job).
But about half of the Niven ouevre is still in my bookshelf. Nothing
short of the threat of imminent painful force applied to me or my
loved ones could make me pick up, say, _Oath of Fealty_ or _The
Ringworld Engineers_ again; but I'll cheerfully reread _A Gift from
Earth_. Or the stories in _Neutron Star_, even though they're all
obsolete.
So, no, I really don't think that the problem is with us readers.
Doug M.
James Bodi
sigi...@yahoo.com (Doug Muir) wrote:
>JXStern <JXSternC...@gte.net> wrote
>
>> Tough crowd.
>
>I wouldn't say so. Look how many people here are willing to rise to
>the defense of... say... Weber's Honor Harrington books. Hell, I'm
>willing to defend the first three or four Anita Blake books myself.
>
>
>> It reopens the story in a creative
>> way.
>
>At the end of Mote, we're left wondering if there might be a way to
>find a solution.
>
>Early in Moat, we're given the solution. (It turns out to be an
>upgrade of the partial solution given in Mote.) The solution is then,
>after a great deal of rather pointless running around in circles,
>applied.
>
>There are words I'd apply to this, but "creative" isn't really doing
>it for me.
--- Yup. They could have covered it in a page or two and written 400 pages
of really good stuff on the adventures of the first human G.G, which would
be an excuse for an extended tour of Mote Prime and the rest of the system.
>
>
>> even gives us a more PC resolution that Moat, coexistence through
>> biotech chemistry.
>
>Nobody has yet bothered to point out that there are fairly large
>problems with this. Probably because people who like the book don't
>spot it, and those who hate it have so many other things to hate.
>
--- I've done so, but not on this thread.
>But: there are fairly large problems with this. Here's one: what if
>some Moties are resistant? In a few generations they'll outbreed the
>rest and then we're back to square one.
>
>Here's another: what if some decide they /want/ to be resistant, or
>better yet never infected in the first place? (And what about those
>Moties who escaped from the breakout? They never got infected.)
--- Exactly. How long will it take for some of the Moties allowed out of
the system escape from Imperial control? It's stated that they're behind
humans in genetic engineering (?!) but that won't last more than an hour
or two. They'll be able to turn off the worm pretty quickly, and then head
off for the frontier, ally with Outies, breed Warrior hordes ... I give the
Empire a century, max, and human civilization another century beyond that.
>
>Here's a third: what's going to be done with the really dangerous
>Motie castes? I can just barely believe that we might manage to kill
>off all the Warriors. (Though that right there is genocide.) I don't
>believe for a moment that we'll catch all the Watchmakers.
--- If I were a Motie master, I'd hollow out an asteroid, fill it full of
all the castes but watchmakers and warriors, and head far, far away, hoping
to establish myself as distant from the 'galaxy of cycles' as possible.
I'd take as much info on genetic engineering and the Sauron cyborgs as possible
and try to re-invent Moties on the way ...
>
>Long-term Motie-human coexistence doesn't actually seem all that
>stable to me. The Moties are smarter than us, they can breed much
>faster if they want to, and they're unsentimental and brutal realists
>shaped by millions of years of really vicious competition. Is this
>really such a good idea?
---- Indeed. Even if they can't ditch the worm, even a few Engineers and
Warriors could make a human Outie system more than a match for the Empire.
And why shouldn't they?
>
>
>> Overall the writing is some of the best out of Niven (plus or minus
>> Pournelle) in decades.
>
>I couldn't disagree more. I found the writing painfully clunky. Way
>too much exposition, much of it very crude "As you know, Bob".
---- And they don't seem to have a grip on how an aristocratic society works.
Not to mention the horrors of 'rape my lizard'.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Justin Bacon
>> I've used it. I try to keep it from becoming a habit. It's
>> sometimes useful as a three-part "pro, con, on balance" idiom.
>
>I prefer "the one hand," "the other hand" and "the other other hand."
Except that construction doesn't mean the same thing. That's like saying, "I
prefer using the word 'orange' when I'm referring to apples."
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
"I like the Orcs... They're my kind of people." -Mark Hughes
Justin Bacon
>Early in Moat, we're given the solution. (It turns out to be an
>upgrade of the partial solution given in Mote.) The solution is then,
>after a great deal of rather pointless running around in circles,
>applied.
And the solution isn't even a clever one. It's just a miracle drug whipped up
offstage. Plus:
"Well, after a couple of decades of research, we've managed to whip up a
miracle drug that the Moties failed to discover after millions of years."
How, exactly? What unique insight, exactly, was brought to the table that
allowed this incredible breakthrough?
(And, actually, there's a rather strong implication that it took them *less*
than a decade. They used the drug to prolong the life of somebody who wasn't
supposed to live more then ten years in the first book.)
I agree with everything you said, but I wanted to expand on this particular
facet.
Wayne Throop
: tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon)
: Except that construction doesn't mean the same thing. That's like
: saying, "I prefer using the word 'orange' when I'm referring to apples."
Yes, "other other" connotes co-equality, which "gripping" doesn't.
(At least, that's what I think I'm agreeing with.)
On the one hand <turn right hand palm up>, mumble.
On the other hand <turn left hand palm up>, grumble.
On ballance <make ballance-scales gesture with palm-up hands> mutter mutter.
Brandon
James Bodi wrote:
>
>
> --- Yup. They could have covered it in a page or two and written 400 pages
> of really good stuff on the adventures of the first human G.G, which would
> be an excuse for an extended tour of Mote Prime and the rest of the system.
That would've been cool.
What really irked me about the book was the way major
characters were introduced, built up so that you got to like
them and be interested in them -- and then they just
vanished. I'm thinking of Ruth(?) -- the Navy officer who
appears early in the book, jumps Renner's bones, and then
just walks off stage. If she served a purpose in advancing
the plot, I was unable to discern what it was.
> >
> >I couldn't disagree more. I found the writing painfully clunky. Way
> >too much exposition, much of it very crude "As you know, Bob".
>
> ---- And they don't seem to have a grip on how an aristocratic society works.
In "The Gripping Hand" this was certainly true. What made
it especially painful is that in "Mote" they *did* seem to
have some idea about how it worked -- the whole lecture
about how duties come with the privileges, and that
sometimes the burden of those duties can be extremely heavy
worked very well for me. There was none of that depth in
"The Gripping Hand".
I also did not recognize the Empire of TGH as being
descended from "Mote". I understand that social customs can
change very rapidly, but this was only a period of some 20
years. Granted, in 20 years we went from Bob Hope to
Woodstock, but I would still have expected that at least
some of the older characters would have at least noticed
(and be complaining about) the vast social changes between
the two books. But they didn't seem to be aware of it.
> Not to mention the horrors of 'rape my lizard'.
I took it as a cleaned up version of "fuck a duck", but
you're right -- it was too precious for words.
--
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable
from malice. -- seen on Usenet, 10/22/03 (with apologies to
Arthur C. Clarke)
Wayne Throop
:: Early in Moat, we're given the solution. (It turns out to be an
:: upgrade of the partial solution given in Mote.) The solution is then,
:: after a great deal of rather pointless running around in circles,
:: applied.
: tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon)
: And the solution isn't even a clever one. It's just a miracle drug
: whipped up offstage. Plus: "Well, after a couple of decades of
: research, we've managed to whip up a miracle drug that the Moties
: failed to discover after millions of years." How, exactly? What
: unique insight, exactly, was brought to the table that allowed this
: incredible breakthrough?
Further, my remembory tells me I was very disgruntled while reading tGH
because they didn't solve the problem as outlines at the end of tMiGE.
Specifically, iirc the Moties mentioned that they themselves (or some
Crazie Eddies) *had* invented birth control, but even with the best
negotiations by the best Mediators, if everybody agreed to use it,
somebody somewhere would try to out-breed their neighbors, and the
neighbors would retaliate, etc, etc. Same with banning Warriors. Same
with the lightsail project for that matter (though in that case, some
Mediators were after a side effect of the expected result). In short,
birth control is an unstable solution. Moties are just too prone to
play "defect" in the game of "prisoner's dilemma".
So. The solution presented in otGH was explicitly stated unworkable
in the prior work. This didn't make for satisfying reading for me.
: I agree with everything you said,
: but I wanted to expand on this particular facet.
ditto
: "I like the Orcs... They're my kind of people." -Mark Hughes
"I like the Orcs... they're crunchy and nutritious." -- Smaug
James Bodi
Brandon <jch...@avalon.net> wrote:
>
>
>James Bodi wrote:
>>
>>
>> --- Yup. They could have covered it in a page or two and written 400
pages
>> of really good stuff on the adventures of the first human G.G, which would
>> be an excuse for an extended tour of Mote Prime and the rest of the system.
>
>That would've been cool.
>
>What really irked me about the book was the way major
>characters were introduced, built up so that you got to like
>them and be interested in them -- and then they just
>vanished. I'm thinking of Ruth(?) -- the Navy officer who
>appears early in the book, jumps Renner's bones, and then
>just walks off stage. If she served a purpose in advancing
>the plot, I was unable to discern what it was.
----True, and they stuck us with yutzes like Renner and that reporter bimbo
for the whole thing.
>
>> >
>> >I couldn't disagree more. I found the writing painfully clunky. Way
>> >too much exposition, much of it very crude "As you know, Bob".
>>
>> ---- And they don't seem to have a grip on how an aristocratic society
works.
>
>In "The Gripping Hand" this was certainly true. What made
>it especially painful is that in "Mote" they *did* seem to
>have some idea about how it worked -- the whole lecture
>about how duties come with the privileges, and that
>sometimes the burden of those duties can be extremely heavy
>worked very well for me. There was none of that depth in
>"The Gripping Hand".
---- Good point. I was struck by this too. I blame Niven, who can't seem
to get his head out of SoCal.
>
>I also did not recognize the Empire of TGH as being
>descended from "Mote". I understand that social customs can
>change very rapidly, but this was only a period of some 20
>years. Granted, in 20 years we went from Bob Hope to
>Woodstock, but I would still have expected that at least
>some of the older characters would have at least noticed
>(and be complaining about) the vast social changes between
>the two books. But they didn't seem to be aware of it.
--- Agreed, again. Someone mentions that the Empire seems less efficient,
but no-one wonders why this would happen immediately after a grave threat
to mankind emerged, or care.
>
>> Not to mention the horrors of 'rape my lizard'.
>
>I took it as a cleaned up version of "fuck a duck", but
>you're right -- it was too precious for words.
>
>
>
>--
>Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable
>from malice. -- seen on Usenet, 10/22/03 (with apologies to
>Arthur C. Clarke)
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
John F. Carr
>
>What really irked me about the book was the way major
>characters were introduced, built up so that you got to like
>them and be interested in them -- and then they just
>vanished. I'm thinking of Ruth(?) -- the Navy officer who
>appears early in the book, jumps Renner's bones, and then
>just walks off stage. If she served a purpose in advancing
>the plot, I was unable to discern what it was.
And the pair of rich couples who were flitting around in the
yacht. They needed more or less time on stage.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Karl Johanson
news:7aa778f0.0402...@posting.google.com...
> JXStern <JXSternC...@gte.net> wrote
>
> > Tough crowd.
>
> I wouldn't say so. Look how many people here are willing to rise to
> the defense of... say... Weber's Honor Harrington books. Hell, I'm
> willing to defend the first three or four Anita Blake books myself.
>
>
> > It reopens the story in a creative
> > way.
>
> At the end of Mote, we're left wondering if there might be a way to
> find a solution.
>
> Early in Moat, we're given the solution. (It turns out to be an
> upgrade of the partial solution given in Mote.) The solution is then,
> after a great deal of rather pointless running around in circles,
> applied.
>
> There are words I'd apply to this, but "creative" isn't really doing
> it for me.
>
>
> > even gives us a more PC resolution that Moat, coexistence through
> > biotech chemistry.
>
> Nobody has yet bothered to point out that there are fairly large
> problems with this. Probably because people who like the book don't
> spot it, and those who hate it have so many other things to hate.
>
> But: there are fairly large problems with this. Here's one: what if
> some Moties are resistant? In a few generations they'll outbreed the
> rest and then we're back to square one.
The Moties themselves point out that principle in the first book. It's part
of why they considered birth control a Crazy Eddy idea.
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
news:20040201172547...@mb-m05.aol.com...
> Doug Muir wrote:
> >Early in Moat, we're given the solution. (It turns out to be an
> >upgrade of the partial solution given in Mote.) The solution is then,
> >after a great deal of rather pointless running around in circles,
> >applied.
>
> And the solution isn't even a clever one. It's just a miracle drug whipped
up
> offstage. Plus:
>
> "Well, after a couple of decades of research, we've managed to whip up a
> miracle drug that the Moties failed to discover after millions of years."
>
> How, exactly? What unique insight, exactly, was brought to the table that
> allowed this incredible breakthrough?
30th century technology (or whenever it was the story is supposed to take
place) and the lack of the notion that it was impossible and/or pointless
before they started.
Karl Johanson
Coyu
> Engineers was OK. It suffered largely from being a full-force attempt
> to retcon the Protectors onto the Ringworld. A questionable idea, but
> at least an ambitious one; under the circumstances, it did OK.
> (Though I'm still rolling my eyes at the vampires.)
I am pretty sure that Niven wrote _Ringworld_ with the Protectors
firmly in mind. Which, in my opinion, lowers the quality of the
retcon of _The Ringworld Engineers_ even further.
> Ringworld Throne, now...
And another one down the pipeline. There is no Highlander 2.
Man, the writer of the sequel to _The Mote in God's Eye_ should
have been Alexander Jablokov; and it should have been a dark,
dark, fuliginous book. But hey, human culture should survive!
Though human descendants, probably not.
Anyone read _Down the Bright Way_, by Robert Reed? I have the
feeling he once thought along similar lines.
C.
John F. Carr
Coyu <co...@aol.com> wrote:
>Doug Muir wrote:
>
>> Engineers was OK. It suffered largely from being a full-force attempt
>> to retcon the Protectors onto the Ringworld. A questionable idea, but
>> at least an ambitious one; under the circumstances, it did OK.
>> (Though I'm still rolling my eyes at the vampires.)
>
>I am pretty sure that Niven wrote _Ringworld_ with the Protectors
>firmly in mind.
He says so in an essay, and that he decided to let Louis Wu
reach the wrong conclusion.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Justin Bacon
>> "Well, after a couple of decades of research, we've managed to whip up a
>> miracle drug that the Moties failed to discover after millions of years."
>>
>> How, exactly? What unique insight, exactly, was brought to the table that
>> allowed this incredible breakthrough?
>
>30th century technology (or whenever it was the story is supposed to take
>place) and the lack of the notion that it was impossible and/or pointless
>before they started.
Except the Moties explicitly have superior technology and have tried to
accomplish precisely this on multiple occasions. The best they ever managed to
come up with was something that rendered the Motie sterile and shortened their
lifespan (IIRC from the first book).
I mean, there's all sorts of ways that this can be effectively handwaved. (For
example, the Empire had access to a far broader set of biospheres to draw
models from.) But they didn't even try.
Which kind of sums up my impression of the whole book: It just doesn't feel
like they were trying.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Karl Johanson
> Engineers was OK. It suffered largely from being a full-force attempt
> to retcon the Protectors onto the Ringworld. A questionable idea, but
> at least an ambitious one; under the circumstances, it did OK.
> (Though I'm still rolling my eyes at the vampires.)
The suggestion was that the Vampires were gelfs, enginered (or bred) to
protect the repair center. When one turned protector, that protector spread
them about.
> But about half of the Niven ouevre is still in my bookshelf. Nothing
> short of the threat of imminent painful force applied to me or my
> loved ones could make me pick up, say, _Oath of Fealty
I didn't get to that one a second time myself.
>_ or _The Ringworld Engineers_ again;
Tastes differ. I've read it a few times. Rainbow Mars didn't do it for me.
>but I'll cheerfully reread _A Gift from
> Earth_.
I liked the mining worms.
>Or the stories in _Neutron Star_, even though they're all
> obsolete.
*spoilers*
Asimov also had a short story which (like the coldest place) depended on
Mercury being tidally locked as well. He commented on it being inaccurate
later, when it was discovered that Mercury does rotate. He said he didn't
see the point in changing the story. At the same time, I like that Clarke
accounted for things we learned about the Jovian system, in the 2001
sequels.
Karl Johanson
William December Starr
Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> said:
> begin dt...@ida.org (David Tate) writes:
>
>> Herebelow follows an exerpt of all the important parts of THE
>> GRIPPING HAND:
>>
>> "Crottled greep."
>
> And if you've read _Footfall_, you've already read that scene,
> under a different set of forged papers.
Huh? Forged papers? Wha?
Steve Coltrin
> In article <87oeswh...@hrothgar.omcl.org>,
> Steve Coltrin <spco...@omcl.org> said:
>
>> begin dt...@ida.org (David Tate) writes:
>>
>>> Herebelow follows an exerpt of all the important parts of THE
>>> GRIPPING HAND:
>>>
>>> "Crottled greep."
>>
>> And if you've read _Footfall_, you've already read that scene,
>> under a different set of forged papers.
>
> Huh? Forged papers? Wha?
N&P fictionalized the Speaker-to-Seafood incident in both books.
In _Footfall_, they didn't even change _who_ perpetrated it, just
filed off the serial numbers.
Karl Johanson
> Karl Johanson wrote:
> >> "Well, after a couple of decades of research, we've managed to whip up
a
> >> miracle drug that the Moties failed to discover after millions of
years."
> >>
> >> How, exactly? What unique insight, exactly, was brought to the table
that
> >> allowed this incredible breakthrough?
> >
> >30th century technology (or whenever it was the story is supposed to take
> >place) and the lack of the notion that it was impossible and/or pointless
> >before they started.
>
> Except the Moties explicitly have superior technology
In many cases. they also make the point that they often don't keep their
technology. On Gripping Hand the engineers take a human built waste
reprocessor, look at it to see if they can improve on it, then decide they
can't.
>and have tried to
> accomplish precisely this on multiple occasions. The best they ever
managed to
> come up with was something that rendered the Motie sterile and shortened
their
> lifespan (IIRC from the first book).
Or infantacide.
> I mean, there's all sorts of ways that this can be effectively handwaved.
(For
> example, the Empire had access to a far broader set of biospheres to draw
> models from.) But they didn't even try.
>
> Which kind of sums up my impression of the whole book: It just doesn't
feel
> like they were trying.
Yes, the Moties weren't strongly motivated to to come up with a viable birth
control system.
Karl Johanson
Doug Muir
> > (Though I'm still rolling my eyes at the vampires.)
>
> The suggestion was that the Vampires were gelfs, enginered (or bred) to
> protect the repair center. When one turned protector, that protector spread
> them about.
I don't remember reading that, but then I've blocked a lot of that
book from my memory.
> Rainbow Mars didn't do it for me.
Does anybody know why they put the novella _first_ in that collection?
It was last both in order of writing *and* internal chronology -- and
it didn't make a lick of sense to the new reader; you needed to read
the other short stories first to have /any/ idea what was going on.
That was just so whack.
> >Or the stories in _Neutron Star_, even though they're all
> > obsolete.
>
> *spoilers*
> Asimov also had a short story which (like the coldest place) depended on
> Mercury being tidally locked as well.
That's _Tales from Known Space_, not _Neutron Star_. Though NS is
also much afflicted by obsolete astrophysics, improbable physics, and
people from Southern California.
Doug M.
Justin Bacon
> > I mean, there's all sorts of ways that this can be effectively handwaved.
> > (For example, the Empire had access to a far broader set of biospheres to
> > draw models from.) But they didn't even try.
> >
> > Which kind of sums up my impression of the whole book: It just doesn't
> > feel like they were trying.
>
> Yes, the Moties weren't strongly motivated to to come up with a viable birth
> control system.
I was, of course, referring to Niven and Pournelle here, but you knew
that.
And your claim that the Moties weren't strongly motivated in this
regard is explicitly contradicted in the books on multiple occasions.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Niall McAuley
I think what he said was that it had to be Pak protectors if
all the Known Space stuff is to be considered, but he didn't
want to get into that in "Ringworld", so he didn't.
However, I think the reason Niven didn't want to get into it is
that it makes absolutely no sense for the Pak to have built the
Ringworld. In fact the Pak's alleged relationship to humanity
is even stupider than the physics blooper "The Ringworld Engineers"
was written to fix up, so dragging all of that into the story makes
things worse.
--
Niall [real address ends in com, not moc.invalid]
Karl Johanson
There are examples of that in the book, thank you. Many of the mediators are
so motivated, but they wern't giving the orders.
Karl Johanson
Captain Button
> In news:1010d3d...@corp.supernews.com,
> Dan Tilque <dti...@nwlink.com> radiated into the WorldWideWait:
>> Damien R. Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>> Oh! Heinlein: TANSTAAFL, I think from TMIAHM. (There Ain't
>>> No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.)
>>> I don't know how many people *say* the phrase, but I see the
>>> acronym used a fair bit.
>>
>> I believe the phrase actually came from some economist, I forget
>> who. It predates Heinlein by a bit. But earlier forms were
>> usually TINSTAAFL (There is no ...).
> 1922 saloon in Chicago. Can't recall the name. Carved wooden sign over
> the bar (where they, of course, offered Free Lunches): "TANSTAAFL".
> The owner had an evil sense of humor and wouldn't explain it to anyone
> who asked about it. I recall this from one of my history texts.
They've been collecting cites for TANSTAAFL over at the "Science Fiction
Citations for the OED" website. They'd probably be interested in
hearing from you if you can recall which book it was in.
http://www.jessesword.com/SF/sf.shtml
(scroll or search down to "tanstaafl")
Heinlein supposedly heard it from Jerry Pournelle, who says he got it
from his father in the 1930s. There is a cite for the form TINSTAAFL
from 1952 which refers to it as "famous".
IIRC, Alistair Cooke attributed a different phrasing of the same idea
to an old immigrant in his TV series "America".
Other links of interest:
http://www.bartleby.com/66/8/3608.html
(Says the phrase has been dated to the 1840s.)
http://www.yale.edu/yup/qyd/media.html
(Search for "TINSTAAFL".)
--
Once is happenstance.
Twice is coincidence.
Four times is enemy action.
BOMB MARS NOW! [ Captain Button - but...@io.com ]
Captain Button
I'm going to quote an old post of mine that addresses many of the points
raised in this thread:
>>>
In Mote, the Empire of Man had to face a potentially powerful alien
species with all the resources of a star system, all alone. And if they
demanded surrender, they had no solution to the base population problem.
In Hand, the Empire has to face part of the space based Moties, with
another part of the space based Moties as allies. Mote Prime with all
its resources is out of the picture, due to civilization collapse [1].
The Empire of Man will rule the Mote System the way the British
Empire ruled India. With native troops, backed up by the Imperial
Navy as a tie-breaker [2]. And since the whole system will be
under the control of Imperial allies, there is no outside
to overbreed and overwhelm [3].
And forcing Moties to restrict their breeding with the Worm is
going to be a lot easier for them to accept than starvation or
mass infanticide.
As to the "breed up in secret" tactic, this will be a lot harder
when the Imperial-allied Moties have unlimited rights of inspection,
especially since other Moties are harder to fool than humans.
As to the "Who watches the watchers?" problem, the answer is that
the Imperial Navy does, so if their allies don't restrain growth
they will switch to allying with some faction that will.
Is the plan perfect and certain to work? No. Nothing ever is.
But as shown, it isn't hopeless.
In the long term, everything depends on if the base Motie culture
is as static and unvarying as Moties think it is. After a couple
of slow-growth generations will Moties undergo a change in
basic cultural attitude? If the basic "genocidal warfare is
inevitable in the long run" assumption persists, it will of course
become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
[1] Although this raises a different question as to why the space
based Moties don't recolonize Mote Prime, slaughtering the low-tech
natives with advanced weapons. It worked in North America. Maybe
the groundhog Moties have too many nasty diseases that the space
Moties can't or won't deal with?
[2] Which admittedly gets us back to the "too much like the
British feudal system of the 19th century" [A] criticism.
[3] And IIRC, Moties were not going to be allowed to leave
the Mote system to settle in other systems. They would just
get raw materials shipped in as trade for Motie technology.
[A] Yes, I know that 19th century Britain wasn't feudal. Tell
that to the people who always complain about Mote and Hand as
endorsing high tech feudalism.
<<<
http://google.com/groups?selm=k5Oe8.217399$d34.15...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com
Some other comments:
Watchmakers are not a big problem as long as they don't get out
of the Mote system. Like rats on earth, you can never get rid
of them all but there are well known ways to control them.
Renner does notice and comment on changing attitudes in the
aristocracy during a scene in a Spartan restaurant. And the
muckraking reporter has certainly noticed the increase in corruption
in the blockade fleet.
(I don't recall enough details about Bury's explanation of his change
of attitude towards the Empire to say if it was due to him seeing a
change in the Imperials or just a change in his perception of them.)
Justin Bacon
Yes, there are many examples of the Moties being strongly motivated in
this regard. Thank you for agreeing with me.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
EdLincoln
s short stories but I think his novels generally don't live up to the potential
of his short stories. The problem with _The Gripping Hand_ is one that is
common in science fiction literature. The author went out of his way to set up
why a problem was insoluble. He succeeded. Unfortunately, he succeeded too
well, so when he solved the problem, the solution did not seem belieavable.
<< Subject: Re: WIR 18: The Gripping Hand -- Niven and Pournelle
From: sigi...@yahoo.com (Doug Muir)
Date: Sun, Feb 1, 2004 9:05 AM
Message-id: <7aa778f0.0402...@posting.google.com>
JXStern <JXSternC...@gte.net> wrote
> Tough crowd.
"Oh, okay then."
Ringworld Throne, now...
Doug M.
>><BR><BR>
EdLincoln
them from thinking the problem could be solved. This might have evolved.
Natural Selection weeded out the Moties who could think clearly or voluntarily
use birth control. Any Moties who invented it would not have been able to
force everyone to use it, and would have probably not used it on themselves.
Humans from outside with an overwhelming militarysuperiority created by having
the resources of many planets to call on could force EVERYONE to take it under
threat of genocide, use the "carrot" of interstellar colonisation, and would
not be tempted to not use the treatment on themselves and breed out of control.
Of course, this implies that the idea would only work with complete, utter,
ruthless human subjegation of the Motie system, by a government that would be
willing to nuke the whole system, rescue a few compliant Moties, and start over
with them.
Contrary to sevel posts, the Moties are NOT smarter than humans. They are
highly evolved specialists, superior in the areas they are specialized for
(mechanical engineering).
I still don't QUITE believe the solution.
<< Subject: Re: WIR 18: The Gripping Hand -- Niven and Pournelle
From: "Karl Johanson" karljo...@shaw.ca
Date: Sun, Feb 1, 2004 11:16 PM
Message-id: <takTb.372912$X%5.210537@pd7tw2no> >><BR><BR>
<<
> How, exactly? What unique insight, exactly, was brought to the table that
> allowed this incredible breakthrough?
30th century technology (or whenever it was the story is supposed to take
place) and the lack of the notion that it was impossible and/or pointless
before they started.
>><BR><BR>
Damien R. Sullivan
>I think what he said was that it had to be Pak protectors if
>all the Known Space stuff is to be considered, but he didn't
>want to get into that in "Ringworld", so he didn't.
>
>However, I think the reason Niven didn't want to get into it is
>that it makes absolutely no sense for the Pak to have built the
>Ringworld. In fact the Pak's alleged relationship to humanity
>is even stupider than the physics blooper "The Ringworld Engineers"
>was written to fix up, so dragging all of that into the story makes
>things worse.
it's fixable. lone tnuctip comes out of stasis not far from earth a few
million years ago. feels lonely, adapts local hominids to be its supersmart
bodyguards. smell of tnuctip makes protectors obedient. happy tnuctip makes
Ringworld for fun, sticks control room beneath Mars as a joke. tnuctip goes
away somewhere, leaving breeding colony of pak near Core, for no clear reason.
maybe it was looking for something thataway. wouldn't leave Pak on earth,
might contaminate its source supply.
later, some childless protectors reconstruct clues in the Library, manage to
end up where they came from. TiO2 tree of life dependence was inserted by
tnuctip to prevent such escapes. happy tnunctip, sad pak. humans maybe
descended from pak, maybe from original hominids. doesn't matter, virus
rewrites genes anyway.
brennan-monster really smart, but knows zero biology, doesn't know about
tnuctip, gets it all wrong.
-xx- Damien X-)
Johnny1A
>
> Here's a third: what's going to be done with the really dangerous
> Motie castes? I can just barely believe that we might manage to kill
> off all the Warriors. (Though that right there is genocide.) I don't
> believe for a moment that we'll catch all the Watchmakers.
To make it worse, Watchmakers are like uber-rats. If there is any
regular traffic between the Mote System and the outside galaxy,
they're _sure_ to get out, even if the other castes don't.
Watchmakers turned loose on a high-tech world would potentially be a
disaster on the scale of a nuclear exchange.
>
> Long-term Motie-human coexistence doesn't actually seem all that
> stable to me. The Moties are smarter than us, they can breed much
> faster if they want to, and they're unsentimental and brutal realists
> shaped by millions of years of really vicious competition. Is this
> really such a good idea?
It's a horrible idea. The tragic element of MIGE was that, from a
coldly objective POV, _Kutuzov and Bury are right_. The existence of
the Moties constitutes an _inherent_ threat to the continued survival
of H. sapiens.
Shermanlee
Johnny1A
> Doug Muir wrote:
>
> > Engineers was OK. It suffered largely from being a full-force attempt
> > to retcon the Protectors onto the Ringworld. A questionable idea, but
> > at least an ambitious one; under the circumstances, it did OK.
> > (Though I'm still rolling my eyes at the vampires.)
>
> I am pretty sure that Niven wrote _Ringworld_ with the Protectors
> firmly in mind. Which, in my opinion, lowers the quality of the
> retcon of _The Ringworld Engineers_ even further.
I don't see how that could be possible, in practice, since _Protector_
was not written until 1973 (IIRC) and _Ringworld_ dates to about three
years earlier. Based on a typo in _Protector_, I have reason to think
he was writing it and conceptualizing it at the same time as MIGE, so
he probably hadn't thought of the Protectors when he wrote
_Ringworld_.
>
> And another one down the pipeline. There is no Highlander 2.
Amen!!
Shermanlee
Johnny1A
>
> First off: DO NOT LOOK AT THE MAP. Good lord. That thing is a cesspool
> of spoilers. And not in a "well, now we know where they're going" way,
> but in a "they just told us what Rosebud is" kind of way. Unless
> you're the type of crazy person who likes reading the last page of a
> mystery first, steer clear of the map.
In fairness, they did at least note the obvious hole in the blockade.
I remember thinking myself after reading MIGE that if the protostar
ignited, all bets would be off. That said, you're right about the
map.
>
> First, starting off small, there's the recapping. Niven and Pournelle
> recap just enough to annoy people who have read the first novel, but
> don't manage to cover enough territory to actually fill in those who
> haven't. The result is the worst of both worlds: On the one hand,
> they're bogging down this book for everyone who read A MOTE IN GOD'S
> EYE. On the other hand, they aren't actually making this book
> accessible to anyone who hasn't.
>
> Second, and in a similar vein, there's the clumsy and overwhelming
> exposition. I was literally stunned by the sheer mass of "as you know,
> Bob" lectures peppering the novel - I think they average about one
> every ten pages. In some cases, they're even polite enough to
> explicitly identify what they're doing. (Quote: "I may have to
> lecture. [...] I won't explain that, you got it in high school, but
> [insert explanation he just said he wasn't going to give].")
A line I _particularly_ hated was when one of the characters was
making some point about a wound, and used the shooting of _Ronald
Reagan_ as a comparison. Huh? That would be like somebody today
casually referring to Pepin or Dagobert to make some point about
something modern, and having people off the street get the referrence.
Reagan lived a _thousand years_ before the Second Empire!
Of course, that's made the worse by the fact that there would almost
certainly have never been a President Reagan on the CoDominium time
line. The CD was supposed to be founded in the nineteen seventies.
Thus, it's radically improbable that the line of U.S. Presidents would
be the same after, perhaps, Gerald Ford. So there would probably have
been a Governor Reagan, but there would almost surely never have been
a President Reagan.
>
> Fourth, there's still no thought put into the setting: A massive
> interstellar empire can rule over dozens (possibly hundreds) of star
> systems, but can't figure out how to ship produce a thousand klicks
> and keep it fresh.
Eh? They could do that, it's why there was farmland on Sparta. What
they hadn't quite managed was keeping fruit fresh over interstellar
distances.
>
> Fifth, the characters are still as flat as cardboard. In fact, if
> anything, they're even more contrived than they were in A MOTE IN
> GOD'S EYE: An investigative reporter is allowed to sit in at a meeting
> where top secret material is being discussed, and only after the fact
> does anyone realize this was probably a really stupid idea. More
> retcons are used to justify important decisions. And, yet again,
> you've got a couple of people falling in love at first sight and for
> no apparent reason. (Perhaps that's the only kind of love there is in
> the Second Empire.) It's not that I don't believe in love at first
> sight. It's that Niven and Pournelle don't make me believe in love at
> first sight.
I agree completely. I disagree about the cardboardedness of the
characterizations of MIGE (some of them, anyway), here it's painful.
It's like zombies performing a play with lines that got mixed up.
>
> Here's the short of it: This book is a complete and utter waste. It's
> a waste of your time. It's a waste of a perfectly good opportunity. In
> many ways, it's a waste of paper.
In my opinion, TGH was more-or-less a 'rush job'. For whatever
reason, N&P appear to have slammed it out as fast as they could,
without stopping to think about it very hard or to consider how it
would fit with previous work.
Shermanlee
Richard Horton
wrote:
>I don't see how that could be possible, in practice, since _Protector_
>was not written until 1973 (IIRC) and _Ringworld_ dates to about three
>years earlier. Based on a typo in _Protector_, I have reason to think
>he was writing it and conceptualizing it at the same time as MIGE, so
>he probably hadn't thought of the Protectors when he wrote
>_Ringworld_.
"The Adults", a novelette which comprises part of _Protector_, was
published in the June 1967 Galaxy.
--
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)
Captain Button
Well, it's certainly a change to see people complaining that a Pournelle
novel is insufficiently bloodthirsty.
Captain Button
>news:<92dc8db5.04012...@posting.google.com>...
[ snip ]
>A line I _particularly_ hated was when one of the characters was
>making some point about a wound, and used the shooting of _Ronald
>Reagan_ as a comparison. Huh? That would be like somebody today
>casually referring to Pepin or Dagobert to make some point about
>something modern, and having people off the street get the referrence.
> Reagan lived a _thousand years_ before the Second Empire!
More like a Byzantine noble knowing about Marius and Sulla, or Julius
Caesar. Or amreicans knowing about George Washington. The period is when
the foundations of Imperial society were being laid.
>Of course, that's made the worse by the fact that there would almost
>certainly have never been a President Reagan on the CoDominium time
>line. The CD was supposed to be founded in the nineteen seventies.
>Thus, it's radically improbable that the line of U.S. Presidents would
>be the same after, perhaps, Gerald Ford. So there would probably have
>been a Governor Reagan, but there would almost surely never have been
>a President Reagan.
Rightly or wrongly, Pournelle chose to rewrite the CoDominion backstory to
fit real world history in this and several other stories in the series.