Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Poul Anderson recs wanted
52 views
Skip to first unread message
chuck c.
Nov 3, 2011, 9:53:10 AM11/3/11
to
Hi SF fans,
Poul Anderson has written around 100 books and is considered one of
the all-time greats. I've read very little of his stuff other than the
Time Patrol series (good!) and 3 HEARTS. If anyone can give me a few
recommendations I'd be grateful.
(I prefer the action-adventure type stories to the ASTOUNDING
"problem/solution" stuff).
Cheers,
CC
Poul Anderson has written around 100 books and is considered one of
the all-time greats. I've read very little of his stuff other than the
Time Patrol series (good!) and 3 HEARTS. If anyone can give me a few
recommendations I'd be grateful.
(I prefer the action-adventure type stories to the ASTOUNDING
"problem/solution" stuff).
Cheers,
CC
James Nicoll
Nov 3, 2011, 10:43:18 AM11/3/11
to
In article <6f332d1c-71b8-42f7...@a7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
First rule: Eschew most (but not all) Anderson after about 1977. In
particular unless your life has a dearth of rueing and lamentation,
avoid THE AVATAR (unrelated to the smurfahontas IN SPACE movie; the
Anderson most like that or rather the Anderson I would be least
surprised to have Cameron spontaneously confess to having read is
"Call Me Joe".)
I believe the entire Technic series from *gag* "The Saturn
Game" to "Starfog" is available from Baen books. The first
story, about the dangers of hallucinating while exploring an
alien planet - apparently this is bad - can be flipped by
quickly.
When I was a teen, I liked THE ENEMY STARS, but the first version
and not the revised version (given that the differences amount
to at best a couple of dozen words I don't know why the edition
matters to me). A team of cosmic explorers finds themselves marooned
in an inhospitable stellar system, with their only way home trashed
by an unforseen (but predictable) feature of the system and with no
hope of rescue: can they use local resources to get home?
THE STAR FOX is a collection of novellas about a rag tag team of
volunteers heading off to try to foil the alien invasion of a
human colony. Features some norbertism in the beginning.
WORLD WITHOUT STARS has a similar set up: a group of explorers
is marooned on a habitable world divided between two cultures;
can the humans find their way off the planet before the local
gods have them shanked?
A MIDSUMMER TEMPEST is set in a world where everything Shakespeare
was literally true.
NESFA has what looks like a fine set of collections of Anderson short
stories but in olden days my two favourites where BEYOND THE BEYOND
and HOMEWARD AND BEYOND.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
particular unless your life has a dearth of rueing and lamentation,
avoid THE AVATAR (unrelated to the smurfahontas IN SPACE movie; the
Anderson most like that or rather the Anderson I would be least
surprised to have Cameron spontaneously confess to having read is
"Call Me Joe".)
I believe the entire Technic series from *gag* "The Saturn
Game" to "Starfog" is available from Baen books. The first
story, about the dangers of hallucinating while exploring an
alien planet - apparently this is bad - can be flipped by
quickly.
When I was a teen, I liked THE ENEMY STARS, but the first version
and not the revised version (given that the differences amount
to at best a couple of dozen words I don't know why the edition
matters to me). A team of cosmic explorers finds themselves marooned
in an inhospitable stellar system, with their only way home trashed
by an unforseen (but predictable) feature of the system and with no
hope of rescue: can they use local resources to get home?
THE STAR FOX is a collection of novellas about a rag tag team of
volunteers heading off to try to foil the alien invasion of a
human colony. Features some norbertism in the beginning.
WORLD WITHOUT STARS has a similar set up: a group of explorers
is marooned on a habitable world divided between two cultures;
can the humans find their way off the planet before the local
gods have them shanked?
A MIDSUMMER TEMPEST is set in a world where everything Shakespeare
was literally true.
NESFA has what looks like a fine set of collections of Anderson short
stories but in olden days my two favourites where BEYOND THE BEYOND
and HOMEWARD AND BEYOND.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
James Nicoll
Nov 3, 2011, 10:45:03 AM11/3/11
to
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Nov 3, 2011, 10:50:52 AM11/3/11
to
and goes to hell.
_War of the Wing-Men_ (aka _The Man Who Counts_) shipwrecked Terrans
cope on a world of flying sophonts. Van Rijn's shining hour.
_The High Crusade_ aliens get more than the bargained for when they land
on medevial Earth.
And, of course, _Tau Zero_. Maybe not so much action and adventure, but
man, whatta sensawunda..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
William F. Adams
Nov 3, 2011, 11:47:43 AM11/3/11
to
averse to tragedy, then you'll enjoy _The Broken Sword_ (if you like
Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion writings this is the original
inspiration).
William
Dorothy J Heydt
Nov 3, 2011, 11:51:54 AM11/3/11
to
In article <9hfo2c...@mid.individual.net>,
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
>In article <6f332d1c-71b8-42f7...@a7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>chuck c. <cunn...@jmu.edu> wrote:
>>Hi SF fans,
>> Poul Anderson has written around 100 books and is considered one of
>>the all-time greats. I've read very little of his stuff other than the
>>Time Patrol series (good!) and 3 HEARTS. If anyone can give me a few
>>recommendations I'd be grateful.
>> (I prefer the action-adventure type stories to the ASTOUNDING
>>"problem/solution" stuff).
>> Cheers,
>> CC
>
>_Operation Chaos_ proto-urban-fantasy. A modern-day werewolf has adventures
>and goes to hell.
And Lobachevskii publishes first.
>In article <6f332d1c-71b8-42f7...@a7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>chuck c. <cunn...@jmu.edu> wrote:
>>Hi SF fans,
>> Poul Anderson has written around 100 books and is considered one of
>>the all-time greats. I've read very little of his stuff other than the
>>Time Patrol series (good!) and 3 HEARTS. If anyone can give me a few
>>recommendations I'd be grateful.
>> (I prefer the action-adventure type stories to the ASTOUNDING
>>"problem/solution" stuff).
>> Cheers,
>> CC
>
>_Operation Chaos_ proto-urban-fantasy. A modern-day werewolf has adventures
>and goes to hell.
>
>_The High Crusade_ aliens get more than the bargained for when they land
>on medevial Earth.
Don't, on any account, however, try to watch the movie.
>_The High Crusade_ aliens get more than the bargained for when they land
>on medevial Earth.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
Ahasuerus
Nov 3, 2011, 11:40:01 AM11/3/11
to
On Nov 3, 10:50 am, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
> In article <6f332d1c-71b8-42f7-87b7-5fe798afa...@a7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Tempest_. In addition, at least one of the Flandry stories would be in
order, perhaps _We Claim These Stars!_ (aka _Hunters of the Sky Cave_
as well as, confusingly, _A Handful of Stars_, which was used as the
title of the original story *and* of the expanded novel when it was
reprinted by Gregg Press in 1979.) A few Hoka stories (http://
www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?1850) wouldn't hurt either.
> In article <6f332d1c-71b8-42f7-87b7-5fe798afa...@a7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> chuck c. <cunni...@jmu.edu> wrote:
> >Hi SF fans,
> > Poul Anderson has written around 100 books and is considered one of
> >the all-time greats. I've read very little of his stuff other than the
> >Time Patrol series (good!) and 3 HEARTS. If anyone can give me a few
> >recommendations I'd be grateful.
> > (I prefer the action-adventure type stories to the ASTOUNDING
> >"problem/solution" stuff).
> > Cheers,
> > CC
>
> _Operation Chaos_ proto-urban-fantasy. A modern-day werewolf has adventures
> and goes to hell.
>
> _War of the Wing-Men_ (aka _The Man Who Counts_) shipwrecked Terrans
> cope on a world of flying sophonts. Van Rijn's shining hour.
>
> _The High Crusade_ aliens get more than the bargained for when they land
> on medevial Earth.
>
> And, of course, _Tau Zero_. Maybe not so much action and adventure, but
> man, whatta sensawunda..
Seconded. Also _Brain Wave_ and, if you like Shakespeare, _A Midsummer
> chuck c. <cunni...@jmu.edu> wrote:
> >Hi SF fans,
> > Poul Anderson has written around 100 books and is considered one of
> >the all-time greats. I've read very little of his stuff other than the
> >Time Patrol series (good!) and 3 HEARTS. If anyone can give me a few
> >recommendations I'd be grateful.
> > (I prefer the action-adventure type stories to the ASTOUNDING
> >"problem/solution" stuff).
> > Cheers,
> > CC
>
> _Operation Chaos_ proto-urban-fantasy. A modern-day werewolf has adventures
> and goes to hell.
>
> _War of the Wing-Men_ (aka _The Man Who Counts_) shipwrecked Terrans
> cope on a world of flying sophonts. Van Rijn's shining hour.
>
> _The High Crusade_ aliens get more than the bargained for when they land
> on medevial Earth.
>
> And, of course, _Tau Zero_. Maybe not so much action and adventure, but
> man, whatta sensawunda..
Tempest_. In addition, at least one of the Flandry stories would be in
order, perhaps _We Claim These Stars!_ (aka _Hunters of the Sky Cave_
as well as, confusingly, _A Handful of Stars_, which was used as the
title of the original story *and* of the expanded novel when it was
reprinted by Gregg Press in 1979.) A few Hoka stories (http://
www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pe.cgi?1850) wouldn't hurt either.
Mike Dworetsky
Nov 3, 2011, 12:16:25 PM11/3/11
to
Mediaeval kinghts to another world and get a big surprise. I rate this as
one of the funniest SF novels ever.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Lynn McGuire
Nov 3, 2011, 12:20:38 PM11/3/11
to
Michael Stemper
Nov 3, 2011, 1:10:12 PM11/3/11
to
In article <j8u9a6$cok$1...@reader1.panix.com>, jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>In article <6f332d1c-71b8-42f7...@a7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, chuck c. <cunn...@jmu.edu> wrote:
>>Hi SF fans,
>> Poul Anderson has written around 100 books and is considered one of
>>the all-time greats. I've read very little of his stuff other than the
>>Time Patrol series (good!) and 3 HEARTS. If anyone can give me a few
>>recommendations I'd be grateful.
>> (I prefer the action-adventure type stories to the ASTOUNDING
>>"problem/solution" stuff).
>In article <6f332d1c-71b8-42f7...@a7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, chuck c. <cunn...@jmu.edu> wrote:
>>Hi SF fans,
>> Poul Anderson has written around 100 books and is considered one of
>>the all-time greats. I've read very little of his stuff other than the
>>Time Patrol series (good!) and 3 HEARTS. If anyone can give me a few
>>recommendations I'd be grateful.
>> (I prefer the action-adventure type stories to the ASTOUNDING
>>"problem/solution" stuff).
>I believe the entire Technic series from *gag* "The Saturn
>Game" to "Starfog" is available from Baen books.
I never heard of "The Saturn Game" before, and the wikipedia
>Game" to "Starfog" is available from Baen books.
description confirms that I've never read it. However, the same
description makes me question what possible connection it has
the the Polesotechnic League stories.
Specifcally, the phrase "the long, dull trip to Saturn". Since the
Polesotechnic League is involved in interstellar commerce, what
contortions bolt this on to those excellent stories?
To the OP: I was going to recommend the Polesotechnic League and
the Flandry stories, as well. They're some of my favorite Anderson.
However, since you've indicated a dislike for "probelm-solving"
stories, I'd advise skipping the stories that have van Rijn and
not Falkayn. There are only a handful of them, but they're pretty
solidly in your forbidden territory.
The Flandry stories, excluding _A Stone in Heaven_ and _The Game
of Empire_ are definitely in the "action-adventure" camp.
[snip James's other recommendations]
I'd also recommend _Orbit Unlimited_ and _New America_. A rag-tag
bunch of libertarians fleed an increasingly oppressive Earth and
colonize a planet in a new solart system.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Butch Malahide
Nov 3, 2011, 2:55:40 PM11/3/11
to
On Nov 3, 9:50 am, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
> In article <6f332d1c-71b8-42f7-87b7-5fe798afa...@a7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> In article <6f332d1c-71b8-42f7-87b7-5fe798afa...@a7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> chuck c. <cunni...@jmu.edu> wrote:
> >Hi SF fans,
> > Poul Anderson has written around 100 books and is considered one of
> >the all-time greats. I've read very little of his stuff other than the
> >Time Patrol series (good!) and 3 HEARTS. If anyone can give me a few
> >recommendations I'd be grateful.
> > (I prefer the action-adventure type stories to the ASTOUNDING
> >"problem/solution" stuff).
> > Cheers,
> > CC
>
> _Operation Chaos_ proto-urban-fantasy. A modern-day werewolf has adventures
> and goes to hell.
>
> _War of the Wing-Men_ (aka _The Man Who Counts_) shipwrecked Terrans
> cope on a world of flying sophonts. Van Rijn's shining hour.
>
> _The High Crusade_ aliens get more than the bargained for when they land
> on medevial Earth.
>
> And, of course, _Tau Zero_. Maybe not so much action and adventure, but
> man, whatta sensawunda..
Nobody has mentioned _Flight to Forever_, which is kind of like an
> >Hi SF fans,
> > Poul Anderson has written around 100 books and is considered one of
> >the all-time greats. I've read very little of his stuff other than the
> >Time Patrol series (good!) and 3 HEARTS. If anyone can give me a few
> >recommendations I'd be grateful.
> > (I prefer the action-adventure type stories to the ASTOUNDING
> >"problem/solution" stuff).
> > Cheers,
> > CC
>
> _Operation Chaos_ proto-urban-fantasy. A modern-day werewolf has adventures
> and goes to hell.
>
> _War of the Wing-Men_ (aka _The Man Who Counts_) shipwrecked Terrans
> cope on a world of flying sophonts. Van Rijn's shining hour.
>
> _The High Crusade_ aliens get more than the bargained for when they land
> on medevial Earth.
>
> And, of course, _Tau Zero_. Maybe not so much action and adventure, but
> man, whatta sensawunda..
improved version of _Tau Zero_ except that it came before.
Greg Goss
Nov 3, 2011, 5:11:56 PM11/3/11
to
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>>I believe the entire Technic series from *gag* "The Saturn
>>Game" to "Starfog" is available from Baen books.
>
>I never heard of "The Saturn Game" before, and the wikipedia
>description confirms that I've never read it. However, the same
>description makes me question what possible connection it has
>the the Polesotechnic League stories.
>
>Specifcally, the phrase "the long, dull trip to Saturn". Since the
>Polesotechnic League is involved in interstellar commerce, what
>contortions bolt this on to those excellent stories?
Anderson may have force-fit it into one of the compendium books as if
>>I believe the entire Technic series from *gag* "The Saturn
>>Game" to "Starfog" is available from Baen books.
>
>I never heard of "The Saturn Game" before, and the wikipedia
>description confirms that I've never read it. However, the same
>description makes me question what possible connection it has
>the the Polesotechnic League stories.
>
>Specifcally, the phrase "the long, dull trip to Saturn". Since the
>Polesotechnic League is involved in interstellar commerce, what
>contortions bolt this on to those excellent stories?
it was part of the series. I'm currently (slowly) reading "The Rise
of the Terran Empire", and a couple of the stories are really early
space-opera monstrosities force-fit into the middle.
--
"Recessions catch what the auditors miss." (Galbraith)
Brian M. Scott
Nov 3, 2011, 5:13:17 PM11/3/11
to
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 17:10:12 +0000 (UTC), Michael Stemper
<mste...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote in
<news:j8uhtj$4ed$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> The Flandry stories, excluding _A Stone in Heaven_ and
> _The Game of Empire_ are definitely in the
> "action-adventure" camp.
It should be pointed out that _A Stone in Heaven_, while
less action-oriented than the earlier Flandry stories, still
has more than a little action and adventure.
Brian
<mste...@walkabout.empros.com> wrote in
<news:j8uhtj$4ed$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> The Flandry stories, excluding _A Stone in Heaven_ and
> _The Game of Empire_ are definitely in the
> "action-adventure" camp.
less action-oriented than the earlier Flandry stories, still
has more than a little action and adventure.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
Nov 3, 2011, 5:15:00 PM11/3/11
to
On 3 Nov 2011 14:50:52 GMT, "Ted Nolan <tednolan>"
<t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote in
<news:9hfo2c...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> _Operation Chaos_ proto-urban-fantasy. A modern-day
> werewolf has adventures and goes to hell.
And while the late sequel, _Operation Luna_, isn't as good,
it's still very readable.
[...]
> And, of course, _Tau Zero_. Maybe not so much action and
> adventure, but man, whatta sensawunda..
I'll second that. I think that for me it's probably his
most memorable science fiction novel (as distinct from
fantasy).
Brian
<t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote in
<news:9hfo2c...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> _Operation Chaos_ proto-urban-fantasy. A modern-day
> werewolf has adventures and goes to hell.
it's still very readable.
[...]
> And, of course, _Tau Zero_. Maybe not so much action and
> adventure, but man, whatta sensawunda..
most memorable science fiction novel (as distinct from
fantasy).
Brian
Brian M. Scott
Nov 3, 2011, 5:35:58 PM11/3/11
to
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 14:43:18 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
<jdni...@panix.com> wrote in
<news:j8u9a6$cok$1...@reader1.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <6f332d1c-71b8-42f7...@a7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> chuck c. <cunn...@jmu.edu> wrote:
>>Hi SF fans,
>> Poul Anderson has written around 100 books and is
>> considered one of the all-time greats. I've read very
>> little of his stuff other than the Time Patrol series
>> (good!) and 3 HEARTS. If anyone can give me a few
>> recommendations I'd be grateful.
>> (I prefer the action-adventure type stories to the
>> ASTOUNDING "problem/solution" stuff).
> First rule: Eschew most (but not all) Anderson after about
> 1977. In particular unless your life has a dearth of
> rueing and lamentation, avoid THE AVATAR (unrelated to
> the smurfahontas IN SPACE movie; the Anderson most like
> that or rather the Anderson I would be least surprised to
> have Cameron spontaneously confess to having read is
> "Call Me Joe".)
_The Avatar_ is not one of his best, but I don't think that
this particular complaint is really justified. The real
problem, as I recall, is structural: the novel doesn't
really cohere, probably because Anderson tried to do too
much. Still, it has some excellent characters (Caitlin
Mulryan, for instance) and some very good moments.
[...]
I've always liked _There Will Be Time_.
Brian
<jdni...@panix.com> wrote in
<news:j8u9a6$cok$1...@reader1.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <6f332d1c-71b8-42f7...@a7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> chuck c. <cunn...@jmu.edu> wrote:
>>Hi SF fans,
>> Poul Anderson has written around 100 books and is
>> considered one of the all-time greats. I've read very
>> little of his stuff other than the Time Patrol series
>> (good!) and 3 HEARTS. If anyone can give me a few
>> recommendations I'd be grateful.
>> (I prefer the action-adventure type stories to the
>> ASTOUNDING "problem/solution" stuff).
> First rule: Eschew most (but not all) Anderson after about
> 1977. In particular unless your life has a dearth of
> rueing and lamentation, avoid THE AVATAR (unrelated to
> the smurfahontas IN SPACE movie; the Anderson most like
> that or rather the Anderson I would be least surprised to
> have Cameron spontaneously confess to having read is
> "Call Me Joe".)
this particular complaint is really justified. The real
problem, as I recall, is structural: the novel doesn't
really cohere, probably because Anderson tried to do too
much. Still, it has some excellent characters (Caitlin
Mulryan, for instance) and some very good moments.
[...]
I've always liked _There Will Be Time_.
Brian
Dimensional Traveler
Nov 3, 2011, 6:12:31 PM11/3/11
to
On 11/3/2011 8:51 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article<9hfo2c...@mid.individual.net>,
> Ted Nolan<tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
>>
>> _The High Crusade_ aliens get more than the bargained for when they land
>> on medevial Earth.
>
> Don't, on any account, however, try to watch the movie.
>
<double take> Wait, what?
> In article<9hfo2c...@mid.individual.net>,
> Ted Nolan<tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
>>
>> _The High Crusade_ aliens get more than the bargained for when they land
>> on medevial Earth.
>
> Don't, on any account, however, try to watch the movie.
>
Ahasuerus
Nov 3, 2011, 6:50:24 PM11/3/11
to
On Nov 3, 5:35 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
[snip]
contemporary (i.e. early 1970s) politics are, well, dated.
[snip]
> I've always liked _There Will Be Time_.
It has its fans, but it should be noted that the sections dealing with
contemporary (i.e. early 1970s) politics are, well, dated.
Dorothy J Heydt
Nov 3, 2011, 6:39:36 PM11/3/11
to
In article <4eb311d2$0$1677$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
Somebody made a movie of The High Crusade. It's ... bad.
David DeLaney
Nov 4, 2011, 12:28:28 AM11/4/11
to
Tau Zero
Operation Chaos
Brain Wave
Mirkheim
and any three or four of his collections, including any of the recent
collections edited by Davis
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Robert A. Woodward
Nov 4, 2011, 12:56:10 AM11/4/11
to
In article <Lu3wA...@kithrup.com>,
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <4eb311d2$0$1677$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >On 11/3/2011 8:51 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >> In article<9hfo2c...@mid.individual.net>,
> >> Ted Nolan<tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> _The High Crusade_ aliens get more than the bargained for when they land
> >>> on medevial Earth.
> >>
> >> Don't, on any account, however, try to watch the movie.
> >>
> ><double take> Wait, what?
>
> Somebody made a movie of The High Crusade. It's ... bad.
Was it "Nightfall" bad? "Lensman" bad?
> In article <4eb311d2$0$1677$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >On 11/3/2011 8:51 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >> In article<9hfo2c...@mid.individual.net>,
> >> Ted Nolan<tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> _The High Crusade_ aliens get more than the bargained for when they land
> >>> on medevial Earth.
> >>
> >> Don't, on any account, however, try to watch the movie.
> >>
> ><double take> Wait, what?
>
> Somebody made a movie of The High Crusade. It's ... bad.
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
David Johnston
Nov 4, 2011, 1:09:31 AM11/4/11
to
On 11/3/2011 10:56 PM, Robert A. Woodward wrote:
> In article<Lu3wA...@kithrup.com>,
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> In article<4eb311d2$0$1677$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>> Dimensional Traveler<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/3/2011 8:51 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>> In article<9hfo2c...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> Ted Nolan<tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> _The High Crusade_ aliens get more than the bargained for when they land
>>>>> on medevial Earth.
>>>>
>>>> Don't, on any account, however, try to watch the movie.
>>>>
>>> <double take> Wait, what?
>>
>> Somebody made a movie of The High Crusade. It's ... bad.
>
> Was it "Nightfall" bad? "Lensman" bad?
>
It was worse than the Lensman cartoon.
> In article<Lu3wA...@kithrup.com>,
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> In article<4eb311d2$0$1677$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
>> Dimensional Traveler<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/3/2011 8:51 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>> In article<9hfo2c...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> Ted Nolan<tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> _The High Crusade_ aliens get more than the bargained for when they land
>>>>> on medevial Earth.
>>>>
>>>> Don't, on any account, however, try to watch the movie.
>>>>
>>> <double take> Wait, what?
>>
>> Somebody made a movie of The High Crusade. It's ... bad.
>
> Was it "Nightfall" bad? "Lensman" bad?
>
Nigel
Nov 4, 2011, 4:29:54 AM11/4/11
to
On Nov 3, 6:10 pm, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
wrote:
> In article <j8u9a6$co...@reader1.panix.com>, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
Anderson fan (to the extent of enjoying _The Avatar_), I'm glad that I
didn't pay money for that one
>
> To the OP: I was going to recommend the Polesotechnic League and
> the Flandry stories, as well. They're some of my favorite Anderson.
> However, since you've indicated a dislike for "probelm-solving"
> stories, I'd advise skipping the stories that have van Rijn and
> not Falkayn. There are only a handful of them, but they're pretty
> solidly in your forbidden territory.
>
I wouldn't say that. "The Man who Counts" (AKA "War of the Wingmen")
is a pretty solid action story and so is "Margin of Profit" - the only
problem solving in the latter story is a short discussion at the end
of how, statistically, Van Rijn's strategy is going to work. In other
Van Rijn stories, such as "Territory" and "The Master Key", the
problem-solving is mainly to do with why the aliens behave as they do
- and both of these examples also have a fair amount of action.
My recommendation is don't skip the Van Rijn stories. If for no other
reason because he is not your typical SF hero.
Cheers,
Nigel.
wrote:
> In article <j8u9a6$co...@reader1.panix.com>, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
> >In article <6f332d1c-71b8-42f7-87b7-5fe798afa...@a7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, chuck c. <cunni...@jmu.edu> wrote:
> >>Hi SF fans,
> >> Poul Anderson has written around 100 books and is considered one of
> >>the all-time greats. I've read very little of his stuff other than the
> >>Time Patrol series (good!) and 3 HEARTS. If anyone can give me a few
> >>recommendations I'd be grateful.
> >> (I prefer the action-adventure type stories to the ASTOUNDING
> >>"problem/solution" stuff).
> >I believe the entire Technic series from *gag* "The Saturn
> >Game" to "Starfog" is available from Baen books.
>
> I never heard of "The Saturn Game" before, and the wikipedia
> description confirms that I've never read it. However, the same
> description makes me question what possible connection it has
> the the Polesotechnic League stories.
>
I found a free electronic copy on the internet and while I'm an
> >>Hi SF fans,
> >> Poul Anderson has written around 100 books and is considered one of
> >>the all-time greats. I've read very little of his stuff other than the
> >>Time Patrol series (good!) and 3 HEARTS. If anyone can give me a few
> >>recommendations I'd be grateful.
> >> (I prefer the action-adventure type stories to the ASTOUNDING
> >>"problem/solution" stuff).
> >I believe the entire Technic series from *gag* "The Saturn
> >Game" to "Starfog" is available from Baen books.
>
> I never heard of "The Saturn Game" before, and the wikipedia
> description confirms that I've never read it. However, the same
> description makes me question what possible connection it has
> the the Polesotechnic League stories.
>
Anderson fan (to the extent of enjoying _The Avatar_), I'm glad that I
didn't pay money for that one
>
> To the OP: I was going to recommend the Polesotechnic League and
> the Flandry stories, as well. They're some of my favorite Anderson.
> However, since you've indicated a dislike for "probelm-solving"
> stories, I'd advise skipping the stories that have van Rijn and
> not Falkayn. There are only a handful of them, but they're pretty
> solidly in your forbidden territory.
>
is a pretty solid action story and so is "Margin of Profit" - the only
problem solving in the latter story is a short discussion at the end
of how, statistically, Van Rijn's strategy is going to work. In other
Van Rijn stories, such as "Territory" and "The Master Key", the
problem-solving is mainly to do with why the aliens behave as they do
- and both of these examples also have a fair amount of action.
My recommendation is don't skip the Van Rijn stories. If for no other
reason because he is not your typical SF hero.
Cheers,
Nigel.
David Goldfarb
Nov 4, 2011, 4:53:31 AM11/4/11
to
>THE STAR FOX is a collection of novellas about a rag tag team of
>volunteers heading off to try to foil the alien invasion of a
>human colony. Features some norbertism in the beginning.
Um? You dislike Firefly in part because you don't like the parallels
>volunteers heading off to try to foil the alien invasion of a
>human colony. Features some norbertism in the beginning.
with the American Civil War, but you're willing to swallow the blatant
Vietnam allegory that is _The Star Fox_?
(Also: norbertism [*])
--
David Goldfarb |"Hey, mister! Are you about to drag our brother off
goldf...@gmail.com | to a bleak nether realm of despair where the
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | future is nothing but an endless sea of anguish
| and horrible misery?"
| "Yah."
|"We wanna go tooooo!" -- Animaniacs
chuck c.
Nov 4, 2011, 9:00:20 AM11/4/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow! Thanks, guys! That should get me started. And BTW, I LIKED "The
Saturn Game," which got some negative press in this string.
Cheers,
CC
James Nicoll
Nov 4, 2011, 11:03:17 AM11/4/11
to
In article <9hged0...@mid.individual.net>,
languish into obscurity. In one of the greatest injustices in the
history of the universe, the apparently ether-huffing fans who voted
in that particular year liked it more than "In The Western Tradition"
by Phyllis Eisenstein, "Emergence" by David R. Palmer, "Blue Champagne"
by John Varley, "True Names" by Vernor Vinge or "With Thimbles,
With Forks and Hope" by Kate Wilhelm.
The story behind the SFWAans picking it over "Amnesia" by Jack Dann,
"In the Western Tradition" by Phyllis Eisenstein, "Swarmer" by Gregory
Benford, "True Names" by Vernor Vinge and The Winter Beach" by Kate
Wilhelm is not known to me.
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>
>>>I believe the entire Technic series from *gag* "The Saturn
>>>Game" to "Starfog" is available from Baen books.
>>
>>I never heard of "The Saturn Game" before, and the wikipedia
>>description confirms that I've never read it. However, the same
>>description makes me question what possible connection it has
>>the the Polesotechnic League stories.
>>
>>Specifcally, the phrase "the long, dull trip to Saturn". Since the
>>Polesotechnic League is involved in interstellar commerce, what
>>contortions bolt this on to those excellent stories?
>
>Anderson may have force-fit it into one of the compendium books as if
>it was part of the series.
My guess is if it had not won a Hugo, it would have been allowed to
>mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>
>>>I believe the entire Technic series from *gag* "The Saturn
>>>Game" to "Starfog" is available from Baen books.
>>
>>I never heard of "The Saturn Game" before, and the wikipedia
>>description confirms that I've never read it. However, the same
>>description makes me question what possible connection it has
>>the the Polesotechnic League stories.
>>
>>Specifcally, the phrase "the long, dull trip to Saturn". Since the
>>Polesotechnic League is involved in interstellar commerce, what
>>contortions bolt this on to those excellent stories?
>
>Anderson may have force-fit it into one of the compendium books as if
>it was part of the series.
languish into obscurity. In one of the greatest injustices in the
history of the universe, the apparently ether-huffing fans who voted
in that particular year liked it more than "In The Western Tradition"
by Phyllis Eisenstein, "Emergence" by David R. Palmer, "Blue Champagne"
by John Varley, "True Names" by Vernor Vinge or "With Thimbles,
With Forks and Hope" by Kate Wilhelm.
The story behind the SFWAans picking it over "Amnesia" by Jack Dann,
"In the Western Tradition" by Phyllis Eisenstein, "Swarmer" by Gregory
Benford, "True Names" by Vernor Vinge and The Winter Beach" by Kate
Wilhelm is not known to me.
James Nicoll
Nov 4, 2011, 11:09:00 AM11/4/11
to
In article <1qybds7xv08z2$.agp7n74uvxhi$.d...@40tude.net>,
I liked the neutron star bit and had some fun playing around
with the implications of a world locked into a 2:3 spin-orbit
resonance, which doesn't show up in SF as much as you'd
expect [1]. I was also intrigued to discover from one review
that the Irish have a word for a prostitute who pretends to
be a musician.
Otherwise it's Anderson's 1970s tics writ large.
1: There was an overwrought SF series a few years back about a
community of refugees from Earth hiding in what turned out to be
an insufficiently hidden region of space and one of the details
I liked about it was that none of the "Earth-like" worlds was in
fact all that Earthlike (and that the "well, why would it work
like that" detail turned out to be a big fat lie).
with the implications of a world locked into a 2:3 spin-orbit
resonance, which doesn't show up in SF as much as you'd
expect [1]. I was also intrigued to discover from one review
that the Irish have a word for a prostitute who pretends to
be a musician.
Otherwise it's Anderson's 1970s tics writ large.
1: There was an overwrought SF series a few years back about a
community of refugees from Earth hiding in what turned out to be
an insufficiently hidden region of space and one of the details
I liked about it was that none of the "Earth-like" worlds was in
fact all that Earthlike (and that the "well, why would it work
like that" detail turned out to be a big fat lie).
James Nicoll
Nov 4, 2011, 11:17:18 AM11/4/11
to
In article <Lu4op...@kithrup.com>,
US made in Vietnam turned out to be suboptimal (interesting, both
from the point of view of a bomb-tossing colonist warmonger and a
self-deluding, slogan-chanting peacenik) but one could argue at
least some of the intentions were good.
In the case of the South, the slavers were fighting to preserve
slavery and said so. The greatest tragedy of the war was that
Sherman didn't have access to the Bomb.
>(Also: norbertism [*])
From Norbert Wiener, "The Human Use of Human Beings" (1950,
revised in 1954).
"Let us remember that the automatic machine, whatever we think of
any feelings it may have or may not have, is the precise economic
equivalent of slave labor. Any labor which competes with slave labor
must accept the economic conditions of slave labor."
and
"It is perfectly clear that this will produce an unemployment situation,
in comparison with which the present recession and even the depression
of the thirties will seem a pleasant joke."
The detail that automation has produced a population of the permanently
unemployed is a recurring one in Andersonia.
David Goldfarb <goldf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <j8u9a6$cok$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>THE STAR FOX is a collection of novellas about a rag tag team of
>>volunteers heading off to try to foil the alien invasion of a
>>human colony. Features some norbertism in the beginning.
>
>Um? You dislike Firefly in part because you don't like the parallels
>with the American Civil War, but you're willing to swallow the blatant
>Vietnam allegory that is _The Star Fox_?
How to put this diplomatically? In retrospect many of the decisions the
>In article <j8u9a6$cok$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>THE STAR FOX is a collection of novellas about a rag tag team of
>>volunteers heading off to try to foil the alien invasion of a
>>human colony. Features some norbertism in the beginning.
>
>Um? You dislike Firefly in part because you don't like the parallels
>with the American Civil War, but you're willing to swallow the blatant
>Vietnam allegory that is _The Star Fox_?
US made in Vietnam turned out to be suboptimal (interesting, both
from the point of view of a bomb-tossing colonist warmonger and a
self-deluding, slogan-chanting peacenik) but one could argue at
least some of the intentions were good.
In the case of the South, the slavers were fighting to preserve
slavery and said so. The greatest tragedy of the war was that
Sherman didn't have access to the Bomb.
>(Also: norbertism [*])
From Norbert Wiener, "The Human Use of Human Beings" (1950,
revised in 1954).
"Let us remember that the automatic machine, whatever we think of
any feelings it may have or may not have, is the precise economic
equivalent of slave labor. Any labor which competes with slave labor
must accept the economic conditions of slave labor."
and
"It is perfectly clear that this will produce an unemployment situation,
in comparison with which the present recession and even the depression
of the thirties will seem a pleasant joke."
The detail that automation has produced a population of the permanently
unemployed is a recurring one in Andersonia.
slakmagik
Nov 4, 2011, 2:50:17 PM11/4/11
to
On 2011-11-04 Fri 11:17:18, James Nicoll wrote:
>
> How to put this diplomatically? In retrospect many of the decisions the
> US made in Vietnam turned out to be suboptimal (interesting, both
> from the point of view of a bomb-tossing colonist warmonger and a
> self-deluding, slogan-chanting peacenik) but one could argue at
> least some of the intentions were good.
>
> In the case of the South, the slavers were fighting to preserve
> slavery and said so. The greatest tragedy of the war was that
> Sherman didn't have access to the Bomb.
>
Before I killfile you, would you care to explain that? I cannot believe
>
> How to put this diplomatically? In retrospect many of the decisions the
> US made in Vietnam turned out to be suboptimal (interesting, both
> from the point of view of a bomb-tossing colonist warmonger and a
> self-deluding, slogan-chanting peacenik) but one could argue at
> least some of the intentions were good.
>
> In the case of the South, the slavers were fighting to preserve
> slavery and said so. The greatest tragedy of the war was that
> Sherman didn't have access to the Bomb.
>
someone not completely stupid and bereft of decency, and one whose
comprehension of history is even as nuanced as their butterfingered
grasp of diplomacy, has said it, so would like to believe I am mistaken
as to your meaning.
I ask this in fairness, even at risk of your disgusting and angering me
again, but there will not be a third time.
slakmagik
Nov 4, 2011, 3:00:03 PM11/4/11
to
On 2011-11-03 Thu 09:53:10, chuck c. wrote:
> Hi SF fans,
> Poul Anderson has written around 100 books and is considered one of
> the all-time greats. I've read very little of his stuff other than the
> Time Patrol series (good!) and 3 HEARTS. If anyone can give me a few
> recommendations I'd be grateful.
> (I prefer the action-adventure type stories to the ASTOUNDING
> "problem/solution" stuff).
> Cheers,
> Hi SF fans,
> Poul Anderson has written around 100 books and is considered one of
> the all-time greats. I've read very little of his stuff other than the
> Time Patrol series (good!) and 3 HEARTS. If anyone can give me a few
> recommendations I'd be grateful.
> (I prefer the action-adventure type stories to the ASTOUNDING
> "problem/solution" stuff).
> CC
To be on topic, even though I think it's been well covered, so far I
could recommend:
* _The Enemy Stars_
* _The High Crusade_
* _After Doomsday_
* Most all of the Polesotechnic League/Terran Empire stuff which runs to
something like 17 extremely diverse books prior to its latest Baen
resorting.
* A suitable collection of his best stories (or at least a lot of
anthologies containing them) - but I only have the Pocket books _Best
of_ and the Baen book _Conflict_. Those are good, but I suspect
there are many as good and perhaps some better.
But his very best stuff *is* his _Astounding_ "problem" stuff, such as
_Brain Wave_ and _Tau Zero_.
And I'd agree that something happened somewhere in the 70s. While not
everything is golden before and not everything is bad after, your odds
are certainly better in one era than the other.
Last note - I haven't read his fantasies and I'm not sure they are
action/adventure but they likely are and, if you like the latter and
have no objection to the former, that might be an area to explore as
well.
Wayne Throop
Nov 4, 2011, 3:05:55 PM11/4/11
to
: slakmagik <j...@hostname.invalid>
: * Most all of the Polesotechnic League/Terran Empire stuff which runs
Tsk, tsk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Psychotechnic_League
Sure, they are for the most part earlier works, and short stories
and such, but some, even most, of them are quite good. IMO.
: * Most all of the Polesotechnic League/Terran Empire stuff which runs
: to something like 17 extremely diverse books prior to its latest Baen
: resorting.
And yet, nobody ever mentions the Psychotechnic League collections.
: resorting.
Tsk, tsk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Psychotechnic_League
Sure, they are for the most part earlier works, and short stories
and such, but some, even most, of them are quite good. IMO.
Dimensional Traveler
Nov 4, 2011, 3:12:47 PM11/4/11
to
On 11/3/2011 3:39 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article<4eb311d2$0$1677$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
buffoon stage of his career. Ah, ya, that's pretty much a "watch only
for the train-wreck entertainment value" title.
> In article<4eb311d2$0$1677$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Dimensional Traveler<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 11/3/2011 8:51 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article<9hfo2c...@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Ted Nolan<tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> _The High Crusade_ aliens get more than the bargained for when they land
>>>> on medevial Earth.
>>>
>>> Don't, on any account, however, try to watch the movie.
>>>
>> <double take> Wait, what?
>
> Somebody made a movie of The High Crusade. It's ... bad.
>
<looks on IMDb> Made in Germany starring John-Rhys Davies in the
>> On 11/3/2011 8:51 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article<9hfo2c...@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Ted Nolan<tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> _The High Crusade_ aliens get more than the bargained for when they land
>>>> on medevial Earth.
>>>
>>> Don't, on any account, however, try to watch the movie.
>>>
>> <double take> Wait, what?
>
> Somebody made a movie of The High Crusade. It's ... bad.
>
buffoon stage of his career. Ah, ya, that's pretty much a "watch only
for the train-wreck entertainment value" title.
Remus Shepherd
Nov 4, 2011, 3:27:44 PM11/4/11
to
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> First rule: Eschew most (but not all) Anderson after about 1977.
I liked his later series, 'Harvest of Stars'. It tripped all my triggers;
> First rule: Eschew most (but not all) Anderson after about 1977.
big sensawunder, libertarian screeds, and damn it we're going into space
because it's THERE.
But I agree that it's not a good entry point to Anderson's works. As
James suggests, start with the early stuff if you can stand how pulpy it is.
If you can't stand pulp, the Flandry novels are probably your best option.
But don't miss 'Operation Chaos', it's unique and was ahead of its time,
written in the 1960s but with a lot of resemblance to Buffy and Harry Potter.
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
New Webcomic: Genocide Man http://www.genocideman.com/
Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass slaughter can be hilarious.
Butch Malahide
Nov 4, 2011, 3:56:38 PM11/4/11
to
On Nov 4, 2:00 pm, slakmagik <j...@hostname.invalid> wrote:
>
> Last note - I haven't read his fantasies and I'm not sure they are
> action/adventure but they likely are and, if you like the latter and
> have no objection to the former, that might be an area to explore as
> well.
His fantasy short story "Rachaela" is not action/adventure; it's a
>
> Last note - I haven't read his fantasies and I'm not sure they are
> action/adventure but they likely are and, if you like the latter and
> have no objection to the former, that might be an area to explore as
> well.
love story, I guess what you'd call paranormal romance.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Nov 4, 2011, 4:38:30 PM11/4/11
to
the South fought to preserve slavery, or the premise that slavers
deserve to be nuked?
If you disagree with the former, then you're either an idiot or you've
been taken in by a century and a half of relentless Southern
propaganda. I suggest you read what Southerners themselves were saying
on the subject BEFORE 1865, and ignore all post-war apologetics.
If you disagree with the latter, you might have a case, since nukes are
indiscriminate and much of the Southern populace was not directly
involved in enslaving millions of innocents -- millions of them, after
all, WERE enslaved innocents -- but this merely requires low-yield
weapons and careful targeting.
--
Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...
Wayne Throop
Nov 4, 2011, 4:48:31 PM11/4/11
to
: Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
: I am not James Nicoll, but are you disagreeing with the premise that
of collateral damage implied by use of nuclear weapons.
I could be wrong, of course.
: I am not James Nicoll, but are you disagreeing with the premise that
: the South fought to preserve slavery, or the premise that slavers
: deserve to be nuked?
I would have thought it had more to do with the implied blase acceptance
: deserve to be nuked?
of collateral damage implied by use of nuclear weapons.
I could be wrong, of course.
David Dyer-Bennet
Nov 4, 2011, 4:53:50 PM11/4/11
to
slakmagik <j...@hostname.invalid> writes:
> On 2011-11-04 Fri 11:17:18, James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>> How to put this diplomatically? In retrospect many of the decisions the
>> US made in Vietnam turned out to be suboptimal (interesting, both
>> from the point of view of a bomb-tossing colonist warmonger and a
>> self-deluding, slogan-chanting peacenik) but one could argue at
>> least some of the intentions were good.
>>
>> In the case of the South, the slavers were fighting to preserve
>> slavery and said so. The greatest tragedy of the war was that
>> Sherman didn't have access to the Bomb.
>>
>
> Before I killfile you, would you care to explain that? I cannot believe
> someone not completely stupid and bereft of decency, and one whose
> comprehension of history is even as nuanced as their butterfingered
> grasp of diplomacy, has said it, so would like to believe I am mistaken
> as to your meaning.
What "this" concerns you? The various secession statements that kicked
> On 2011-11-04 Fri 11:17:18, James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>> How to put this diplomatically? In retrospect many of the decisions the
>> US made in Vietnam turned out to be suboptimal (interesting, both
>> from the point of view of a bomb-tossing colonist warmonger and a
>> self-deluding, slogan-chanting peacenik) but one could argue at
>> least some of the intentions were good.
>>
>> In the case of the South, the slavers were fighting to preserve
>> slavery and said so. The greatest tragedy of the war was that
>> Sherman didn't have access to the Bomb.
>>
>
> Before I killfile you, would you care to explain that? I cannot believe
> someone not completely stupid and bereft of decency, and one whose
> comprehension of history is even as nuanced as their butterfingered
> grasp of diplomacy, has said it, so would like to believe I am mistaken
> as to your meaning.
off the Civil War are available on the Web, and they're quite clear
about what the key thing that the South was fighting to preserve was.
What James is saying in that regard is simple truth.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Nov 4, 2011, 4:56:25 PM11/4/11
to
Wayne Throop
Nov 4, 2011, 5:12:20 PM11/4/11
to
:: I would have thought it had more to do with the implied blase
: I addressed that in the part of my reply that you clipped.
Which I didn't disagree with, because I was just commenting that
there didn't really seem to be uncertainty about what was anathama.
But maybe I should have been explicit on that point.
The point is, "I wish Sherman had had overwhelming force available to him,
to shorten the war"[1] is compatible with "I wish he had the bomb", and
there's no *necessary* acceptance of collateral damage. It's just that
folks minds go into an epileptic-like fit of "OOOOH BOMB BOMB BOMB EVIL"
whenever nucleonic explosive devices are mentioned.
That plus of course the employment of hyper-bole.
[1] Or more generically, the tragedy is the north didn't have a more
overwhelming advantage in force.
:: acceptance of collateral damage implied by use of nuclear weapons.
: Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
: I addressed that in the part of my reply that you clipped.
Which I didn't disagree with, because I was just commenting that
there didn't really seem to be uncertainty about what was anathama.
But maybe I should have been explicit on that point.
The point is, "I wish Sherman had had overwhelming force available to him,
to shorten the war"[1] is compatible with "I wish he had the bomb", and
there's no *necessary* acceptance of collateral damage. It's just that
folks minds go into an epileptic-like fit of "OOOOH BOMB BOMB BOMB EVIL"
whenever nucleonic explosive devices are mentioned.
That plus of course the employment of hyper-bole.
[1] Or more generically, the tragedy is the north didn't have a more
overwhelming advantage in force.
Brian M. Scott
Nov 4, 2011, 5:31:43 PM11/4/11
to
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 15:09:00 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
<jdni...@panix.com> wrote in
<news:j90v6c$dbo$2...@reader1.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> Otherwise [_The Avatar_ is] Anderson's 1970s tics writ
> large.
I have quite literally no idea what that means.
[...]
Brian
<jdni...@panix.com> wrote in
<news:j90v6c$dbo$2...@reader1.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> Otherwise [_The Avatar_ is] Anderson's 1970s tics writ
> large.
I have quite literally no idea what that means.
[...]
Brian
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Nov 4, 2011, 5:39:04 PM11/4/11
to
On 2011-11-04 17:12:20 -0400, Wayne Throop said:
> :: I would have thought it had more to do with the implied blase
> :: acceptance of collateral damage implied by use of nuclear weapons.
>
> : Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
> : I addressed that in the part of my reply that you clipped.
>
> Which I didn't disagree with, because I was just commenting that
> there didn't really seem to be uncertainty about what was anathema.
> :: I would have thought it had more to do with the implied blase
> :: acceptance of collateral damage implied by use of nuclear weapons.
>
> : Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
> : I addressed that in the part of my reply that you clipped.
>
> Which I didn't disagree with, because I was just commenting that
Oh, I dunno; I've met Southerners who get very irate when it's
suggested that the war was fought to defend slavery. They consider
this a vile Yankee slander (or libel, if it's in writing). How they
explain all the documentation supporting it I've never quite understood.
> But maybe I should have been explicit on that point.
>
> The point is, "I wish Sherman had had overwhelming force available to him,
> to shorten the war"[1] is compatible with "I wish he had the bomb", and
> there's no *necessary* acceptance of collateral damage. It's just that
> folks minds go into an epileptic-like fit of "OOOOH BOMB BOMB BOMB EVIL"
> whenever nucleonic explosive devices are mentioned.
>
> That plus of course the employment of hyper-bole.
>
> [1] Or more generically, the tragedy is the north didn't have a more
> overwhelming advantage in force.
early stages of the war.
Bill Snyder
Nov 4, 2011, 6:50:01 PM11/4/11
to
fighting to preserve slavery are neither semantically nor
practically synonymous. In the views of most of the South's
soldiers, which are not hard at all to ferret out, they were
fighting because the Yanks had invaded them.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Robert Bannister
Nov 4, 2011, 7:19:42 PM11/4/11
to
to his own diary, colluded with Custer in attempted genocide of American
Indians for a railway company. I had the reference on my old computer,
but I don't doubt it could be found again.
--
Robert Bannister
slakmagik
Nov 4, 2011, 7:42:19 PM11/4/11
to
dwarfed (in the sense of reputation) by the other main series but I've
never read them myself, so couldn't include them. It's probably that
Anderson himself seems to have quit adding to them pretty early on and
focused on the other, himself. I have been meaning to get to them and
probably will some day. I like short stories just fine and a good chunk
of the PoL/TE series is also made up of stories.
Howard Brazee
Nov 4, 2011, 7:38:44 PM11/4/11
to
On 11/4/11 3:39 PM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> Oh, I dunno; I've met Southerners who get very irate when it's
> suggested that the war was fought to defend slavery. They consider
> this a vile Yankee slander (or libel, if it's in writing). How they
> explain all the documentation supporting it I've never quite understood.
That kind of denial is extremely common where self identity is
> Oh, I dunno; I've met Southerners who get very irate when it's
> suggested that the war was fought to defend slavery. They consider
> this a vile Yankee slander (or libel, if it's in writing). How they
> explain all the documentation supporting it I've never quite understood.
associated with moral positions that we disagree with.
Robert Carnegie
Nov 4, 2011, 7:27:54 PM11/4/11
to
"states' rights"?
But please don't mistake me for a friend of, or apologist for, the
South. Even if Constitutionally right, they were horribly wrong.
Howard Brazee
Nov 4, 2011, 7:40:28 PM11/4/11
to
On 11/4/11 2:53 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> What "this" concerns you? The various secession statements that kicked
> off the Civil War are available on the Web, and they're quite clear
> about what the key thing that the South was fighting to preserve was.
> What James is saying in that regard is simple truth.
Of course, soldiers quite often don't have much idea at all why they are
> What "this" concerns you? The various secession statements that kicked
> off the Civil War are available on the Web, and they're quite clear
> about what the key thing that the South was fighting to preserve was.
> What James is saying in that regard is simple truth.
sent to war. It is the patriotic thing to do. Or sometimes the
religious thing to do. The true reasons for the war aren't shared with
the plebes.
David DeLaney
Nov 4, 2011, 11:31:23 PM11/4/11
to
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
"the right to secede so we won't be in a USA that prohibits slavery" and
"states' rights to allow people to own slaves". But current Southerners will
go through all SORTS of contortions to try to make it apper that slavery
was nowhere near any of the thoughts that any of the politicians or generals
were having at the time. (Somewhat along the same lines as how certain kinds
of Republican will incredibly contort their own views to try to eliminate
any trace of the 'they're not the right color' that they actually feel.)
>But please don't mistake me for a friend of, or apologist for, the
>South. Even if Constitutionally right, they were horribly wrong.
Dave "agreed" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
>Bill Snyder wrote:
>> It's just barely possible that seceding to preserve slavery and
>> fighting to preserve slavery are neither semantically nor
>> practically synonymous. In the views of most of the South's
>> soldiers, which are not hard at all to ferret out, they were
>> fighting because the Yanks had invaded them.
>
>Or fighting for the right to secede or for... is this where one says
>"states' rights"?
Yeah, but if you look even a millimeter deeper, those both turn back into
>> It's just barely possible that seceding to preserve slavery and
>> fighting to preserve slavery are neither semantically nor
>> practically synonymous. In the views of most of the South's
>> soldiers, which are not hard at all to ferret out, they were
>> fighting because the Yanks had invaded them.
>
>Or fighting for the right to secede or for... is this where one says
>"states' rights"?
"the right to secede so we won't be in a USA that prohibits slavery" and
"states' rights to allow people to own slaves". But current Southerners will
go through all SORTS of contortions to try to make it apper that slavery
was nowhere near any of the thoughts that any of the politicians or generals
were having at the time. (Somewhat along the same lines as how certain kinds
of Republican will incredibly contort their own views to try to eliminate
any trace of the 'they're not the right color' that they actually feel.)
>But please don't mistake me for a friend of, or apologist for, the
>South. Even if Constitutionally right, they were horribly wrong.
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
James Nicoll
Nov 4, 2011, 11:33:42 PM11/4/11
to
In article <j91ebg$34h$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
it wasn't a bad one to go out on.
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> First rule: Eschew most (but not all) Anderson after about 1977.
>
> I liked his later series, 'Harvest of Stars'. It tripped all my triggers;
>big sensawunder, libertarian screeds, and damn it we're going into space
>because it's THERE.
Speaking of later stuff, I thought FOR LOVE AND GLORY wasn't his best but
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>> First rule: Eschew most (but not all) Anderson after about 1977.
>
> I liked his later series, 'Harvest of Stars'. It tripped all my triggers;
>big sensawunder, libertarian screeds, and damn it we're going into space
>because it's THERE.
it wasn't a bad one to go out on.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Nov 4, 2011, 11:35:03 PM11/4/11
to
invaded; a lot of Southerners WANTED a war. They chose to fire on Fort
Sumter rather than negotiating a withdrawal, after all.
I don't think much of anyone in the South thought a peaceful secession
was really possible.
But yes, many of the ordinary soldiers, quite possibly a majority, felt
they were only defending their homeland. Those weren't the ones who
started or managed the war.
James Nicoll
Nov 4, 2011, 11:40:15 PM11/4/11
to
In article <j91t8q$59t$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
I got the feeling from the introductions he wrote in the 1970s to
his older material that he was embarrassed by a lot of it, both
in terms of art and in terms of politics. He drifted to the right
as he aged so the political views that were the foundation of the
Psychotechnic League would have been fairly far from the ones he
later embraced.
his older material that he was embarrassed by a lot of it, both
in terms of art and in terms of politics. He drifted to the right
as he aged so the political views that were the foundation of the
Psychotechnic League would have been fairly far from the ones he
later embraced.
James Nicoll
Nov 5, 2011, 12:09:31 AM11/5/11
to
In article <j91c59$p16$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
Clearly the generals of the US needed a bigger hammer and Reconstruction
needed to be a lot more thorough about dealing with the people who
led the South into the Slaver's Rebellion.
slakmagik <j...@hostname.invalid> wrote:
>On 2011-11-04 Fri 11:17:18, James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>> How to put this diplomatically? In retrospect many of the decisions the
>> US made in Vietnam turned out to be suboptimal (interesting, both
>> from the point of view of a bomb-tossing colonist warmonger and a
>> self-deluding, slogan-chanting peacenik) but one could argue at
>> least some of the intentions were good.
>>
>> In the case of the South, the slavers were fighting to preserve
>> slavery and said so. The greatest tragedy of the war was that
>> Sherman didn't have access to the Bomb.
>>
>
>Before I killfile you, would you care to explain that?
The heirs of the Confederacy are still a cancer on the US' heart.
>On 2011-11-04 Fri 11:17:18, James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>> How to put this diplomatically? In retrospect many of the decisions the
>> US made in Vietnam turned out to be suboptimal (interesting, both
>> from the point of view of a bomb-tossing colonist warmonger and a
>> self-deluding, slogan-chanting peacenik) but one could argue at
>> least some of the intentions were good.
>>
>> In the case of the South, the slavers were fighting to preserve
>> slavery and said so. The greatest tragedy of the war was that
>> Sherman didn't have access to the Bomb.
>>
>
>Before I killfile you, would you care to explain that?
Clearly the generals of the US needed a bigger hammer and Reconstruction
needed to be a lot more thorough about dealing with the people who
led the South into the Slaver's Rebellion.
Wayne Throop
Nov 5, 2011, 12:20:00 AM11/5/11
to
: jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll)
: The heirs of the Confederacy are still a cancer on the US' heart.
when General Sherman gets the Bomb?
Georgia is, getting, tense
Wants one in, self, defense
The Lord's my Shepherd says the psalm
But just in case... we better get a Bomb
--- Who's Next (slightly tweaked)
: The heirs of the Confederacy are still a cancer on the US' heart.
: Clearly the generals of the US needed a bigger hammer and
: Reconstruction needed to be a lot more thorough about dealing with the
: people who led the South into the Slaver's Rebellion.
Well sure, but how does that help anybody remain serene and calm
: Reconstruction needed to be a lot more thorough about dealing with the
: people who led the South into the Slaver's Rebellion.
when General Sherman gets the Bomb?
Georgia is, getting, tense
Wants one in, self, defense
The Lord's my Shepherd says the psalm
But just in case... we better get a Bomb
--- Who's Next (slightly tweaked)
Kip Williams
Nov 5, 2011, 12:40:53 AM11/5/11
to
Wayne Throop wrote:
> : jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll)
> : The heirs of the Confederacy are still a cancer on the US' heart.
> : Clearly the generals of the US needed a bigger hammer and
> : Reconstruction needed to be a lot more thorough about dealing with the
> : people who led the South into the Slaver's Rebellion.
>
> Well sure, but how does that help anybody remain serene and calm
> when General Sherman gets the Bomb?
Cathy and I lived in Statesboro, Georgia, for a couple of years in the
> : jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll)
> : The heirs of the Confederacy are still a cancer on the US' heart.
> : Clearly the generals of the US needed a bigger hammer and
> : Reconstruction needed to be a lot more thorough about dealing with the
> : people who led the South into the Slaver's Rebellion.
>
> Well sure, but how does that help anybody remain serene and calm
> when General Sherman gets the Bomb?
early 80s. Down there in the swampy land below the gnat line.
Then in 1990 or so, I had an art class with the assignment to paint a
portrait of a Civil War General. I chose Sherman, because at the time I
felt that anybody who burned Statesboro to the ground couldn't be all bad.
Kip W
Robert A. Woodward
Nov 5, 2011, 3:47:52 AM11/5/11
to
In article <j91m1o$lkm$1...@dont-email.me>,
Well, first they had to build an arm from scratch. Looks like that
took a year or so (the effective offensives started in 1862) - this
also consistent with USA experiences in WWI &WWII. Also, the CSA
was pretty big as military theaters in the pre-mechanized age go.
In that context, 4 years for a successful war isn't really that
bad. The near contemporary Taiping Rebellion in China lasted a
decade. The Mongols took a generation to reduce southern China.
Napoleon failed in 1812 to defeat Russia.
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
took a year or so (the effective offensives started in 1862) - this
also consistent with USA experiences in WWI &WWII. Also, the CSA
was pretty big as military theaters in the pre-mechanized age go.
In that context, 4 years for a successful war isn't really that
bad. The near contemporary Taiping Rebellion in China lasted a
decade. The Mongols took a generation to reduce southern China.
Napoleon failed in 1812 to defeat Russia.
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Nov 5, 2011, 4:00:51 AM11/5/11
to
thanks to inept commanders. It should have been three years, not four.
Mike Stone
Nov 5, 2011, 5:16:06 AM11/5/11
to
On Nov 5, 3:40 am, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
> I got the feeling from the introductions he wrote in the 1970s to
> his older material that he was embarrassed by a lot of it, both
> in terms of art and in terms of politics. He drifted to the right
> as he aged so the political views that were the foundation of the
> Psychotechnic League would have been fairly far from the ones he
> later embraced.
Is QUESTION AND ANSWER (aka PLANET OF NO RETURN) considered part of
>
> I got the feeling from the introductions he wrote in the 1970s to
> his older material that he was embarrassed by a lot of it, both
> in terms of art and in terms of politics. He drifted to the right
> as he aged so the political views that were the foundation of the
> Psychotechnic League would have been fairly far from the ones he
> later embraced.
the Psychotechnic League? I'd have thought it in reasonable accord
with his later views.
I agree in general about the superiority of his earlier work, but I
find that true of most authors, esp the better known ones. Perhaps
there's a tendency to take yourself to seriously once you've made a
name. Personally, though, I quite liked ORION SHALL RISE, though I
know some people don't. And it certainly has its share of action.
Even if you're not into problem solving, I'd make an exception for
TRADER TO THE STARS. It kind of sets the scene for the PL stories, and
it sticks with me for its inclusion of non-Europeans. Most sf I'd read
before-encountering TTtS (abt age 15) however weird the aliens were,
the _humans_ had been virtually all WASP.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
Always drink upriver from the herd.
Mike Stone
Nov 5, 2011, 5:25:28 AM11/5/11
to
And whatever your tastes you mustn't miss his beautiful short THE LAST
OF THE DELIVERERS. Lovely twist at the end.
OF THE DELIVERERS. Lovely twist at the end.
Chris Thompson
Nov 5, 2011, 6:01:12 AM11/5/11
to
d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in
news:slrnjb96e...@gatekeeper.vic.com:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>Bill Snyder wrote:
>>> It's just barely possible that seceding to preserve slavery and
>>> fighting to preserve slavery are neither semantically nor
>>> practically synonymous. In the views of most of the South's
>>> soldiers, which are not hard at all to ferret out, they were
>>> fighting because the Yanks had invaded them.
>>
>>Or fighting for the right to secede or for... is this where one says
>>"states' rights"?
>
> Yeah, but if you look even a millimeter deeper, those both turn back
> into "the right to secede so we won't be in a USA that prohibits
> slavery" and "states' rights to allow people to own slaves". But
> current Southerners will go through all SORTS of contortions to try to
> make it apper that slavery was nowhere near any of the thoughts that
> any of the politicians or generals were having at the time. (Somewhat
> along the same lines as how certain kinds of Republican will
> incredibly contort their own views to try to eliminate any trace of
> the 'they're not the right color' that they actually feel.)
>
>>But please don't mistake me for a friend of, or apologist for, the
>>South. Even if Constitutionally right, they were horribly wrong.
>
> Dave "agreed" DeLaney
I am rather surprised no one has mentioned this earlier:
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating
questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it
exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of
civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and
present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as
the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was
conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully
comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may
be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the
leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution,
were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of
nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and
politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the
general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the
order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.
This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the
prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every
essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no
argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus
secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas,
however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the
equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the
government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its
foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that
the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to
the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new
government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this
great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
--Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of CSA
Savannah, GA, 1861
(The "Cornerstone Speech")
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76
news:slrnjb96e...@gatekeeper.vic.com:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>Bill Snyder wrote:
>>> It's just barely possible that seceding to preserve slavery and
>>> fighting to preserve slavery are neither semantically nor
>>> practically synonymous. In the views of most of the South's
>>> soldiers, which are not hard at all to ferret out, they were
>>> fighting because the Yanks had invaded them.
>>
>>Or fighting for the right to secede or for... is this where one says
>>"states' rights"?
>
> Yeah, but if you look even a millimeter deeper, those both turn back
> into "the right to secede so we won't be in a USA that prohibits
> slavery" and "states' rights to allow people to own slaves". But
> current Southerners will go through all SORTS of contortions to try to
> make it apper that slavery was nowhere near any of the thoughts that
> any of the politicians or generals were having at the time. (Somewhat
> along the same lines as how certain kinds of Republican will
> incredibly contort their own views to try to eliminate any trace of
> the 'they're not the right color' that they actually feel.)
>
>>But please don't mistake me for a friend of, or apologist for, the
>>South. Even if Constitutionally right, they were horribly wrong.
>
> Dave "agreed" DeLaney
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating
questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it
exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of
civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and
present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as
the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was
conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully
comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may
be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the
leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution,
were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of
nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and
politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the
general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the
order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.
This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the
prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every
essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no
argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus
secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas,
however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the
equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the
government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its
foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that
the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to
the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new
government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this
great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
--Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of CSA
Savannah, GA, 1861
(The "Cornerstone Speech")
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76
Mike Stone
Nov 5, 2011, 6:54:31 AM11/5/11
to
On Nov 5, 9:25 am, Mike Stone <mikestone1...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> And whatever your tastes you mustn't miss his beautiful short THE LAST
> OF THE DELIVERERS. Lovely twist at the end.
>
A few yet further thoughts. Sorry about all this but Poul and I go
> And whatever your tastes you mustn't miss his beautiful short THE LAST
> OF THE DELIVERERS. Lovely twist at the end.
>
back a long way.
AFTER DOOMSDAY has a "detective element but plenty of action as well.
THE MAKESHIFT ROCKET (aka A BICYCLE BUILT FOR BREW) is a great fun
read.
No one seems to have mentioned THE CORRIDORS OF TIME. I didn't really
care for it on "first contact" in late teens (perhaps finding it too
dystopic) but it has rather "grown on me" since. Anyone else have
thoughts?
Oh and THE DANCER FROM ATLANTIS is great.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
Why, I even know the French for dentures - Aperitif!
James Nicoll
Nov 5, 2011, 9:25:59 AM11/5/11
to
In article <c5399b15-460a-44de...@gk10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
specificially said they didn't want.
>THE MAKESHIFT ROCKET (aka A BICYCLE BUILT FOR BREW) is a great fun
>read.
Agreed.
He also had a nice hand for a certain kind of essay: "Uncleftish Beholding"
is a must-read.
Mike Stone <mikest...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 5, 9:25 am, Mike Stone <mikestone1...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> And whatever your tastes you mustn't miss his beautiful short THE LAST
>> OF THE DELIVERERS. Lovely twist at the end.
>>
>
>
>A few yet further thoughts. Sorry about all this but Poul and I go
>back a long way.
>
>AFTER DOOMSDAY has a "detective element but plenty of action as well.
I would have mentioned it but as a murder mystery it's what the OP
>On Nov 5, 9:25 am, Mike Stone <mikestone1...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> And whatever your tastes you mustn't miss his beautiful short THE LAST
>> OF THE DELIVERERS. Lovely twist at the end.
>>
>
>
>A few yet further thoughts. Sorry about all this but Poul and I go
>back a long way.
>
>AFTER DOOMSDAY has a "detective element but plenty of action as well.
specificially said they didn't want.
>THE MAKESHIFT ROCKET (aka A BICYCLE BUILT FOR BREW) is a great fun
>read.
He also had a nice hand for a certain kind of essay: "Uncleftish Beholding"
is a must-read.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Nov 5, 2011, 9:32:45 AM11/5/11
to
spectacular defeat from the jaws of victory." -- Charles Fair, often
attributed to Abraham Lincoln
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Walter Bushell
Nov 5, 2011, 9:34:06 AM11/5/11
to
In article <robertaw-CC4D27...@news.individual.net>,
--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken
"Robert A. Woodward" <robe...@drizzle.com> wrote:
> Well, first they had to build an arm from scratch. Looks like that
> took a year or so (the effective offensives started in 1862) - this
> also consistent with USA experiences in WWI &WWII. Also, the CSA
> was pretty big as military theaters in the pre-mechanized age go.
> In that context, 4 years for a successful war isn't really that
> bad. The near contemporary Taiping Rebellion in China lasted a
> decade. The Mongols took a generation to reduce southern China.
> Napoleon failed in 1812 to defeat Russia.
Consider how long Vietnam took and Afghanistan is taking.
> Well, first they had to build an arm from scratch. Looks like that
> took a year or so (the effective offensives started in 1862) - this
> also consistent with USA experiences in WWI &WWII. Also, the CSA
> was pretty big as military theaters in the pre-mechanized age go.
> In that context, 4 years for a successful war isn't really that
> bad. The near contemporary Taiping Rebellion in China lasted a
> decade. The Mongols took a generation to reduce southern China.
> Napoleon failed in 1812 to defeat Russia.
--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken
James Nicoll
Nov 5, 2011, 10:06:53 AM11/5/11
to
In article <44b4387d-0104-444b...@a12g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
collapsed and the Long Night has given enough time and isolation
for some interesting new varieties of human to appear. Anderson
generally only showed us the cases where the new traits provided
plot-enabling complications.
See also: "Star Fog" and "The Sharing of Flesh".
Mike Stone <mikest...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 5, 3:40 am, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>> I got the feeling from the introductions he wrote in the 1970s to
>> his older material that he was embarrassed by a lot of it, both
>> in terms of art and in terms of politics. He drifted to the right
>> as he aged so the political views that were the foundation of the
>> Psychotechnic League would have been fairly far from the ones he
>> later embraced.
>
>
>Is QUESTION AND ANSWER (aka PLANET OF NO RETURN) considered part of
>the Psychotechnic League? I'd have thought it in reasonable accord
>with his later views.
>
It's in the Technic timeline, well after the Terran Empire has
>On Nov 5, 3:40 am, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>> I got the feeling from the introductions he wrote in the 1970s to
>> his older material that he was embarrassed by a lot of it, both
>> in terms of art and in terms of politics. He drifted to the right
>> as he aged so the political views that were the foundation of the
>> Psychotechnic League would have been fairly far from the ones he
>> later embraced.
>
>
>Is QUESTION AND ANSWER (aka PLANET OF NO RETURN) considered part of
>the Psychotechnic League? I'd have thought it in reasonable accord
>with his later views.
>
collapsed and the Long Night has given enough time and isolation
for some interesting new varieties of human to appear. Anderson
generally only showed us the cases where the new traits provided
plot-enabling complications.
See also: "Star Fog" and "The Sharing of Flesh".
James Nicoll
Nov 5, 2011, 10:34:05 AM11/5/11
to
In article <n5q7ot6zgllx$.mx6agoa6z089$.d...@40tude.net>,
One is "Western Civilization is DooooOOOOooOOOOOOooOOOOOOooooOOOOmed".
See the beginning of THE AVATAR: we get a compressed future history
in which the Troubles force a return to glorious feudalism; later
once things are settled, they try democracy again, which in turn
appears to have decayed into a global nanny state run by men who want
to crush MAN'S SPIRIT in the name of safety. Now, I understand that
an SF author of this era could be expected to have boundless faith
that democratic governments were doomed but Anderson had a particularly
bad case of it.
There's the bit which I like to call a touching tribute to a high
Gini CoEfficient and the scene in which someone reacts with horror
to the idea the Global Nanny State is going to try dun dun dun
KEYNESIANISM!
The funny thing is the net effect of the Troubles and the recovery
is to get things back to about the point an alarmed conservative would
have perceived them to be in the 1970s.
There's the hot girl interested in the middle aged man, as written
by a middle-aged man (granted, in this case the girl is more than
she appears, which I guess makes up for decades in which Anderson's
women were mainly set decorations and rewards for the hero).
He had characteristic turns of phrase as discussed here:
http://hdtd.typepad.com/hdtd/2005/03/the-pa-system-is-broken.html
See the beginning of THE AVATAR: we get a compressed future history
in which the Troubles force a return to glorious feudalism; later
once things are settled, they try democracy again, which in turn
appears to have decayed into a global nanny state run by men who want
to crush MAN'S SPIRIT in the name of safety. Now, I understand that
an SF author of this era could be expected to have boundless faith
that democratic governments were doomed but Anderson had a particularly
bad case of it.
There's the bit which I like to call a touching tribute to a high
Gini CoEfficient and the scene in which someone reacts with horror
to the idea the Global Nanny State is going to try dun dun dun
KEYNESIANISM!
The funny thing is the net effect of the Troubles and the recovery
is to get things back to about the point an alarmed conservative would
have perceived them to be in the 1970s.
There's the hot girl interested in the middle aged man, as written
by a middle-aged man (granted, in this case the girl is more than
she appears, which I guess makes up for decades in which Anderson's
women were mainly set decorations and rewards for the hero).
He had characteristic turns of phrase as discussed here:
http://hdtd.typepad.com/hdtd/2005/03/the-pa-system-is-broken.html
slakmagik
Nov 5, 2011, 10:41:02 AM11/5/11
to
On 2011-11-05 Sat 00:09:31, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <j91c59$p16$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> slakmagik <j...@hostname.invalid> wrote:
>>On 2011-11-04 Fri 11:17:18, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>
>>> How to put this diplomatically? In retrospect many of the decisions the
>>> US made in Vietnam turned out to be suboptimal (interesting, both
>>> from the point of view of a bomb-tossing colonist warmonger and a
>>> self-deluding, slogan-chanting peacenik) but one could argue at
>>> least some of the intentions were good.
>>>
>>> In the case of the South, the slavers were fighting to preserve
>>> slavery and said so. The greatest tragedy of the war was that
>>> Sherman didn't have access to the Bomb.
>>>
>>
>>Before I killfile you, would you care to explain that?
>
> The heirs of the Confederacy are still a cancer on the US' heart.
> Clearly the generals of the US needed a bigger hammer and Reconstruction
> needed to be a lot more thorough about dealing with the people who
> led the South into the Slaver's Rebellion.
That's two. I said there would not be a third and there will not. (Some
> In article <j91c59$p16$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> slakmagik <j...@hostname.invalid> wrote:
>>On 2011-11-04 Fri 11:17:18, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>
>>> How to put this diplomatically? In retrospect many of the decisions the
>>> US made in Vietnam turned out to be suboptimal (interesting, both
>>> from the point of view of a bomb-tossing colonist warmonger and a
>>> self-deluding, slogan-chanting peacenik) but one could argue at
>>> least some of the intentions were good.
>>>
>>> In the case of the South, the slavers were fighting to preserve
>>> slavery and said so. The greatest tragedy of the war was that
>>> Sherman didn't have access to the Bomb.
>>>
>>
>>Before I killfile you, would you care to explain that?
>
> The heirs of the Confederacy are still a cancer on the US' heart.
> Clearly the generals of the US needed a bigger hammer and Reconstruction
> needed to be a lot more thorough about dealing with the people who
> led the South into the Slaver's Rebellion.
people in this thread, being much more believable but no less repugnant
than you, will not get two.) Speaking of horrible diseases, I can only
suggest that you seek help for whatever truly twists and destroys your
psyche or soul and which you displace in such foolish, pointless, and
small hatred, be that from a psychologist, preacher, or whatever could
possibly help you.
Good bye.
James Nicoll
Nov 5, 2011, 10:50:51 AM11/5/11
to
In article <j93hgt$ahj$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
around the time he wrote THE AVATAR: in "Lodestar" Falkayn betrays
his father-in-law and MIRKHEIM shows us the League is as corrupt
and rotten in its way as Flandry's Empire would be. In fact,
MIRKHEIM turned out to be his goodbye to once fun League.
Over in FLANDRY-land, Flandry finally gets pushed to the point
where he commits what is in the Andersonian vernacular a fairly
heinous act of erasing a civilization's legacy to make a political
point to a third party (granted, since one of his old decisions
had just come back to bite him on the ass*, he was under a bit of
stress at the time). In fact, A KNIGHT OF GHOSTS AND SHADOWS is
the last Flandry with any energy to it; the next one was more
giving the old boy as happy a resolution as the prick deserved and
the one after that was a failed attemtp to salvage the franchise.
* Do not taunt happy psychic girl: they can kill you with their mind.
Or in this case, make sure any subsequent relationships are self-
sabotaging.
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <n5q7ot6zgllx$.mx6agoa6z089$.d...@40tude.net>,
>Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 15:09:00 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
>><jdni...@panix.com> wrote in
>><news:j90v6c$dbo$2...@reader1.panix.com> in
>>rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> Otherwise [_The Avatar_ is] Anderson's 1970s tics writ
>>> large.
>>
>>I have quite literally no idea what that means.
>
>One is "Western Civilization is DooooOOOOooOOOOOOooOOOOOOooooOOOOmed".
>See the beginning of THE AVATAR: we get a compressed future history
>in which the Troubles force a return to glorious feudalism; later
>once things are settled, they try democracy again, which in turn
>appears to have decayed into a global nanny state run by men who want
>to crush MAN'S SPIRIT in the name of safety. Now, I understand that
>an SF author of this era could be expected to have boundless faith
>that democratic governments were doomed but Anderson had a particularly
>bad case of it.
See also how he basically dystopiaformed the Polesotechnic League
>In article <n5q7ot6zgllx$.mx6agoa6z089$.d...@40tude.net>,
>Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 15:09:00 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
>><jdni...@panix.com> wrote in
>><news:j90v6c$dbo$2...@reader1.panix.com> in
>>rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> Otherwise [_The Avatar_ is] Anderson's 1970s tics writ
>>> large.
>>
>>I have quite literally no idea what that means.
>
>One is "Western Civilization is DooooOOOOooOOOOOOooOOOOOOooooOOOOmed".
>See the beginning of THE AVATAR: we get a compressed future history
>in which the Troubles force a return to glorious feudalism; later
>once things are settled, they try democracy again, which in turn
>appears to have decayed into a global nanny state run by men who want
>to crush MAN'S SPIRIT in the name of safety. Now, I understand that
>an SF author of this era could be expected to have boundless faith
>that democratic governments were doomed but Anderson had a particularly
>bad case of it.
around the time he wrote THE AVATAR: in "Lodestar" Falkayn betrays
his father-in-law and MIRKHEIM shows us the League is as corrupt
and rotten in its way as Flandry's Empire would be. In fact,
MIRKHEIM turned out to be his goodbye to once fun League.
Over in FLANDRY-land, Flandry finally gets pushed to the point
where he commits what is in the Andersonian vernacular a fairly
heinous act of erasing a civilization's legacy to make a political
point to a third party (granted, since one of his old decisions
had just come back to bite him on the ass*, he was under a bit of
stress at the time). In fact, A KNIGHT OF GHOSTS AND SHADOWS is
the last Flandry with any energy to it; the next one was more
giving the old boy as happy a resolution as the prick deserved and
the one after that was a failed attemtp to salvage the franchise.
* Do not taunt happy psychic girl: they can kill you with their mind.
Or in this case, make sure any subsequent relationships are self-
sabotaging.
Kip Williams
Nov 5, 2011, 11:08:09 AM11/5/11
to
slakmagik wrote:
> Good bye.
And to you.
Kip W
> Good bye.
And to you.
Kip W
Kurt Busiek
Nov 5, 2011, 1:34:28 PM11/5/11
to
het up he can't talk straight, but if the "others" are getting less
time than you to repent their sins against whatever the hell he's
offended about, it's gotta be that you insulted his imaginary dream of
the South, all honor and principle and crinoline, because nobody else
backed you up on the Bomb that I saw.
How dare you interrupt his fantasy with the ugly truth, sir! The truth
is not the South!
"Ol' times there are not forgotten,
Whuppin' slaves and sellin' cotton,
And waitin' for the Robert E. Lee.
(It was never there on time...)"
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Mike Stone
Nov 5, 2011, 2:25:01 PM11/5/11
to
On Nov 5, 2:06 pm, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> In article <44b4387d-0104-444b-b3c7-d137b2281...@a12g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
> Mike Stone <mikestone1...@googlemail.com> wrote:>
>
> >Is QUESTION AND ANSWER (aka PLANET OF NO RETURN) considered part of
> >the Psychotechnic League? I'd have thought it in reasonable accord
> >with his later views.
>
> It's in the Technic timeline, well after the Terran Empire has
> collapsed and the Long Night has given enough time and isolation
> for some interesting new varieties of human to appear. Anderson
> generally only showed us the cases where the new traits provided
> plot-enabling complications.
>
> See also: "Star Fog" and "The Sharing of Flesh".
>
You sure? It always struck me as being relatively close in time ie
with Europe still in ruins from WW3. I thought maybe a century or two
after _Marius_
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
A "chip on the shoulder" is just a bit of wood come off the head
> In article <44b4387d-0104-444b-b3c7-d137b2281...@a12g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
> Mike Stone <mikestone1...@googlemail.com> wrote:>
>
> >Is QUESTION AND ANSWER (aka PLANET OF NO RETURN) considered part of
> >the Psychotechnic League? I'd have thought it in reasonable accord
> >with his later views.
>
> It's in the Technic timeline, well after the Terran Empire has
> collapsed and the Long Night has given enough time and isolation
> for some interesting new varieties of human to appear. Anderson
> generally only showed us the cases where the new traits provided
> plot-enabling complications.
>
> See also: "Star Fog" and "The Sharing of Flesh".
>
with Europe still in ruins from WW3. I thought maybe a century or two
after _Marius_
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Nov 5, 2011, 2:31:59 PM11/5/11
to
On 11/5/11 10:41 AM, slakmagik wrote:
> On 2011-11-05 Sat 00:09:31, James Nicoll wrote:
>> In article<j91c59$p16$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>> slakmagik<j...@hostname.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2011-11-04 Fri 11:17:18, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How to put this diplomatically? In retrospect many of the decisions the
>>>> US made in Vietnam turned out to be suboptimal (interesting, both
>>>> from the point of view of a bomb-tossing colonist warmonger and a
>>>> self-deluding, slogan-chanting peacenik) but one could argue at
>>>> least some of the intentions were good.
>>>>
>>>> In the case of the South, the slavers were fighting to preserve
>>>> slavery and said so. The greatest tragedy of the war was that
>>>> Sherman didn't have access to the Bomb.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Before I killfile you, would you care to explain that?
>>
>> The heirs of the Confederacy are still a cancer on the US' heart.
>> Clearly the generals of the US needed a bigger hammer and Reconstruction
>> needed to be a lot more thorough about dealing with the people who
>> led the South into the Slaver's Rebellion.
>
> That's two. I said there would not be a third and there will not. (Some
> people in this thread, being much more believable but no less repugnant
> than you, will not get two.)
So it's offensive that the North crushed the Slaver's Rebellion, aka
> On 2011-11-05 Sat 00:09:31, James Nicoll wrote:
>> In article<j91c59$p16$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>> slakmagik<j...@hostname.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2011-11-04 Fri 11:17:18, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How to put this diplomatically? In retrospect many of the decisions the
>>>> US made in Vietnam turned out to be suboptimal (interesting, both
>>>> from the point of view of a bomb-tossing colonist warmonger and a
>>>> self-deluding, slogan-chanting peacenik) but one could argue at
>>>> least some of the intentions were good.
>>>>
>>>> In the case of the South, the slavers were fighting to preserve
>>>> slavery and said so. The greatest tragedy of the war was that
>>>> Sherman didn't have access to the Bomb.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Before I killfile you, would you care to explain that?
>>
>> The heirs of the Confederacy are still a cancer on the US' heart.
>> Clearly the generals of the US needed a bigger hammer and Reconstruction
>> needed to be a lot more thorough about dealing with the people who
>> led the South into the Slaver's Rebellion.
>
> That's two. I said there would not be a third and there will not. (Some
> people in this thread, being much more believable but no less repugnant
> than you, will not get two.)
the Confederate States, because they insisted that their "state's
rights" trumped "you shouldn't enslave people"?
Sooo sorry. Don't let the Confederate flag trip you on your way out,
but the door can always hit your *ss.
James Nicoll
Nov 5, 2011, 2:40:24 PM11/5/11
to
In article <c8365758-5ca7-4502...@hj4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
(the connection is
http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/images/d/d2/THNGHTFCWG1978.jpg
http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/images/3/33/QSTNNDNSWR1978.jpg
but I think in fact I first read Q&A as PLANET OF NO RETURN
part of THE WORLDS OF POUL ANDERSON)
Please strike my previous comments and replace them with:
The background in Q&A does seem reminiscent of The PsychoTechnic
League but differs in many details, including how the FTL drive
works.
If I remember correctly it was supposed to be part of a Twayne
Triplet, with Asimov's "Sucker Bait" being part of the set.
I don't recall the third and in fact I don't recall that Anderson
and Asimov's involvement went beyond having stories in similar physical
settings; at least, I think the experiment died with only The
Petrified Planet and Witches Three realized. Maybe Anderson didn't
want his PsychoTechnic setting tied into someone else's (shared
universe isn't quite the right word).
Actually, that reminds me of an oddity of Anderson's. He seems to have
really liked the idea of shared universes because he was involved in
a lot of them, going back to the 1950s.
Mike Stone <mikest...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 5, 2:06 pm, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>> In article
><44b4387d-0104-444b-b3c7-d137b2281...@a12g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
>
>> Mike Stone <mikestone1...@googlemail.com> wrote:>
>>
>> >Is QUESTION AND ANSWER (aka PLANET OF NO RETURN) considered part of
>> >the Psychotechnic League? I'd have thought it in reasonable accord
>> >with his later views.
>>
>> It's in the Technic timeline, well after the Terran Empire has
>> collapsed and the Long Night has given enough time and isolation
>> for some interesting new varieties of human to appear. Anderson
>> generally only showed us the cases where the new traits provided
>> plot-enabling complications.
>>
>> See also: "Star Fog" and "The Sharing of Flesh".
>>
>
>
>You sure? It always struck me as being relatively close in time ie
>with Europe still in ruins from WW3. I thought maybe a century or two
>after _Marius_
Dur! I was confusing it with THE NIGHT FACE.
>On Nov 5, 2:06 pm, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>> In article
><44b4387d-0104-444b-b3c7-d137b2281...@a12g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
>
>> Mike Stone <mikestone1...@googlemail.com> wrote:>
>>
>> >Is QUESTION AND ANSWER (aka PLANET OF NO RETURN) considered part of
>> >the Psychotechnic League? I'd have thought it in reasonable accord
>> >with his later views.
>>
>> It's in the Technic timeline, well after the Terran Empire has
>> collapsed and the Long Night has given enough time and isolation
>> for some interesting new varieties of human to appear. Anderson
>> generally only showed us the cases where the new traits provided
>> plot-enabling complications.
>>
>> See also: "Star Fog" and "The Sharing of Flesh".
>>
>
>
>You sure? It always struck me as being relatively close in time ie
>with Europe still in ruins from WW3. I thought maybe a century or two
>after _Marius_
(the connection is
http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/images/d/d2/THNGHTFCWG1978.jpg
http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/images/3/33/QSTNNDNSWR1978.jpg
but I think in fact I first read Q&A as PLANET OF NO RETURN
part of THE WORLDS OF POUL ANDERSON)
Please strike my previous comments and replace them with:
The background in Q&A does seem reminiscent of The PsychoTechnic
League but differs in many details, including how the FTL drive
works.
If I remember correctly it was supposed to be part of a Twayne
Triplet, with Asimov's "Sucker Bait" being part of the set.
I don't recall the third and in fact I don't recall that Anderson
and Asimov's involvement went beyond having stories in similar physical
settings; at least, I think the experiment died with only The
Petrified Planet and Witches Three realized. Maybe Anderson didn't
want his PsychoTechnic setting tied into someone else's (shared
universe isn't quite the right word).
Actually, that reminds me of an oddity of Anderson's. He seems to have
really liked the idea of shared universes because he was involved in
a lot of them, going back to the 1950s.
James Nicoll
Nov 5, 2011, 2:41:05 PM11/5/11
to
In article <j93vuo$e63$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article
><c8365758-5ca7-4502...@hj4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>Mike Stone <mikest...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>On Nov 5, 2:06 pm, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>>> In article
>><44b4387d-0104-444b-b3c7-d137b2281...@a12g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>> Mike Stone <mikestone1...@googlemail.com> wrote:>
>>>
>>> >Is QUESTION AND ANSWER (aka PLANET OF NO RETURN) considered part of
>>> >the Psychotechnic League? I'd have thought it in reasonable accord
>>> >with his later views.
>>>
>>> It's in the Technic timeline, well after the Terran Empire has
>>> collapsed and the Long Night has given enough time and isolation
>>> for some interesting new varieties of human to appear. Anderson
>>> generally only showed us the cases where the new traits provided
>>> plot-enabling complications.
>>>
>>> See also: "Star Fog" and "The Sharing of Flesh".
>>>
>>
>>
>>You sure? It always struck me as being relatively close in time ie
>>with Europe still in ruins from WW3. I thought maybe a century or two
>>after _Marius_
>
>Dur! I was confusing it with THE NIGHT FACE.
I have a feeling I've done that before, too.
>In article
><c8365758-5ca7-4502...@hj4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>Mike Stone <mikest...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>On Nov 5, 2:06 pm, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>>> In article
>><44b4387d-0104-444b-b3c7-d137b2281...@a12g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>> Mike Stone <mikestone1...@googlemail.com> wrote:>
>>>
>>> >Is QUESTION AND ANSWER (aka PLANET OF NO RETURN) considered part of
>>> >the Psychotechnic League? I'd have thought it in reasonable accord
>>> >with his later views.
>>>
>>> It's in the Technic timeline, well after the Terran Empire has
>>> collapsed and the Long Night has given enough time and isolation
>>> for some interesting new varieties of human to appear. Anderson
>>> generally only showed us the cases where the new traits provided
>>> plot-enabling complications.
>>>
>>> See also: "Star Fog" and "The Sharing of Flesh".
>>>
>>
>>
>>You sure? It always struck me as being relatively close in time ie
>>with Europe still in ruins from WW3. I thought maybe a century or two
>>after _Marius_
>
>Dur! I was confusing it with THE NIGHT FACE.
slakmagik
Nov 5, 2011, 2:59:24 PM11/5/11
to
more advanced. I think anyone who thinks the Civil War was (only) "about
slavery" shows only a slightly better grasp of history as someone
thinking the Revolutionary War (where the rebels won and are thus
heroes) was (only) "about tea" -- or that people considering the Viet
Nam war can be divided into only two camps, both of whom can be
insulted. I also think anyone who believes any nation-state is "all
honor and principle" (with or without crinoline) is a fool. But that
does not stir me to comment.
But the idea that I even have to spell out how appalling and idiotic it
is for anyone to wish nuclear death on anyone - not, say, in the heat of
a terrorist attack but in discussing the "reason" for disliking a
*science fiction television show* - beggars belief. And the idea that I
have to spell out how insanely vicious it is for one of the supposed
victors of a war to retroactively wish to turn parts of what he claims
is his own country into plains of glass and irradiate some stray decent
soldier (surely there must be one) and women, children, and animals all
in the name of killing a few slavers (whom he equates with everyone
south of the Mason-Dixon line, including its squirrels, apparently)
deader than they were already killed 150 years ago beggars belief. And
that he says this to someone whom he claims is a fellow countryman
thanks to that glorious victory, and describes the "heirs of the
Confederacy" rather than himself as a "cancer on the US' heart" just
continues to beggar belief.
As far as anyone backing him up on the Bomb, you might wish to revisit
Lawrence Watt-Evans' comments on low-yield and precise targetting (I
thank whatever I may that I never bought one of your books, sir, and,
given that I'll never even read another post of yours for free, I
certainly never will) or Mr. Williams' post who, while stopping short of
advocating atomic weaponry, conveyed to me a similar spirit. But what
does anyone backing him up have to do with anything? The others "get
less time to repent" because (a) they are piling on to a subject where
it must be quite clear what their meaning is but (b) because I haven't
noticed a body of otherwise sane and useful posts from them as I have
from Mr. Nicolls. I was, quite frankly, shocked by him. He surely
sounded like he meant what he said, but I couldn't entirely believe it,
and therefore asked for explanation. (He responded with wishes for
bigger Freudian hammers and more thorough Deconstructions.) With that in
place, why should anyone else get another chance?
But these are rhetorical questions, as I'm done with this. This is
rec.arts.sf.written and the topic is good Poul Anderson books and I've
now said what I think the good ones are.
Ahasuerus
Nov 5, 2011, 3:21:37 PM11/5/11
to
On Nov 4, 11:40 pm, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
> In article <j91t8q$59...@speranza.aioe.org>,
several years readable" (p. 154 of _Dream Makers_, vol. II, trade
paperback edition). Anderson also thought that some of his series had
reached the point of diminishing returns: "I have a feeling that the
Nicholas van Rijn future history is mined out -- or, to change the
metaphor, tied up in knots of its own making. If you try to stay
consistent, the more material you accumulate, the more restricted you
get in what you can do later." (same interview)
> He drifted to the right as he aged so the political views that were
> the foundation of the Psychotechnic League would have been
> fairly far from the ones he later embraced.
Yes, the 1970s introductions to his earlier novels occasionally
sounded apologetic. OTOH, he had never been as far to the Left as,
say, Jerry Pournelle, so his journey was shorter. I doubt he ever
cried re-reading his old books the way Max Eastman did.
> In article <j91t8q$59...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>
> slakmagik <j...@hostname.invalid> wrote:
> >On 2011-11-04 Fri 15:05:55, Wayne Throop wrote:
> >> : slakmagik <j...@hostname.invalid>
> >> : * Most all of the Polesotechnic League/Terran Empire stuff which runs
> >> : to something like 17 extremely diverse books prior to its latest Baen
> >> : resorting.
>
> >> And yet, nobody ever mentions the Psychotechnic League collections.
> >> Tsk, tsk.
>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Psychotechnic_League
>
> >> Sure, they are for the most part earlier works, and short stories
> >> and such, but some, even most, of them are quite good. IMO.
>
> >That's a good point - I've often wondered why they were so completely
> >dwarfed (in the sense of reputation) by the other main series but I've
> >never read them myself, so couldn't include them. It's probably that
> >Anderson himself seems to have quit adding to them pretty early on and
> >focused on the other, himself. I have been meaning to get to them and
> >probably will some day. I like short stories just fine and a good chunk
> >of the PoL/TE series is also made up of stories.
>
> I got the feeling from the introductions he wrote in the 1970s to
> his older material that he was embarrassed by a lot of it, both
> in terms of art and in terms of politics.
Indeed: "In fact I no longer consider the production of my first
> slakmagik <j...@hostname.invalid> wrote:
> >On 2011-11-04 Fri 15:05:55, Wayne Throop wrote:
> >> : slakmagik <j...@hostname.invalid>
> >> : * Most all of the Polesotechnic League/Terran Empire stuff which runs
> >> : to something like 17 extremely diverse books prior to its latest Baen
> >> : resorting.
>
> >> And yet, nobody ever mentions the Psychotechnic League collections.
> >> Tsk, tsk.
>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Psychotechnic_League
>
> >> Sure, they are for the most part earlier works, and short stories
> >> and such, but some, even most, of them are quite good. IMO.
>
> >That's a good point - I've often wondered why they were so completely
> >dwarfed (in the sense of reputation) by the other main series but I've
> >never read them myself, so couldn't include them. It's probably that
> >Anderson himself seems to have quit adding to them pretty early on and
> >focused on the other, himself. I have been meaning to get to them and
> >probably will some day. I like short stories just fine and a good chunk
> >of the PoL/TE series is also made up of stories.
>
> I got the feeling from the introductions he wrote in the 1970s to
> his older material that he was embarrassed by a lot of it, both
> in terms of art and in terms of politics.
several years readable" (p. 154 of _Dream Makers_, vol. II, trade
paperback edition). Anderson also thought that some of his series had
reached the point of diminishing returns: "I have a feeling that the
Nicholas van Rijn future history is mined out -- or, to change the
metaphor, tied up in knots of its own making. If you try to stay
consistent, the more material you accumulate, the more restricted you
get in what you can do later." (same interview)
> He drifted to the right as he aged so the political views that were
> the foundation of the Psychotechnic League would have been
> fairly far from the ones he later embraced.
sounded apologetic. OTOH, he had never been as far to the Left as,
say, Jerry Pournelle, so his journey was shorter. I doubt he ever
cried re-reading his old books the way Max Eastman did.
Ahasuerus
Nov 5, 2011, 3:27:47 PM11/5/11
to
On Nov 5, 2:59 pm, slakmagik <j...@hostname.invalid> wrote: [snip]
His own country?
> And the idea that I
> have to spell out how insanely vicious it is for one of the supposed
> victors of a war to retroactively wish to turn parts of what he claims
> is his own country into plains of glass [snip]
> have to spell out how insanely vicious it is for one of the supposed
> victors of a war to retroactively wish to turn parts of what he claims
His own country?
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Nov 5, 2011, 3:33:25 PM11/5/11
to
> Your logic is not like our earth logic. And I don't think yours is much
> more advanced. I think anyone who thinks the Civil War was (only) "about
> slavery" shows only a slightly better grasp of history as someone
> thinking the Revolutionary War (where the rebels won and are thus
> heroes) was (only) "about tea" -- or that people considering the Viet
> Nam war can be divided into only two camps, both of whom can be
> insulted. I also think anyone who believes any nation-state is "all
> honor and principle" (with or without crinoline) is a fool. But that
> does not stir me to comment.
>
> But the idea that I even have to spell out how appalling and idiotic it
> is for anyone to wish nuclear death on anyone - not, say, in the heat of
> a terrorist attack but in discussing the "reason" for disliking a
> *science fiction television show* - beggars belief. And the idea that I
> have to spell out how insanely vicious it is for one of the supposed
> victors of a war...
> more advanced. I think anyone who thinks the Civil War was (only) "about
> slavery" shows only a slightly better grasp of history as someone
> thinking the Revolutionary War (where the rebels won and are thus
> heroes) was (only) "about tea" -- or that people considering the Viet
> Nam war can be divided into only two camps, both of whom can be
> insulted. I also think anyone who believes any nation-state is "all
> honor and principle" (with or without crinoline) is a fool. But that
> does not stir me to comment.
>
> But the idea that I even have to spell out how appalling and idiotic it
> is for anyone to wish nuclear death on anyone - not, say, in the heat of
> a terrorist attack but in discussing the "reason" for disliking a
> *science fiction television show* - beggars belief. And the idea that I
> have to spell out how insanely vicious it is for one of the supposed
"Supposed"?
> ...to retroactively wish to turn parts of what he claims
> is his own country into plains of glass and irradiate some stray decent
> soldier (surely there must be one) and women, children, and animals all
> in the name of killing a few slavers (whom he equates with everyone
> south of the Mason-Dixon line, including its squirrels, apparently)
> deader than they were already killed 150 years ago beggars belief. And
> that he says this to someone whom he claims is a fellow countryman
> thanks to that glorious victory, and describes the "heirs of the
> Confederacy" rather than himself as a "cancer on the US' heart" just
> continues to beggar belief.
James Nicoll is Canadian. He doesn't consider Southerners his fellow
> soldier (surely there must be one) and women, children, and animals all
> in the name of killing a few slavers (whom he equates with everyone
> south of the Mason-Dixon line, including its squirrels, apparently)
> deader than they were already killed 150 years ago beggars belief. And
> that he says this to someone whom he claims is a fellow countryman
> thanks to that glorious victory, and describes the "heirs of the
> Confederacy" rather than himself as a "cancer on the US' heart" just
> continues to beggar belief.
countrymen.
As the descendant of an escaped slave, I, too, consider the heirs of
the Confederacy a cancer on the U.S. heart. The _descendants_ of
Confederates, no -- we don't choose our ancestors. Those who knowingly
lay claim to the heritage of racism and oppression, though, rather than
rejecting their ancestors' ideas, have chosen their evil.
--
Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Kip Williams
Nov 5, 2011, 3:41:37 PM11/5/11
to
> On 2011-11-05 14:59:24 -0400, slakmagik said:
>
>> Your logic is not like our earth logic. And I don't think yours is much
>> more advanced. I think anyone who thinks the Civil War was (only) "about
>> slavery" shows only a slightly better grasp of history as someone
Despite reams of proof that you are wrong.
>
>> Your logic is not like our earth logic. And I don't think yours is much
>> more advanced. I think anyone who thinks the Civil War was (only) "about
>> slavery" shows only a slightly better grasp of history as someone
>> thinking the Revolutionary War (where the rebels won and are thus
>> heroes) was (only) "about tea"
to have slaves, and the right of the citizens to have slaves, and of the
right to oblige other states to honor their right to have slaves, and
other important principles about slaves.
Kip W
David Johnston
Nov 5, 2011, 3:45:02 PM11/5/11
to
On 11/5/2011 12:59 PM, slakmagik wrote:
> But the idea that I even have to spell out how appalling and idiotic it
> is for anyone to wish nuclear death on anyone - not, say, in the heat of
> a terrorist attack but in discussing the "reason" for disliking a
> *science fiction television show* - beggars belief. And the idea that I
> have to spell out how insanely vicious it is for one of the supposed
> victors of a war to retroactively wish to turn parts of what he claims
> is his own country
He never claimed it was his country.
> But the idea that I even have to spell out how appalling and idiotic it
> is for anyone to wish nuclear death on anyone - not, say, in the heat of
> a terrorist attack but in discussing the "reason" for disliking a
> *science fiction television show* - beggars belief. And the idea that I
> have to spell out how insanely vicious it is for one of the supposed
> victors of a war to retroactively wish to turn parts of what he claims
> is his own country
James Nicoll
Nov 5, 2011, 4:01:09 PM11/5/11
to
In article <eb411f93-6db3-41af...@o19g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
I think to think of the South as that part of the US where agitators
for US/Canadian conflict originate, so this is a two-fer; do the good
parts of the US a favour and reduce the chances of a repeat of 1812
or any sort of inadvertent rekindling of the Seven Years War.
Also, I know SF likes its glassification effect but the examples we
have on hand of places that have been nuked (in the case of Nevada,
928 times) does not support the lifeless radioactive featureless plane
model. As long as one eschews an excess of ground strikes, the target
should usable for habitation, at least low rent habitation, almost
immediately.
Yeah, yeah; Nevada was largely uninhabitable *before* they started nuking
it.
for US/Canadian conflict originate, so this is a two-fer; do the good
parts of the US a favour and reduce the chances of a repeat of 1812
or any sort of inadvertent rekindling of the Seven Years War.
Also, I know SF likes its glassification effect but the examples we
have on hand of places that have been nuked (in the case of Nevada,
928 times) does not support the lifeless radioactive featureless plane
model. As long as one eschews an excess of ground strikes, the target
should usable for habitation, at least low rent habitation, almost
immediately.
Yeah, yeah; Nevada was largely uninhabitable *before* they started nuking
it.
James Nicoll
Nov 5, 2011, 4:07:53 PM11/5/11
to
In article <j94325$q02$1...@dont-email.me>,
I have American relatives, though, on both sides. Mainly New England
one side, Pennsylvania, California and Hawaii on the other. I think
of the US as cousins. Cousins with a really abusive family member.
one side, Pennsylvania, California and Hawaii on the other. I think
of the US as cousins. Cousins with a really abusive family member.
Brian M. Scott
Nov 5, 2011, 4:18:26 PM11/5/11
to
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 03:54:31 -0700 (PDT), Mike Stone
<mikest...@googlemail.com> wrote in
<news:c5399b15-460a-44de...@gk10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> Oh and THE DANCER FROM ATLANTIS is great.
I've always liked it a good deal, but it doesn't seem to be
one of the more popular ones.
Brian
<mikest...@googlemail.com> wrote in
<news:c5399b15-460a-44de...@gk10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> Oh and THE DANCER FROM ATLANTIS is great.
one of the more popular ones.
Brian
William Hyde
Nov 5, 2011, 4:58:35 PM11/5/11
to
On Nov 5, 10:50 am, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
> See also how he basically dystopiaformed the Polesotechnic League
> around the time he wrote THE AVATAR: in "Lodestar" Falkayn betrays
> his father-in-law and MIRKHEIM shows us the League is as corrupt
> and rotten in its way as Flandry's Empire would be.
I always thought it was. That Falkayn and others figured it out was
>
> See also how he basically dystopiaformed the Polesotechnic League
> around the time he wrote THE AVATAR: in "Lodestar" Falkayn betrays
> his father-in-law and MIRKHEIM shows us the League is as corrupt
> and rotten in its way as Flandry's Empire would be.
what I liked about the book.
> MIRKHEIM turned out to be his goodbye to once fun League.
this time.
> Over in FLANDRY-land, Flandry finally gets pushed to the point
> where he commits what is in the Andersonian vernacular a fairly
> heinous act of erasing a civilization's legacy to make a political
> point to a third party (granted, since one of his old decisions
> had just come back to bite him on the ass*, he was under a bit of
> stress at the time). In fact, A KNIGHT OF GHOSTS AND SHADOWS is
> the last Flandry with any energy to it;
I've read any further in this series.
William Hyde
Howard Brazee
Nov 5, 2011, 6:05:05 PM11/5/11
to
On 11/5/11 7:34 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
>> Well, first they had to build an arm from scratch. Looks like that
>> > took a year or so (the effective offensives started in 1862) - this
>> > also consistent with USA experiences in WWI&WWII. Also, the CSA
>> Well, first they had to build an arm from scratch. Looks like that
>> > took a year or so (the effective offensives started in 1862) - this
>> > was pretty big as military theaters in the pre-mechanized age go.
>> > In that context, 4 years for a successful war isn't really that
>> > bad. The near contemporary Taiping Rebellion in China lasted a
>> > decade. The Mongols took a generation to reduce southern China.
>> > Napoleon failed in 1812 to defeat Russia.
> Consider how long Vietnam took and Afghanistan is taking.
Those wars appear to have had very different goals other than getting
>> > In that context, 4 years for a successful war isn't really that
>> > bad. The near contemporary Taiping Rebellion in China lasted a
>> > decade. The Mongols took a generation to reduce southern China.
>> > Napoleon failed in 1812 to defeat Russia.
> Consider how long Vietnam took and Afghanistan is taking.
the enemy to surrender.
hem...@gmail.com
Nov 5, 2011, 6:47:32 PM11/5/11
to
On Friday, November 4, 2011 2:27:44 PM UTC-5, Remus Shepherd wrote:
> But don't miss 'Operation Chaos', it's unique and was ahead of its time,
> written in the 1960s but with a lot of resemblance to Buffy and Harry Potter.
Actually, I see it as a tribute to the fantasy of _Unknown_/_Unknown Worlds_ in general and "Magic Inc." specifically.
--
Matt Hickman.
There is magic in words, black magic--if you
know how to invoke it.
Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
"If This Goes On--" ASF c.1940
> But don't miss 'Operation Chaos', it's unique and was ahead of its time,
> written in the 1960s but with a lot of resemblance to Buffy and Harry Potter.
Actually, I see it as a tribute to the fantasy of _Unknown_/_Unknown Worlds_ in general and "Magic Inc." specifically.
--
Matt Hickman.
There is magic in words, black magic--if you
know how to invoke it.
Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
"If This Goes On--" ASF c.1940
Brian M. Scott
Nov 5, 2011, 6:54:50 PM11/5/11
to
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 14:50:51 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
<jdni...@panix.com> wrote in
<news:j93igb$lv7$1...@reader1.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> See also how he basically dystopiaformed the Polesotechnic
> League around the time he wrote THE AVATAR: in "Lodestar"
> Falkayn betrays his father-in-law and MIRKHEIM shows us
> the League is as corrupt and rotten in its way as
> Flandry's Empire would be.
Well of course: it was always headed in that direction.
[...]
> Over in FLANDRY-land, Flandry finally gets pushed to the
> point where he commits what is in the Andersonian
> vernacular a fairly heinous act of erasing a
> civilization's legacy to make a political point to a
> third party (granted, since one of his old decisions had
> just come back to bite him on the ass*, he was under a
> bit of stress at the time). In fact, A KNIGHT OF GHOSTS
> AND SHADOWS is the last Flandry with any energy to it;
> the next one was more giving the old boy as happy a
> resolution as the prick deserved and the one after that
> was a failed attemtp to salvage the franchise.
I don't think that I've ever run across _The Game of
Empire_, but I rather like the resolution of _A Stone in
Heaven_. Then again, I've a good deal of sympathy for
Flandry.
Brian
<jdni...@panix.com> wrote in
<news:j93igb$lv7$1...@reader1.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> See also how he basically dystopiaformed the Polesotechnic
> League around the time he wrote THE AVATAR: in "Lodestar"
> Falkayn betrays his father-in-law and MIRKHEIM shows us
> the League is as corrupt and rotten in its way as
> Flandry's Empire would be.
[...]
> Over in FLANDRY-land, Flandry finally gets pushed to the
> point where he commits what is in the Andersonian
> vernacular a fairly heinous act of erasing a
> civilization's legacy to make a political point to a
> third party (granted, since one of his old decisions had
> just come back to bite him on the ass*, he was under a
> bit of stress at the time). In fact, A KNIGHT OF GHOSTS
> AND SHADOWS is the last Flandry with any energy to it;
> the next one was more giving the old boy as happy a
> resolution as the prick deserved and the one after that
> was a failed attemtp to salvage the franchise.
Empire_, but I rather like the resolution of _A Stone in
Heaven_. Then again, I've a good deal of sympathy for
Flandry.
Brian
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Nov 5, 2011, 6:59:57 PM11/5/11
to
There are cranks, in the South and elsewhere, but there is no large
group pining for slavery or Jim Crow.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Brian M. Scott
Nov 5, 2011, 7:10:38 PM11/5/11
to
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 14:34:05 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
<jdni...@panix.com> wrote in
<news:j93hgt$ahj$1...@reader1.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <n5q7ot6zgllx$.mx6agoa6z089$.d...@40tude.net>,
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 15:09:00 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
>><jdni...@panix.com> wrote in
>><news:j90v6c$dbo$2...@reader1.panix.com> in
>>rec.arts.sf.written:
>>[...]
>>> Otherwise [_The Avatar_ is] Anderson's 1970s tics writ
>>> large.
>>I have quite literally no idea what that means.
> One is "Western Civilization is
> DooooOOOOooOOOOOOooOOOOOOooooOOOOmed". See the beginning
> of THE AVATAR: we get a compressed future history in
> which the Troubles force a return to glorious feudalism;
> later once things are settled, they try democracy again,
> which in turn appears to have decayed into a global nanny
> state run by men who want to crush MAN'S SPIRIT in the
> name of safety. Now, I understand that an SF author of
> this era could be expected to have boundless faith that
> democratic governments were doomed but Anderson had a
> particularly bad case of it.
I rather doubt that any form of government is stable
indefinitely, so I've no problem with this sort of cycle.
And I might note that I *don't* share Anderson's later
political views.
[...]
> There's the hot girl interested in the middle aged man, as
> written by a middle-aged man (granted, in this case the
> girl is more than she appears, which I guess makes up for
> decades in which Anderson's women were mainly set
> decorations and rewards for the hero).
With a few notable exceptions, e.g., 'Kyrie', _The Dancer
from Atlantis_ and _The Winter of the World_.
> He had characteristic turns of phrase as discussed here:
> http://hdtd.typepad.com/hdtd/2005/03/the-pa-system-is-broken.html
Indeed he had, but not as discussed there: that piece says
more about its author than about Anderson's writing.
There's certainly an element of truth in what she says --
Anderson's voice is pretty unmistakable[*] -- but the
complaint is exaggerated to the point of self-parody, and
some of her judgements are ridiculous. (And yes, I have
been known to say 'Judas priest!')
[*] Even when he was channeling Heinlein in _Harvest of
Stars_.
Brian
<jdni...@panix.com> wrote in
<news:j93hgt$ahj$1...@reader1.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <n5q7ot6zgllx$.mx6agoa6z089$.d...@40tude.net>,
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 15:09:00 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
>><jdni...@panix.com> wrote in
>><news:j90v6c$dbo$2...@reader1.panix.com> in
>>rec.arts.sf.written:
>>[...]
>>> Otherwise [_The Avatar_ is] Anderson's 1970s tics writ
>>> large.
>>I have quite literally no idea what that means.
> One is "Western Civilization is
> DooooOOOOooOOOOOOooOOOOOOooooOOOOmed". See the beginning
> of THE AVATAR: we get a compressed future history in
> which the Troubles force a return to glorious feudalism;
> later once things are settled, they try democracy again,
> which in turn appears to have decayed into a global nanny
> state run by men who want to crush MAN'S SPIRIT in the
> name of safety. Now, I understand that an SF author of
> this era could be expected to have boundless faith that
> democratic governments were doomed but Anderson had a
> particularly bad case of it.
indefinitely, so I've no problem with this sort of cycle.
And I might note that I *don't* share Anderson's later
political views.
[...]
> There's the hot girl interested in the middle aged man, as
> written by a middle-aged man (granted, in this case the
> girl is more than she appears, which I guess makes up for
> decades in which Anderson's women were mainly set
> decorations and rewards for the hero).
from Atlantis_ and _The Winter of the World_.
> He had characteristic turns of phrase as discussed here:
> http://hdtd.typepad.com/hdtd/2005/03/the-pa-system-is-broken.html
more about its author than about Anderson's writing.
There's certainly an element of truth in what she says --
Anderson's voice is pretty unmistakable[*] -- but the
complaint is exaggerated to the point of self-parody, and
some of her judgements are ridiculous. (And yes, I have
been known to say 'Judas priest!')
[*] Even when he was channeling Heinlein in _Harvest of
Stars_.
Brian
Robert Carnegie
Nov 5, 2011, 7:19:59 PM11/5/11
to
On Nov 5, 10:59 pm, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
> In article <j94325$q0...@dont-email.me>,
Don't they still have Jim Crow?
As for a nuclear U.S. Civil War: A nuclear bomb is a dreadful
destructive thing. There are other forms of dreadful destruction,
too, so one is not absolutely and always a worse thing than others.
And no one really cares what happens to people in a foreign country,
anyway. Only if they're dead and we can take their property. This
must be understood in order to understand international relations
today.
> In article <j94325$q0...@dont-email.me>,
As for a nuclear U.S. Civil War: A nuclear bomb is a dreadful
destructive thing. There are other forms of dreadful destruction,
too, so one is not absolutely and always a worse thing than others.
And no one really cares what happens to people in a foreign country,
anyway. Only if they're dead and we can take their property. This
must be understood in order to understand international relations
today.
Robert Bannister
Nov 5, 2011, 7:27:15 PM11/5/11
to
On 5/11/11 6:01 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in
> news:slrnjb96e...@gatekeeper.vic.com:
>
>> Robert Carnegie<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>> Bill Snyder wrote:
>>>> It's just barely possible that seceding to preserve slavery and
>>>> fighting to preserve slavery are neither semantically nor
>>>> practically synonymous. In the views of most of the South's
>>>> soldiers, which are not hard at all to ferret out, they were
>>>> fighting because the Yanks had invaded them.
>>>
>>> Or fighting for the right to secede or for... is this where one says
>>> "states' rights"?
>>
>> Yeah, but if you look even a millimeter deeper, those both turn back
>> into "the right to secede so we won't be in a USA that prohibits
>> slavery" and "states' rights to allow people to own slaves". But
>> current Southerners will go through all SORTS of contortions to try to
>> make it apper that slavery was nowhere near any of the thoughts that
>> any of the politicians or generals were having at the time. (Somewhat
>> along the same lines as how certain kinds of Republican will
>> incredibly contort their own views to try to eliminate any trace of
>> the 'they're not the right color' that they actually feel.)
>>
>>> But please don't mistake me for a friend of, or apologist for, the
>>> South. Even if Constitutionally right, they were horribly wrong.
>>
>> Dave "agreed" DeLaney
>
> I am rather surprised no one has mentioned this earlier:
>
> "The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating
> questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it
> exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of
> civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and
> present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as
> the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.
Bit odd that coming from a slave owner.
--
Robert Bannister
> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote in
> news:slrnjb96e...@gatekeeper.vic.com:
>
>> Robert Carnegie<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>> Bill Snyder wrote:
>>>> It's just barely possible that seceding to preserve slavery and
>>>> fighting to preserve slavery are neither semantically nor
>>>> practically synonymous. In the views of most of the South's
>>>> soldiers, which are not hard at all to ferret out, they were
>>>> fighting because the Yanks had invaded them.
>>>
>>> Or fighting for the right to secede or for... is this where one says
>>> "states' rights"?
>>
>> Yeah, but if you look even a millimeter deeper, those both turn back
>> into "the right to secede so we won't be in a USA that prohibits
>> slavery" and "states' rights to allow people to own slaves". But
>> current Southerners will go through all SORTS of contortions to try to
>> make it apper that slavery was nowhere near any of the thoughts that
>> any of the politicians or generals were having at the time. (Somewhat
>> along the same lines as how certain kinds of Republican will
>> incredibly contort their own views to try to eliminate any trace of
>> the 'they're not the right color' that they actually feel.)
>>
>>> But please don't mistake me for a friend of, or apologist for, the
>>> South. Even if Constitutionally right, they were horribly wrong.
>>
>> Dave "agreed" DeLaney
>
> I am rather surprised no one has mentioned this earlier:
>
> "The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating
> questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it
> exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of
> civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and
> present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as
> the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right.
Bit odd that coming from a slave owner.
--
Robert Bannister
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Nov 5, 2011, 7:30:44 PM11/5/11
to
In article <f9101025-762f-4e32...@u12g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Nov 5, 10:59 pm, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>> In article <j94325$q0...@dont-email.me>,
>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>
>> >James Nicoll is Canadian. He doesn't consider Southerners his fellow
>> >countrymen.
>>
>> >As the descendant of an escaped slave, I, too, consider the heirs of
>> >the Confederacy a cancer on the U.S. heart. The _descendants_ of
>> >Confederates, no -- we don't choose our ancestors. Those who knowingly
>> >lay claim to the heritage of racism and oppression, though, rather than
>> >rejecting their ancestors' ideas, have chosen their evil.
>>
>> Well, yes, but it's more like a "Fungus on the toenail of the U.S little toe".
>> There are cranks, in the South and elsewhere, but there is no large
>> group pining for slavery or Jim Crow.
>
>Don't they still have Jim Crow?
>
Sigh. It's *we*, and no we don't.
>On Nov 5, 10:59 pm, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>> In article <j94325$q0...@dont-email.me>,
>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>
>> >James Nicoll is Canadian. He doesn't consider Southerners his fellow
>> >countrymen.
>>
>> >As the descendant of an escaped slave, I, too, consider the heirs of
>> >the Confederacy a cancer on the U.S. heart. The _descendants_ of
>> >Confederates, no -- we don't choose our ancestors. Those who knowingly
>> >lay claim to the heritage of racism and oppression, though, rather than
>> >rejecting their ancestors' ideas, have chosen their evil.
>>
>> Well, yes, but it's more like a "Fungus on the toenail of the U.S little toe".
>> There are cranks, in the South and elsewhere, but there is no large
>> group pining for slavery or Jim Crow.
>
>Don't they still have Jim Crow?
>
slakmagik
Nov 5, 2011, 7:34:20 PM11/5/11
to
On 2011-11-05 Sat 14:59:24, slakmagik wrote:
> On 2011-11-05 Sat 13:34:28, Kurt Busiek wrote:
>>
>> Apparently, James, it's the slavery thing, not the Bomb. This guy is so
>> het up he can't talk straight, but if the "others" are getting less
>> time than you to repent their sins against whatever the hell he's
>> offended about, it's gotta be that you insulted his imaginary dream of
>> the South, all honor and principle and crinoline, because nobody else
>> backed you up on the Bomb that I saw.
>>
>
> On 2011-11-05 Sat 13:34:28, Kurt Busiek wrote:
>>
>> Apparently, James, it's the slavery thing, not the Bomb. This guy is so
>> het up he can't talk straight, but if the "others" are getting less
>> time than you to repent their sins against whatever the hell he's
>> offended about, it's gotta be that you insulted his imaginary dream of
>> the South, all honor and principle and crinoline, because nobody else
>> backed you up on the Bomb that I saw.
>>
>
> Your logic is not like our earth logic. And I don't think yours is much
> more advanced.
...
> more advanced.
> But what
> does anyone backing him up have to do with anything?
My apologies - I was in a hurry to get some work done and didn't connect
> does anyone backing him up have to do with anything?
your two misapprehensions. I take it you were saying that (a) no one
approved of his Bomb comments yet (b) I killfiled them anyway therefore
(c) it was not the bomb comment but (d) must mean I was killfiling
people who impugned the South generally. As I say, (a) is wrong and (b)
is not accurate - I'm pretty sure I did killfile one person who was
being a senseless jerk about it, but just criticizing the South or the
CSA or saying anything I don't like about the Civil War will certainly
not get the job done. I otherwise only killfiled the three I mentioned.
So, yes, it's (c), not (d), but I now see what you were thinking.
(Though, as I say, why I have to explain any of what should be
self-evident and why my objecting to atomic bombing people should result
in my being attacked mystifies me. But this is why I do not generally
get involved in political or religious or other conversations - they are
not generally sane or productive or entertaining.)
Wayne Throop
Nov 5, 2011, 7:32:48 PM11/5/11
to
: slakmagik <j...@hostname.invalid>
: But the idea that I even have to spell out how appalling and idiotic
does not exactly render belief prosperous either.
: But the idea that I even have to spell out how appalling and idiotic
: it is for anyone to wish nuclear death on anyone - not, say, in the
: heat of a terrorist attack but in discussing the "reason" for
: disliking a *science fiction television show* - beggars belief.
The idea of taking his comment as a serious wish
: heat of a terrorist attack but in discussing the "reason" for
: disliking a *science fiction television show* - beggars belief.
does not exactly render belief prosperous either.
Brian M. Scott
Nov 5, 2011, 7:46:13 PM11/5/11
to
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 07:27:15 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in
<news:9hlv2j...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> On 5/11/11 6:01 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> I am rather surprised no one has mentioned this earlier:
>> "The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the
>> agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution
>> African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper
>> status of the negro in our form of civilization. This
>> was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present
>> revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated
>> this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would
>> split." He was right.
> Bit odd that coming from a slave owner.
How so? He was a man of his time, albeit an exceptional
one. One can foresee a change and even think it ultimately
desirable without necessarily wishing to experience it
oneself.
Brian
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in
<news:9hlv2j...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> On 5/11/11 6:01 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
>> I am rather surprised no one has mentioned this earlier:
>> "The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the
>> agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution
>> African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper
>> status of the negro in our form of civilization. This
>> was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present
>> revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated
>> this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would
>> split." He was right.
> Bit odd that coming from a slave owner.
one. One can foresee a change and even think it ultimately
desirable without necessarily wishing to experience it
oneself.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
Nov 5, 2011, 7:47:21 PM11/5/11
to
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:19:59 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
<news:f9101025-762f-4e32...@u12g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> And no one really cares what happens to people in a
> foreign country, anyway. [...]
Manifestly false.
Brian
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
<news:f9101025-762f-4e32...@u12g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> And no one really cares what happens to people in a
Manifestly false.
Brian
slakmagik
Nov 5, 2011, 7:54:30 PM11/5/11
to
looked favorably upon any aspect of the South but merely objected to the
idea of wishing atomic bombs played a part in the Civil War. This did
not prevent substantial invective directed at my supposed pro-slavery
sentiment and singing parodic Dixie ditties at me. But, as it apparently
never occurred to anyone that a Northerner or Westerner or human being
might object to the retroactive deployment of atomic weaponry in the
Civil War, it never occurred to me that America could be so important to
a Canadian that he would go out of his way to promote part of it and
hate part of it in such insanely disproportionate terms. In that sense,
his nationality makes it worse, making him even more inexplicable. In
most every meaningful sense, it is irrelevant though I would have to
change statements like "part of what he claims is his own country" to
"part of what is a friendly neighbor" and so on. But in one sense, it is
better: I don't have to think of him as representing a part of the
country my relatives have fought for *since* the Civil War.
But I think it's bad form discussing someone in the third person like
this, so I'll stop and only say thank you for correcting my
misapprehension.
Brian M. Scott
Nov 5, 2011, 8:11:38 PM11/5/11
to
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 23:54:30 +0000 (UTC), slakmagik
<j...@hostname.invalid> wrote in
<news:j94ibm$lem$1...@speranza.aioe.org> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> On 2011-11-05 Sat 15:45:02, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 11/5/2011 12:59 PM, slakmagik wrote:
>>> But the idea that I even have to spell out how appalling
>>> and idiotic it is for anyone to wish nuclear death on
>>> anyone - not, say, in the heat of a terrorist attack
>>> but in discussing the "reason" for disliking a *science
>>> fiction television show* - beggars belief. And the idea
>>> that I have to spell out how insanely vicious it is for
>>> one of the supposed victors of a war to retroactively
>>> wish to turn parts of what he claims is his own country
>> He never claimed it was his country.
> Very true. And I never claimed to be a Southerner or even
> anyone who looked favorably upon any aspect of the South
> but merely objected to the idea of wishing atomic bombs
> played a part in the Civil War.
In point of fact neither of your first two posts made it at
all clear that this was your objection. Indeed, your second
post strongly suggested that it was not, since it was a
response to one in which James did not mention nuclear
weapons. You shouldn't be at all surprised that a number of
us interpreted those posts as the voice of the Old South,
especially given the rather obviously hyperbolic nature of
James's comment: you've only yourself to blame.
[...]
Brian
<j...@hostname.invalid> wrote in
<news:j94ibm$lem$1...@speranza.aioe.org> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> On 2011-11-05 Sat 15:45:02, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 11/5/2011 12:59 PM, slakmagik wrote:
>>> But the idea that I even have to spell out how appalling
>>> and idiotic it is for anyone to wish nuclear death on
>>> anyone - not, say, in the heat of a terrorist attack
>>> but in discussing the "reason" for disliking a *science
>>> fiction television show* - beggars belief. And the idea
>>> that I have to spell out how insanely vicious it is for
>>> one of the supposed victors of a war to retroactively
>>> wish to turn parts of what he claims is his own country
>> He never claimed it was his country.
> Very true. And I never claimed to be a Southerner or even
> anyone who looked favorably upon any aspect of the South
> but merely objected to the idea of wishing atomic bombs
> played a part in the Civil War.
all clear that this was your objection. Indeed, your second
post strongly suggested that it was not, since it was a
response to one in which James did not mention nuclear
weapons. You shouldn't be at all surprised that a number of
us interpreted those posts as the voice of the Old South,
especially given the rather obviously hyperbolic nature of
James's comment: you've only yourself to blame.
[...]
Brian
Robert Carnegie
Nov 5, 2011, 8:43:33 PM11/5/11
to
On Nov 5, 11:47 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:19:59 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote in
> On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:19:59 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <news:f9101025-762f-4e32...@u12g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> [...]
>
> > And no one really cares what happens to people in a
> > foreign country, anyway. [...]
>
> Manifestly false.
Ah - looking again, I meant, and should have said, no one really cares
> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> [...]
>
> > And no one really cares what happens to people in a
> > foreign country, anyway. [...]
>
> Manifestly false.
what happens to people of a foreign country.
Much the same thing. And seldom false. "No one" is hyperbole, of
course. The Pope cares, for instance.
Brian M. Scott
Nov 5, 2011, 8:47:15 PM11/5/11
to
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 17:43:33 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
<news:0bcd8ef6-c6ec-474d...@s6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
> On Nov 5, 11:47 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:19:59 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote in
>> <news:f9101025-762f-4e32...@u12g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
>> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>> [...]
>>> And no one really cares what happens to people in a
>>> foreign country, anyway. [...]
>> Manifestly false.
> Ah - looking again, I meant, and should have said, no one
> really cares what happens to people of a foreign country.
That's how I understood.
> Much the same thing. And seldom false.
Often false, if you go by absolute numbers. You're probably
right if you go by percentages.
> "No one" is hyperbole, of course. The Pope cares, for
> instance.
Maybe.
Brian
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
<news:0bcd8ef6-c6ec-474d...@s6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
> On Nov 5, 11:47 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:19:59 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote in
>> <news:f9101025-762f-4e32...@u12g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
>> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>> [...]
>>> And no one really cares what happens to people in a
>>> foreign country, anyway. [...]
>> Manifestly false.
> Ah - looking again, I meant, and should have said, no one
> really cares what happens to people of a foreign country.
> Much the same thing. And seldom false.
right if you go by percentages.
> "No one" is hyperbole, of course. The Pope cares, for
> instance.
Brian
David Johnston
Nov 5, 2011, 9:40:56 PM11/5/11
to
On 11/5/2011 5:54 PM, slakmagik wrote:
> On 2011-11-05 Sat 15:45:02, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 11/5/2011 12:59 PM, slakmagik wrote:
>>
>>> But the idea that I even have to spell out how appalling and idiotic it
>>> is for anyone to wish nuclear death on anyone - not, say, in the heat of
>>> a terrorist attack but in discussing the "reason" for disliking a
>>> *science fiction television show* - beggars belief. And the idea that I
>>> have to spell out how insanely vicious it is for one of the supposed
>>> victors of a war to retroactively wish to turn parts of what he claims
>>> is his own country
>>
>> He never claimed it was his country.
>
> Very true. And I never claimed to be a Southerner or even anyone who
> looked favorably upon any aspect of the South but merely objected to the
> idea of wishing atomic bombs played a part in the Civil War.
It would have saved time if you said what it was you were objecting to
> On 2011-11-05 Sat 15:45:02, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 11/5/2011 12:59 PM, slakmagik wrote:
>>
>>> But the idea that I even have to spell out how appalling and idiotic it
>>> is for anyone to wish nuclear death on anyone - not, say, in the heat of
>>> a terrorist attack but in discussing the "reason" for disliking a
>>> *science fiction television show* - beggars belief. And the idea that I
>>> have to spell out how insanely vicious it is for one of the supposed
>>> victors of a war to retroactively wish to turn parts of what he claims
>>> is his own country
>>
>> He never claimed it was his country.
>
> Very true. And I never claimed to be a Southerner or even anyone who
> looked favorably upon any aspect of the South but merely objected to the
> idea of wishing atomic bombs played a part in the Civil War.
right off.
Ahasuerus
Nov 5, 2011, 9:37:12 PM11/5/11
to
On Nov 5, 7:10 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 14:34:05 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
> <jdnic...@panix.com> wrote in
> On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 14:34:05 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll
> <news:j93hgt$ahj$1...@reader1.panix.com> in
> rec.arts.sf.written: [snip]
> > He had characteristic turns of phrase as discussed here:
> >http://hdtd.typepad.com/hdtd/2005/03/the-pa-system-is-broken.html
>
> Indeed he had, but not as discussed there: that piece says
> more about its author than about Anderson's writing.
> There's certainly an element of truth in what she says --
> Anderson's voice is pretty unmistakable[*] -- but the
> complaint is exaggerated to the point of self-parody, and
> some of her judgements are ridiculous. (And yes, I have
> been known to say 'Judas priest!')
>
> [*] Even when he was channeling Heinlein in _Harvest of
> Stars_.
To the extent that Claudia Muir's comments are complaints, I don't
> >http://hdtd.typepad.com/hdtd/2005/03/the-pa-system-is-broken.html
>
> Indeed he had, but not as discussed there: that piece says
> more about its author than about Anderson's writing.
> There's certainly an element of truth in what she says --
> Anderson's voice is pretty unmistakable[*] -- but the
> complaint is exaggerated to the point of self-parody, and
> some of her judgements are ridiculous. (And yes, I have
> been known to say 'Judas priest!')
>
> [*] Even when he was channeling Heinlein in _Harvest of
> Stars_.
find them particularly persuasive, e.g. I don't see anything wrong
with the excerpt from _Brain Wave_. However, consider the context:
"I enjoyed him in my teens and twenties because he was moody and
Danish, well-read in the world's literatures and engaged with modern
science: things I happened to be or aspired to become. ...
Unfortunately, his books kept on failing the re-read test. Instead of
becoming comfort reading, as familiar books often do, his stylistic
quirks, turns of phrase -- turns of mind -- became obtrusive,
engrained enough to the point where I suspected I could write a Poul
Anderson generative grammar from scratch."
Discovering that the books that you liked in your youth no longer
appeal to you can elicit a strong and perhaps disproportionate
reaction.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages