Discussion:
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
Add Reply
Lynn McGuire
2017-03-30 22:51:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/

I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies that I have seen such as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).

Lynn
Don Kuenz
2017-03-31 14:28:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies
that I have seen such as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).
Fifteen books were read by me, plus two additional Hollywood treatments,
plus one combo book and treatment for a grand total of eighteen stories.

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU
Titus G
2017-04-01 06:17:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies
that I have seen such as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).
Fifteen books were read by me, plus two additional Hollywood treatments,
plus one combo book and treatment for a grand total of eighteen stories.
I boast 35, mainly from the first half.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2017-04-01 12:40:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I get 13, 16 if I count watching "The Movie Of". Not surprising as this
is very far from my preferred subgenre.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
David Johnston
2017-04-01 15:22:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I get 13, 16 if I count watching "The Movie Of". Not surprising as
this is very far from my preferred subgenre.
Aw YA dystopian novels aren't so bad. They always end with the
protagonist doing something to undermine the horrible system because
they weren't just written to rant about the TSA or something.
Cryptoengineer
2017-04-01 15:39:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I get 13, 16 if I count watching "The Movie Of". Not surprising as
this is very far from my preferred subgenre.
Aw YA dystopian novels aren't so bad. They always end with the
protagonist doing something to undermine the horrible system because
they weren't just written to rant about the TSA or something.
I've read 30, and seen the movie of a further 9.

pt
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-04-01 18:25:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 10:39:28 -0500, Cryptoengineer
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by David Johnston
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I get 13, 16 if I count watching "The Movie Of". Not surprising as
this is very far from my preferred subgenre.
Aw YA dystopian novels aren't so bad. They always end with the
protagonist doing something to undermine the horrible system because
they weren't just written to rant about the TSA or something.
I've read 30, and seen the movie of a further 9.
I've read 24.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
David DeLaney
2017-04-02 06:52:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies
that I have seen such as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).
Fifteen books were read by me, plus two additional Hollywood treatments,
plus one combo book and treatment for a grand total of eighteen stories.
I'm pretty sure of eighteen, and I own at least one more that I've never yet
read (the le Guin).

Quite possibly many of them are the same core most of the other "somewhere in
the teens" respondents here had; any of you who HAVEN'T read V for Vendetta
yet (hm, except maaaybe Dorothy) really need to.

Dave, government should be afraid of its people
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "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>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David Johnston
2017-04-02 07:42:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies
that I have seen such as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).
Fifteen books were read by me, plus two additional Hollywood treatments,
plus one combo book and treatment for a grand total of eighteen stories.
I'm pretty sure of eighteen, and I own at least one more that I've never yet
read (the le Guin).
Quite possibly many of them are the same core most of the other "somewhere in
the teens" respondents here had; any of you who HAVEN'T read V for Vendetta
yet (hm, except maaaybe Dorothy) really need to.
Pass
Post by David DeLaney
Dave, government should be afraid of its people
I tell you frankly there is no surer path to grinding oppression than a
government that is afraid of its people.
J. Clarke
2017-04-02 07:57:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies
that I have seen such as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).
Fifteen books were read by me, plus two additional Hollywood treatments,
plus one combo book and treatment for a grand total of eighteen stories.
I'm pretty sure of eighteen, and I own at least one more that I've never yet
read (the le Guin).
Quite possibly many of them are the same core most of the other "somewhere in
the teens" respondents here had; any of you who HAVEN'T read V for Vendetta
yet (hm, except maaaybe Dorothy) really need to.
Pass
Post by David DeLaney
Dave, government should be afraid of its people
I tell you frankly there is no surer path to grinding oppression than a
government that is afraid of its people.
If it is capable of grinding oppression then the people have not made it
sufficiently fearful.

I find myself wondering how it would affect our government if every
politician was followed around 24/7 by someone with a loaded gun whose job
it was to shoot the politician at the first hint of something that he
personally considered to be a wrongful act of government. Understand, he
is not allowed to discuss anything with the politician, just pay attention
to what's going on and when he feels it's time, just shoot the bastard.
David Johnston
2017-04-02 08:01:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies
that I have seen such as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).
Fifteen books were read by me, plus two additional Hollywood treatments,
plus one combo book and treatment for a grand total of eighteen stories.
I'm pretty sure of eighteen, and I own at least one more that I've never yet
read (the le Guin).
Quite possibly many of them are the same core most of the other "somewhere in
the teens" respondents here had; any of you who HAVEN'T read V for Vendetta
yet (hm, except maaaybe Dorothy) really need to.
Pass
Post by David DeLaney
Dave, government should be afraid of its people
I tell you frankly there is no surer path to grinding oppression than a
government that is afraid of its people.
If it is capable of grinding oppression then the people have not made it
sufficiently fearful.
<snort> It is not possible to make a government "sufficiently fearful".
The more fearful they are the more desperate the countermeasures.
J. Clarke
2017-04-02 08:15:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies
that I have seen such as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).
Fifteen books were read by me, plus two additional Hollywood treatments,
plus one combo book and treatment for a grand total of eighteen stories.
I'm pretty sure of eighteen, and I own at least one more that I've never yet
read (the le Guin).
Quite possibly many of them are the same core most of the other "somewhere in
the teens" respondents here had; any of you who HAVEN'T read V for Vendetta
yet (hm, except maaaybe Dorothy) really need to.
Pass
Post by David DeLaney
Dave, government should be afraid of its people
I tell you frankly there is no surer path to grinding oppression than a
government that is afraid of its people.
If it is capable of grinding oppression then the people have not made it
sufficiently fearful.
<snort> It is not possible to make a government "sufficiently fearful".
The more fearful they are the more desperate the countermeasures.
The people allowed the government to become too strong. When the state
militias had enough power to take down the army, things were a bit
different.
Quadibloc
2017-04-02 12:53:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
<snort> It is not possible to make a government "sufficiently fearful".
The more fearful they are the more desperate the countermeasures.
The people allowed the government to become too strong. When the state
militias had enough power to take down the army, things were a bit
different.
While your point is valid - it certainly _is_ possible to make government
fear the people so that the result is that the government *obeys* the
people rather than attempting to repress them - your example is clearly
flawed.

It illustrates a case where the *state* governments had the power to
overthrow the *Federal* government, not one where the people necessarily
had the power to overthrow their government.

And, of course, in United States history, the most monstrous brutal
repression that government engaged in was merely tolerated - and abetted
- by the Federal government, but was primarily enforced and supported by
State governments: Negro slavery. The Federal Government, in fact, during
the Civil War, played a leadership role in bringing an end to Negro
slavery.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2017-04-02 13:37:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
<snort> It is not possible to make a government "sufficiently fearful".
The more fearful they are the more desperate the countermeasures.
The people allowed the government to become too strong. When the state
militias had enough power to take down the army, things were a bit
different.
While your point is valid - it certainly _is_ possible to make government
fear the people so that the result is that the government *obeys* the
people rather than attempting to repress them - your example is clearly
flawed.
It illustrates a case where the *state* governments had the power to
overthrow the *Federal* government, not one where the people necessarily
had the power to overthrow their government.
Since the militia at the time was an all volunteer force whose members
provided their own weapons, they had little to fear from the government.
Post by Quadibloc
And, of course, in United States history, the most monstrous brutal
repression that government engaged in was merely tolerated - and abetted
- by the Federal government, but was primarily enforced and supported by
State governments: Negro slavery. The Federal Government, in fact, during
the Civil War, played a leadership role in bringing an end to Negro
slavery.
Actually it played a leadership role in getting a bunch of people killed in
order to show everybody how big Lincoln's dick was.

Ending slavery was a side effect.
Quadibloc
2017-04-04 01:20:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Actually it played a leadership role in getting a bunch of people killed in
order to show everybody how big Lincoln's dick was.
Ending slavery was a side effect.
It is true that the Union engaged in war to prevent the
secession of the South not out of altruistic concern for the
slaves, but because keeping America united instead of divided
was an imperative for the survival of its democratic system. A
divided America would have fallen prey to Britain or other
nations which saw its system as a threat - something that might
inspire their peasants to unrest.

But aside from that point of historical accuracy that I
concede, it is still true that the slave states sought to
preserve slavery, while the Federal government was reluctantly
dragged into the issue.

And your comments betray a shocking insensitivity to slavery as
it was in the black experience.

They do not reflect a consciousness shaped by the momentous
struggles of the courageous individuals in the Civil Rights
movement in the 1960s.

In the South, until recently, until within living memory, black
people were genuinely the victims of real injustice - not to be
compared with the petty inequalities that are often the grist
for today's political correctness.

John Savard
David Johnston
2017-04-04 02:55:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
<snort> It is not possible to make a government "sufficiently fearful".
The more fearful they are the more desperate the countermeasures.
The people allowed the government to become too strong. When the state
militias had enough power to take down the army, things were a bit
different.
While your point is valid - it certainly _is_ possible to make government
fear the people so that the result is that the government *obeys* the
people rather than attempting to repress them - your example is clearly
flawed.
It illustrates a case where the *state* governments had the power to
overthrow the *Federal* government, not one where the people necessarily
had the power to overthrow their government.
Since the militia at the time was an all volunteer force whose members
provided their own weapons, they had little to fear from the government.
Riiiight. The Civil War was a cakewalk. Nothing to fear at all.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
And, of course, in United States history, the most monstrous brutal
repression that government engaged in was merely tolerated - and abetted
- by the Federal government, but was primarily enforced and supported by
State governments: Negro slavery. The Federal Government, in fact, during
the Civil War, played a leadership role in bringing an end to Negro
slavery.
Actually it played a leadership role in getting a bunch of people killed in
order to show everybody how big Lincoln's dick was.
Ending slavery was a side effect.
No it didn't happen by accident. THey deliberately outlawed it.
Greg Goss
2017-04-04 05:13:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Ending slavery was a side effect.
No it didn't happen by accident. THey deliberately outlawed it.
They outlawed it in the territory where they had no authority.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
David Johnston
2017-04-04 05:40:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
Ending slavery was a side effect.
No it didn't happen by accident. THey deliberately outlawed it.at's
They outlawed it in the territory where they had no authority.
Ah. So you believe that slavery is still legal in the United States.
That's interesting.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-04-04 05:59:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:40:21 -0600, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
Ending slavery was a side effect.
No it didn't happen by accident. THey deliberately outlawed it.at's
They outlawed it in the territory where they had no authority.
Ah. So you believe that slavery is still legal in the United States.
That's interesting.
The Emancipation Proclamation did not outlaw slavery in the Union
states. The Thirteenth Amendment did, but that wasn't ratified until
after the war.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
David Johnston
2017-04-04 06:27:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:40:21 -0600, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
Ending slavery was a side effect.
No it didn't happen by accident. THey deliberately outlawed it.at's
They outlawed it in the territory where they had no authority.
Ah. So you believe that slavery is still legal in the United States.
That's interesting.
The Emancipation Proclamation did not outlaw slavery in the Union
states. The Thirteenth Amendment did, but that wasn't ratified until
after the war.
I'm aware.
J. Clarke
2017-04-04 09:42:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:40:21 -0600, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
Ending slavery was a side effect.
No it didn't happen by accident. THey deliberately outlawed it.at's
They outlawed it in the territory where they had no authority.
Ah. So you believe that slavery is still legal in the United States.
That's interesting.
The Emancipation Proclamation did not outlaw slavery in the Union
states. The Thirteenth Amendment did, but that wasn't ratified until
after the war.
I'm aware.
Then why are you arguing the point? Are you one of those jerks who just
likes to argue to be arguing?
Peter Trei
2017-04-04 14:36:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:40:21 -0600, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
Ending slavery was a side effect.
No it didn't happen by accident. THey deliberately outlawed it.at's
They outlawed it in the territory where they had no authority.
Ah. So you believe that slavery is still legal in the United States.
That's interesting.
The Emancipation Proclamation did not outlaw slavery in the Union
states. The Thirteenth Amendment did, but that wasn't ratified until
after the war.
I'm aware.
Then why are you arguing the point? Are you one of those jerks who just
likes to argue to be arguing?
We have have an experienced crew of 'those jerks' in this group. Present company
not excepted.

pt
David Johnston
2017-04-04 17:33:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:40:21 -0600, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
Ending slavery was a side effect.
No it didn't happen by accident. THey deliberately outlawed it.at's
They outlawed it in the territory where they had no authority.
Ah. So you believe that slavery is still legal in the United States.
That's interesting.
The Emancipation Proclamation did not outlaw slavery in the Union
states. The Thirteenth Amendment did, but that wasn't ratified until
after the war.
I'm aware.
Then why are you arguing the point?
Because the claim that they outlawed it in the territory where they had
no authority is a lie by omission. Even ignoring the issue of whether
they had authority in the territory they occupied as they advanced, the
13th Amendment did in fact happen and not by accident.
J. Clarke
2017-04-04 09:42:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
Ending slavery was a side effect.
No it didn't happen by accident. THey deliberately outlawed it.at's
They outlawed it in the territory where they had no authority.
Ah. So you believe that slavery is still legal in the United States.
That's interesting.
The outlawing of slavery happened after the war was over and after Lincoln
was dead.
David Johnston
2017-04-04 17:41:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
Ending slavery was a side effect.
No it didn't happen by accident. THey deliberately outlawed it.at's
They outlawed it in the territory where they had no authority.
Ah. So you believe that slavery is still legal in the United States.
That's interesting.
The outlawing of slavery happened after the war was over and after Lincoln
was dead.
So what? I didn't say "he". I said "they". Lincoln (and Lincoln's
successor) did not constitute the whole of the government. They didn't
have the authority to outlaw slavery. Or pretty much anything really.
And ending slavery was not a side effect. It was a direct consequence
of the South losing their war to preserve slavery.
Quadibloc
2017-04-04 19:31:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
And ending slavery was not a side effect. It was a direct consequence
of the South losing their war to preserve slavery.
And if it weren't for the Emancipation Proclamation,
which was indeed symbolic at the time it was issued, it
would have been possible (although still unlikely) that
slavery could have continued in the South after the war
settled that it would remain in the Union.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2017-04-05 12:19:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
And ending slavery was not a side effect. It was a direct consequence
of the South losing their war to preserve slavery.
And if it weren't for the Emancipation Proclamation,
which was indeed symbolic at the time it was issued, it
would have been possible (although still unlikely) that
slavery could have continued in the South after the war
settled that it would remain in the Union.
You are assuming that all slave states were "in rebellion" at the time of
the proclamation. That was not the case.
David Johnston
2017-04-06 06:10:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
And ending slavery was not a side effect. It was a direct consequence
of the South losing their war to preserve slavery.
And if it weren't for the Emancipation Proclamation,
which was indeed symbolic at the time it was issued, it
would have been possible (although still unlikely) that
slavery could have continued in the South after the war
settled that it would remain in the Union.
You are assuming that all slave states were "in rebellion" at the time of
the proclamation. That was not the case.
No, that doesn't really make a difference.
J. Clarke
2017-04-04 09:41:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
<snort> It is not possible to make a government "sufficiently fearful".
The more fearful they are the more desperate the countermeasures.
The people allowed the government to become too strong. When the state
militias had enough power to take down the army, things were a bit
different.
While your point is valid - it certainly _is_ possible to make government
fear the people so that the result is that the government *obeys* the
people rather than attempting to repress them - your example is clearly
flawed.
It illustrates a case where the *state* governments had the power to
overthrow the *Federal* government, not one where the people necessarily
had the power to overthrow their government.
Since the militia at the time was an all volunteer force whose members
provided their own weapons, they had little to fear from the government.
Riiiight. The Civil War was a cakewalk. Nothing to fear at all.
What do you believe the Civil War has to do with the relations between
state militias and the state governments?
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
And, of course, in United States history, the most monstrous brutal
repression that government engaged in was merely tolerated - and abetted
- by the Federal government, but was primarily enforced and supported by
State governments: Negro slavery. The Federal Government, in fact, during
the Civil War, played a leadership role in bringing an end to Negro
slavery.
Actually it played a leadership role in getting a bunch of people killed in
order to show everybody how big Lincoln's dick was.
Ending slavery was a side effect.
No it didn't happen by accident. THey deliberately outlawed it.
Who is this "they" and what do you believe the outlawing of slavery _after_
the Civil War had to do with the causes of the Civil War? Or perhaps you
think that the Emancipation Proclamation was law in the United States? If
so you need to read it carefully--it addressed slavery in conquered
territory, not in the United States.
David Johnston
2017-04-04 17:45:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
<snort> It is not possible to make a government "sufficiently fearful".
The more fearful they are the more desperate the countermeasures.
The people allowed the government to become too strong. When the state
militias had enough power to take down the army, things were a bit
different.
While your point is valid - it certainly _is_ possible to make government
fear the people so that the result is that the government *obeys* the
people rather than attempting to repress them - your example is clearly
flawed.
It illustrates a case where the *state* governments had the power to
overthrow the *Federal* government, not one where the people necessarily
had the power to overthrow their government.
Since the militia at the time was an all volunteer force whose members
provided their own weapons, they had little to fear from the government.
Riiiight. The Civil War was a cakewalk. Nothing to fear at all.
What do you believe the Civil War has to do with the relations between
state militias and the state governments?
I believe that the Civil War is proof positive that the state militias
had something to fear from the federal government.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
And, of course, in United States history, the most monstrous brutal
repression that government engaged in was merely tolerated - and abetted
- by the Federal government, but was primarily enforced and supported by
State governments: Negro slavery. The Federal Government, in fact, during
the Civil War, played a leadership role in bringing an end to Negro
slavery.
Actually it played a leadership role in getting a bunch of people killed in
order to show everybody how big Lincoln's dick was.
Ending slavery was a side effect.
No it didn't happen by accident. THey deliberately outlawed it.
Who is this "they"
The United States government.

and what do you believe the outlawing of slavery _after_
Post by J. Clarke
the Civil War had to do with the causes of the Civil War?
Since the Civil War started to preserve slavery, the outlawing of
slavery was a result of that side losing.
J. Clarke
2017-04-05 12:22:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
<snort> It is not possible to make a government "sufficiently fearful".
The more fearful they are the more desperate the countermeasures.
The people allowed the government to become too strong. When the state
militias had enough power to take down the army, things were a bit
different.
While your point is valid - it certainly _is_ possible to make government
fear the people so that the result is that the government *obeys* the
people rather than attempting to repress them - your example is clearly
flawed.
It illustrates a case where the *state* governments had the power to
overthrow the *Federal* government, not one where the people necessarily
had the power to overthrow their government.
Since the militia at the time was an all volunteer force whose members
provided their own weapons, they had little to fear from the government.
Riiiight. The Civil War was a cakewalk. Nothing to fear at all.
What do you believe the Civil War has to do with the relations between
state militias and the state governments?
I believe that the Civil War is proof positive that the state militias
had something to fear from the federal government.
You and your straw men take a hike. No assertion was made concerning state
militias and the Federal government until you chose to drag one out of your
butt.
Post by David Johnston
The United States government.
Who in the United States government? You seem to think that all acts of
government are equal in force and effect.
Post by David Johnston
and what do you believe the outlawing of slavery _after_
Post by J. Clarke
the Civil War had to do with the causes of the Civil War?
Since the Civil War started to preserve slavery, the outlawing of
slavery was a result of that side losing.
So why wasn't it outlawed while they were unable to vote on it?

Really, you are getting as boring as Rod Speed.
David Johnston
2017-04-06 06:18:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
<snort> It is not possible to make a government "sufficiently fearful".
The more fearful they are the more desperate the countermeasures.
The people allowed the government to become too strong. When the state
militias had enough power to take down the army, things were a bit
different.
While your point is valid - it certainly _is_ possible to make government
fear the people so that the result is that the government *obeys* the
people rather than attempting to repress them - your example is clearly
flawed.
It illustrates a case where the *state* governments had the power to
overthrow the *Federal* government, not one where the people necessarily
had the power to overthrow their government.
Since the militia at the time was an all volunteer force whose members
provided their own weapons, they had little to fear from the government.
Riiiight. The Civil War was a cakewalk. Nothing to fear at all.
What do you believe the Civil War has to do with the relations between
state militias and the state governments?
I believe that the Civil War is proof positive that the state militias
had something to fear from the federal government.
You and your straw men take a hike. No assertion was made concerning state
militias and the Federal government until you chose to drag one out of your
butt.
Not actually true...but even if it was so what?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
The United States government.
Who in the United States government?
The legislators who passed the amendment.

You seem to think that all acts of
Post by J. Clarke
government are equal in force and effect.
Post by David Johnston
and what do you believe the outlawing of slavery _after_
Post by J. Clarke
the Civil War had to do with the causes of the Civil War?
Since the Civil War started to preserve slavery, the outlawing of
slavery was a result of that side losing.
So why wasn't it outlawed while they were unable to vote on it?
It was.
David Johnston
2017-04-02 17:16:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies
that I have seen such as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).
Fifteen books were read by me, plus two additional Hollywood treatments,
plus one combo book and treatment for a grand total of eighteen stories.
I'm pretty sure of eighteen, and I own at least one more that I've never yet
read (the le Guin).
Quite possibly many of them are the same core most of the other "somewhere in
the teens" respondents here had; any of you who HAVEN'T read V for Vendetta
yet (hm, except maaaybe Dorothy) really need to.
Pass
Post by David DeLaney
Dave, government should be afraid of its people
I tell you frankly there is no surer path to grinding oppression than a
government that is afraid of its people.
If it is capable of grinding oppression then the people have not made it
sufficiently fearful.
<snort> It is not possible to make a government "sufficiently fearful".
The more fearful they are the more desperate the countermeasures.
The people allowed the government to become too strong. When the state
militias had enough power to take down the army, things were a bit
different.
Only in that the state governments had more of the power to oppress.
J. Clarke
2017-04-02 19:01:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies
that I have seen such as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).
Fifteen books were read by me, plus two additional Hollywood treatments,
plus one combo book and treatment for a grand total of eighteen stories.
I'm pretty sure of eighteen, and I own at least one more that I've never yet
read (the le Guin).
Quite possibly many of them are the same core most of the other "somewhere in
the teens" respondents here had; any of you who HAVEN'T read V for Vendetta
yet (hm, except maaaybe Dorothy) really need to.
Pass
Post by David DeLaney
Dave, government should be afraid of its people
I tell you frankly there is no surer path to grinding oppression than a
government that is afraid of its people.
If it is capable of grinding oppression then the people have not made it
sufficiently fearful.
<snort> It is not possible to make a government "sufficiently fearful".
The more fearful they are the more desperate the countermeasures.
The people allowed the government to become too strong. When the state
militias had enough power to take down the army, things were a bit
different.
Only in that the state governments had more of the power to oppress.
Who were the state governments oppressing and in what way? And don't say
"slaves"--they were being oppressed federally too until the Feds decided
that slavery was a good rallying cry to get people to go shoot those who
were tired of obeying the Federal government.
David Johnston
2017-04-02 21:01:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies
that I have seen such as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).
Fifteen books were read by me, plus two additional Hollywood treatments,
plus one combo book and treatment for a grand total of eighteen stories.
I'm pretty sure of eighteen, and I own at least one more that I've never yet
read (the le Guin).
Quite possibly many of them are the same core most of the other "somewhere in
the teens" respondents here had; any of you who HAVEN'T read V for Vendetta
yet (hm, except maaaybe Dorothy) really need to.
Pass
Post by David DeLaney
Dave, government should be afraid of its people
I tell you frankly there is no surer path to grinding oppression than a
government that is afraid of its people.
If it is capable of grinding oppression then the people have not made it
sufficiently fearful.
<snort> It is not possible to make a government "sufficiently fearful".
The more fearful they are the more desperate the countermeasures.
The people allowed the government to become too strong. When the state
militias had enough power to take down the army, things were a bit
different.
Only in that the state governments had more of the power to oppress.
Who were the state governments oppressing and in what way?
Who cares? State governments were no more "the people" than the federal
government was "the people". And as fear of civil war grew civil
liberties did not.
J. Clarke
2017-04-02 21:05:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies
that I have seen such as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).
Fifteen books were read by me, plus two additional Hollywood treatments,
plus one combo book and treatment for a grand total of eighteen stories.
I'm pretty sure of eighteen, and I own at least one more that I've never yet
read (the le Guin).
Quite possibly many of them are the same core most of the other "somewhere in
the teens" respondents here had; any of you who HAVEN'T read V for Vendetta
yet (hm, except maaaybe Dorothy) really need to.
Pass
Post by David DeLaney
Dave, government should be afraid of its people
I tell you frankly there is no surer path to grinding oppression than a
government that is afraid of its people.
If it is capable of grinding oppression then the people have not made it
sufficiently fearful.
<snort> It is not possible to make a government "sufficiently fearful".
The more fearful they are the more desperate the countermeasures.
The people allowed the government to become too strong. When the state
militias had enough power to take down the army, things were a bit
different.
Only in that the state governments had more of the power to oppress.
Who were the state governments oppressing and in what way?
Who cares? State governments were no more "the people" than the federal
government was "the people". And as fear of civil war grew civil
liberties did not.
The only armed force available to the states under the original intent of
the Constitution was the people. So the government, whether or not it was
"the people" could easily be shot by them.
David Johnston
2017-04-03 03:10:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies
that I have seen such as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).
Fifteen books were read by me, plus two additional Hollywood treatments,
plus one combo book and treatment for a grand total of eighteen stories.
I'm pretty sure of eighteen, and I own at least one more that I've never yet
read (the le Guin).
Quite possibly many of them are the same core most of the other "somewhere in
the teens" respondents here had; any of you who HAVEN'T read V for Vendetta
yet (hm, except maaaybe Dorothy) really need to.
Pass
Post by David DeLaney
Dave, government should be afraid of its people
I tell you frankly there is no surer path to grinding oppression than a
government that is afraid of its people.
If it is capable of grinding oppression then the people have not made it
sufficiently fearful.
<snort> It is not possible to make a government "sufficiently fearful".
The more fearful they are the more desperate the countermeasures.
The people allowed the government to become too strong. When the state
militias had enough power to take down the army, things were a bit
different.
Only in that the state governments had more of the power to oppress.
Who were the state governments oppressing and in what way?
Who cares? State governments were no more "the people" than the federal
government was "the people". And as fear of civil war grew civil
liberties did not.
The only armed force available to the states under the original intent of
the Constitution was the people. So the government, whether or not it was
"the people" could easily be shot by them.
And yet as fear of civil war grew, civil liberties did not.
J. Clarke
2017-04-03 10:49:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies
that I have seen such as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).
Fifteen books were read by me, plus two additional Hollywood treatments,
plus one combo book and treatment for a grand total of eighteen stories.
I'm pretty sure of eighteen, and I own at least one more that I've never yet
read (the le Guin).
Quite possibly many of them are the same core most of the other "somewhere in
the teens" respondents here had; any of you who HAVEN'T read V for Vendetta
yet (hm, except maaaybe Dorothy) really need to.
Pass
Post by David DeLaney
Dave, government should be afraid of its people
I tell you frankly there is no surer path to grinding oppression than a
government that is afraid of its people.
If it is capable of grinding oppression then the people have not made it
sufficiently fearful.
<snort> It is not possible to make a government "sufficiently fearful".
The more fearful they are the more desperate the countermeasures.
The people allowed the government to become too strong. When the state
militias had enough power to take down the army, things were a bit
different.
Only in that the state governments had more of the power to oppress.
Who were the state governments oppressing and in what way?
Who cares? State governments were no more "the people" than the federal
government was "the people". And as fear of civil war grew civil
liberties did not.
The only armed force available to the states under the original intent of
the Constitution was the people. So the government, whether or not it was
"the people" could easily be shot by them.
And yet as fear of civil war grew, civil liberties did not.
"Fear of civil war"? OK, tell us in detail the progression of "fear of
civil war" and decline of civil liberties.
Kevrob
2017-04-03 15:38:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
And yet as fear of civil war grew, civil liberties did not.
"Fear of civil war"? OK, tell us in detail the progression of "fear of
civil war" and decline of civil liberties.
There were the "gag rule" in the Congress, limiting the citizenry's
freedom to petition the government, when the petition touched on
the issue of slavery.

J Q Adams, the ex-president serving in Congress, managed to get
the gag rule repealed in 1844.

http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1800-1850/The-House-of-Representatives-instituted-the-%E2%80%9Cgag-rule%E2%80%9D/

Also, there were controversies within the several states over enforcing
the Fugitive Slave Act, and numerous instances of civil disobedience
whereby so-called slaves were not returned to their so-called masters.

Consider the case of Jonathan Glover.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Glover

The US Post Office also banned abolitionist literature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_States#Western_territories

This sort of thing is taught in any good American History course in a
US High School, or at least was, when I was young.

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2017-04-04 00:00:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
And yet as fear of civil war grew, civil liberties did not.
"Fear of civil war"? OK, tell us in detail the progression of "fear of
civil war" and decline of civil liberties.
There were the "gag rule" in the Congress, limiting the citizenry's
freedom to petition the government, when the petition touched on
the issue of slavery.
Sorry, but it didn't limit the citizen's freedom to petition, it just made
doing so a waste of time.

And how does this relate to "fear of civil war"? What are the indicators
that there was such fear?
Post by Kevrob
J Q Adams, the ex-president serving in Congress, managed to get
the gag rule repealed in 1844.
Do you have evidence to present that supports the viewpoint that fear of
civil war declined at that time?
Post by Kevrob
http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1800-1850/The-House-of-Representatives-instituted-the-%E2%80%9Cgag-rule%E2%80%9D/
Also, there were controversies within the several states over enforcing
the Fugitive Slave Act, and numerous instances of civil disobedience
whereby so-called slaves were not returned to their so-called masters.
There are always controversied about _something_. What of it?
Post by Kevrob
Consider the case of Jonathan Glover.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Glover
The US Post Office also banned abolitionist literature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism_in_the_United_States#Western_territories
Now there's a huge hit on civil liberties--the postal service won't deliver
your mail.

Now do you have evidence to present that in 1835 there had been a
significant increase in "fear of civil war" relative to a time when the
postal service _would_ carry such pamphlets?
Post by Kevrob
This sort of thing is taught in any good American History course in a
US High School, or at least was, when I was young.
And yet you can't support your argument.

So far you have "Congress agrees to sit on its hands" and "the post office
won't deliver this particular kind of unpopular mail". That's not a
pattern of increasing restrictions on civil liberties. Further, you have
given no evidence at all that there was any kind of "fear of civil war".
Quadibloc
2017-04-04 01:23:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Now there's a huge hit on civil liberties--the postal service won't deliver
your mail.
Given the limited transportation options available at this
time, its impact was not trivial.

And that did constitute a direct violation of the First
Amendment as well.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2017-04-04 01:56:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Now there's a huge hit on civil liberties--the postal service won't deliver
your mail.
Given the limited transportation options available at this
time, its impact was not trivial.
And that did constitute a direct violation of the First
Amendment as well.
You have a Supreme Court ruling to cite or is this just more of your
opinions posing as facts?
Quadibloc
2017-04-04 02:20:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Now there's a huge hit on civil liberties--the postal service won't deliver
your mail.
Given the limited transportation options available at this
time, its impact was not trivial.
And that did constitute a direct violation of the First
Amendment as well.
You have a Supreme Court ruling to cite or is this just more of your
opinions posing as facts?
Since the Federal Government was treating material
differently based on its political content, that is indeed
in contravention of what the First Amendment is currently
considered to be for.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2017-04-04 02:22:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Now there's a huge hit on civil liberties--the postal service won't deliver
your mail.
Given the limited transportation options available at this
time, its impact was not trivial.
And that did constitute a direct violation of the First
Amendment as well.
You have a Supreme Court ruling to cite or is this just more of your
opinions posing as facts?
Since the Federal Government was treating material
differently based on its political content, that is indeed
in contravention of what the First Amendment is currently
considered to be for.
In other words you don't have a ruling, just an opinion.
David DeLaney
2017-04-03 15:41:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Who cares? State governments were no more "the people" than the federal
government was "the people". And as fear of civil war grew civil
liberties did not.
... so ... governments are made up of ... aliens? Stepford Wives? uplifted
dogs and tigers? cyber-intelligences? the Fae? Lego bricks and toys?

Dave, can't quite put my finger on it
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "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>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David Johnston
2017-04-03 16:43:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by David Johnston
Who cares? State governments were no more "the people" than the federal
government was "the people". And as fear of civil war grew civil
liberties did not.
all
... so ... governments are made up of ... aliens? Stepford Wives? uplifted
dogs and tigers? cyber-intelligences? the Fae? Lego bricks and toys?
Dave, can't quite put my finger on it
You do understand that "no more" doesn't mean "not at all" right?
David DeLaney
2017-04-05 09:40:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by David DeLaney
Post by David Johnston
Who cares? State governments were no more "the people" than the federal
government was "the people". And as fear of civil war grew civil
liberties did not.
... so ... governments are made up of ... aliens? Stepford Wives? uplifted
dogs and tigers? cyber-intelligences? the Fae? Lego bricks and toys?
Dave, can't quite put my finger on it
You do understand that "no more" doesn't mean "not at all" right?
... so what percentage of government is composed of "the people", versus,
apparently, a combination of "the other people" and "not people"?

Dave, since it's apparently equal in state and fed gov't, somehow
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "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>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David Johnston
2017-04-06 06:20:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by David Johnston
Post by David DeLaney
Post by David Johnston
Who cares? State governments were no more "the people" than the federal
government was "the people". And as fear of civil war grew civil
liberties did not.
... so ... governments are made up of ... aliens? Stepford Wives? uplifted
dogs and tigers? cyber-intelligences? the Fae? Lego bricks and toys?
Dave, can't quite put my finger on it
You do understand that "no more" doesn't mean "not at all" right?
... so what percentage of government is composed of "the people", versus,
apparently, a combination of "the other people" and "not people"?
Other way around. Government only comprises a small proportion of "the
people".
Stephen Allcroft
2017-04-11 12:15:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I am surprised that none of the Jerry Cornelius books were included. A Cure for Cancer in particular has an English version of what happened in former Yugoslavia but it was written twenty years before.
h***@gmail.com
2017-04-02 23:59:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
Post by David Johnston
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Don Kuenz
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies
that I have seen such as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).
Fifteen books were read by me, plus two additional Hollywood treatments,
plus one combo book and treatment for a grand total of eighteen stories.
I'm pretty sure of eighteen, and I own at least one more that I've never yet
read (the le Guin).
Quite possibly many of them are the same core most of the other "somewhere in
the teens" respondents here had; any of you who HAVEN'T read V for Vendetta
yet (hm, except maaaybe Dorothy) really need to.
Pass
Post by David DeLaney
Dave, government should be afraid of its people
I tell you frankly there is no surer path to grinding oppression than a
government that is afraid of its people.
If it is capable of grinding oppression then the people have not made it
sufficiently fearful.
<snort> It is not possible to make a government "sufficiently fearful".
The more fearful they are the more desperate the countermeasures.
The people allowed the government to become too strong. When the state
militias had enough power to take down the army, things were a bit
different.
Only in that the state governments had more of the power to oppress.
Who were the state governments oppressing and in what way? And don't say
"slaves"
What don't they count?
Post by J. Clarke
--they were being oppressed federally too until the Feds decided
that slavery was a good rallying cry to get people to go shoot those who
were tired of obeying the Federal government.
Boy you've drunk the right wing militia cool aid.
Greg Goss
2017-04-02 15:52:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by David DeLaney
Dave, government should be afraid of its people
I tell you frankly there is no surer path to grinding oppression than a
government that is afraid of its people.
From "The Sewing Circle" by Gorg Huff

David almost popped out with: "Sure, you both work for us." But he
didn't, because it wouldn't help. Instead he asked: "How should we
act? If you were hired by a lord or a merchant, how would they act?"
David listened as Johan talked about how the nobility, and nobility
wannabes, acted toward servants and hired hands in general. There were
a lot of things, and when you put them all together they amounted to
the most calculated, demeaning, rudeness David had ever heard of in
his life. He knew damn well he could never act that way, nor could
anyone in Grantville. Well almost no one.

All of which left David in a real quandary, because he had picked up
something else in that lecture on proper behavior for the upper
classes. Johan didn't just expect him to act that way. Johan wanted
him to act that way. Any other behavior on his part felt like a trap.
David wondered why anyone would treat someone else that way. And when
the answer came to him it was such a surprise that it popped right out
of his mouth. "God. They must be terrified of you."

Johan looked at him like he was a dangerous lunatic. Like he might
pull a shotgun out of his pants pocket and start shooting. David
cracked up. He laughed till he had tears running down his face. Then
he laughed some more. All the while Johan was looking more and more
upset. Finally David got himself more or less under control. And he
apologized. "I'm sorry, Johan, but your face. Looking at me like I was
crazy."

David was laughing because, for the first time since he had met Johan
he was not afraid of him. He had the key, the approach that would let
Johan live among them, and not be a bomb waiting to go off. He didn't
know why, but he was sure. Six words spoken clearly and honestly. "I
am not afraid of you." David said it clearly, honestly and without the
least trace of fear. "I don't have to trap you into doing something
that would be an excuse to punish you. I don't need to make you weak,
to feel strong, or safe. That's why we act the way we do, Johan! The
way that seems so wrong to you. Because we are not afraid. Not the way
these German lords are, and because we are not afraid of you, you
don't have to be afraid of us.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Robert Carnegie
2017-03-31 21:23:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies that I have seen such as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).
Lynn
Actually read, in full: up to ten, but I'm not sure
about _Neuromancer_ and _The Time Machine_. Some
more radio abridgements, and adaptations.

Is _The Diamond Age_ a dystopia? Plenty of people
have it pretty good. Not the guy with a gun inside
his skull (pointed outwards, but still), but isn't
that his own idea?

I haven't read _After the Event_ but I like the
title. Not the description.

Which one /is/ _Neuromancer_?
Chris Buckley
2017-04-01 00:35:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies that I have seen such as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).
Lynn
Actually read, in full: up to ten, but I'm not sure
about _Neuromancer_ and _The Time Machine_. Some
more radio abridgements, and adaptations.
Is _The Diamond Age_ a dystopia? Plenty of people
have it pretty good. Not the guy with a gun inside
his skull (pointed outwards, but still), but isn't
that his own idea?
I haven't read _After the Event_ but I like the
title. Not the description.
Which one /is/ _Neuromancer_?
I'm not sure where either _The Diamond Age_ or _Neuromancer_ fits on
the dystopia/utopia line (or several of the others, like _Altered
Carbon_). Cyberpunk in general looks at the underbelly of society;
it's not clear in these cases the societies in general are presented
as bad; they just have drawbacks.

_Neuromancer_ follows the tool (human) of an AI as the AI makes its
bid for freedom (not that you'll remember it from that description!)

I've read over a third of the list; surprisingly, more from the end
of the list rather than the beginning.

Chris
Robert Carnegie
2017-04-01 00:58:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies that I have seen such as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).
Lynn
Actually read, in full: up to ten, but I'm not sure
about _Neuromancer_ and _The Time Machine_. Some
more radio abridgements, and adaptations.
Is _The Diamond Age_ a dystopia? Plenty of people
have it pretty good. Not the guy with a gun inside
his skull (pointed outwards, but still), but isn't
that his own idea?
I haven't read _After the Event_ but I like the
title. Not the description.
Which one /is/ _Neuromancer_?
I'm not sure where either _The Diamond Age_ or _Neuromancer_ fits on
the dystopia/utopia line (or several of the others, like _Altered
Carbon_). Cyberpunk in general looks at the underbelly of society;
it's not clear in these cases the societies in general are presented
as bad; they just have drawbacks.
_Neuromancer_ follows the tool (human) of an AI as the AI makes its
bid for freedom (not that you'll remember it from that description!)
I've read over a third of the list; surprisingly, more from the end
of the list rather than the beginning.
I think NM has a thing of corporations having
the real political power, instead of elected
representatives and the democratic will of the
people. I might not persuade everyone that
that's dystopic or even not how things have been
for a while in real life. _Snow Crash_ has it,
so does 1950s Andre Norton, I don't think it's
how politics worked in _The Diamond Age_?
Chris Buckley
2017-04-01 01:33:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies that I have seen such as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).
Lynn
Actually read, in full: up to ten, but I'm not sure
about _Neuromancer_ and _The Time Machine_. Some
more radio abridgements, and adaptations.
Is _The Diamond Age_ a dystopia? Plenty of people
have it pretty good. Not the guy with a gun inside
his skull (pointed outwards, but still), but isn't
that his own idea?
I haven't read _After the Event_ but I like the
title. Not the description.
Which one /is/ _Neuromancer_?
I'm not sure where either _The Diamond Age_ or _Neuromancer_ fits on
the dystopia/utopia line (or several of the others, like _Altered
Carbon_). Cyberpunk in general looks at the underbelly of society;
it's not clear in these cases the societies in general are presented
as bad; they just have drawbacks.
_Neuromancer_ follows the tool (human) of an AI as the AI makes its
bid for freedom (not that you'll remember it from that description!)
I've read over a third of the list; surprisingly, more from the end
of the list rather than the beginning.
I think NM has a thing of corporations having
the real political power, instead of elected
representatives and the democratic will of the
people. I might not persuade everyone that
that's dystopic or even not how things have been
for a while in real life. _Snow Crash_ has it,
so does 1950s Andre Norton, I don't think it's
how politics worked in _The Diamond Age_?
In my view, one of the necessities of a dystopia is somebody in the
novel trying to change the society (or at least observing and
commenting on it). The only character in _Neuromancer_ trying to
change society is Wintermute (the AI).

One conspicuous novel missing from the list, IMO, is _The Space Merchants_ .
I would rate that as one of the top dystopias in SF and certainly a
classic novel.

Chris
Don Kuenz
2017-04-01 03:21:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies that I have seen su
ch as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Lynn McGuire
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).
Lynn
Actually read, in full: up to ten, but I'm not sure
about _Neuromancer_ and _The Time Machine_. Some
more radio abridgements, and adaptations.
Is _The Diamond Age_ a dystopia? Plenty of people
have it pretty good. Not the guy with a gun inside
his skull (pointed outwards, but still), but isn't
that his own idea?
I haven't read _After the Event_ but I like the
title. Not the description.
Which one /is/ _Neuromancer_?
I'm not sure where either _The Diamond Age_ or _Neuromancer_ fits on
the dystopia/utopia line (or several of the others, like _Altered
Carbon_). Cyberpunk in general looks at the underbelly of society;
it's not clear in these cases the societies in general are presented
as bad; they just have drawbacks.
_Neuromancer_ follows the tool (human) of an AI as the AI makes its
bid for freedom (not that you'll remember it from that description!)
I've read over a third of the list; surprisingly, more from the end
of the list rather than the beginning.
I think NM has a thing of corporations having
the real political power, instead of elected
representatives and the democratic will of the
people. I might not persuade everyone that
that's dystopic or even not how things have been
for a while in real life. _Snow Crash_ has it,
so does 1950s Andre Norton, I don't think it's
how politics worked in _The Diamond Age_?
There's a couple of PKDs on the list of 96 that need to be added to my
too-be-read list. My readings this month include "Paycheck" (PKD), one
of the many PKDs to be given the Hollywood treatment during this
century.

"Paycheck" was published in 1953, an era of McCarthyism, black lists,
A-bombs, and "I like Ike." "Paycheck" posited that corporations, and not
the Church, was the modern sanctuary from government.

... The big economic forces had managed to remain free,
although virtually everything else had been absorbed by
the Government. Laws that had been eased away from the
private person still protected property and industry.
The [Security Police] could pick up any given person,
but they could not enter and seize a company, a
business. That had been clearly established in the
middle of the twentieth century.
Business, industry, corporations, were safe from
the Security Police. Due process was required. Rethrick
Construction was a target of SP interest, but they
could do nothing until some statue was violated. If he
could get back to the Company, get inside its doors, he
would be safe. Jennings smiled grimly. The modern church
sanctuary. It was the Government against the corporation,
rather than the State against the Church. The new Notre
Dame of the world. Where the law could not follow.

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU
Quadibloc
2017-04-01 01:37:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have only read 11 of the 96.
I think I've read 13.

John Savard
David Duffy
2017-04-01 08:41:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
42, but mainly the ones for grown-ups. I should read the Patrick Ness, as I
have heard only good (and liked _A Monster Calls_). I don't think
the Commonwealth in the Gene Wolfe is dystopic (just medieval),
as opposed to Ascia.
Greg Goss
2017-04-02 07:32:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
"96 Dystopian Science Fiction Books"
best-sci-fi-books.com/96-dystopian-science-fiction-books/
I have only read 11 of the 96. But several have been made into movies that I have seen such as "The Maze Runner". And I do have 3
or 4 of these in my SBR (strategic book reserve).
I don't really like dystopias, but of that list I've read 23 and liked
most of them.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Loading...