Discussion:
[Because My Tears Are Delicious To You] A Spell for Chameleon (Xanth, book 1) by Piers Anthony
Add Reply
James Nicoll
2017-04-16 14:03:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
A Spell for Chameleon (Xanth, book 1) by Piers Anthony

http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/what-was-i-thinking
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2017-04-16 19:21:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Nicoll
A Spell for Chameleon (Xanth, book 1) by Piers Anthony
http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/what-was-i-thinking
*Sharp intake of breath* Yes, this has been visited by an entire army of
suck fairies, and I'm surprised it got away so lightly in your column
(despite the URL). Does Anthony and his cheerful rape-y misogyny just
make you weary and a bit sad now?

Cheers - Jaimie
--
'It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? `I protect the lives and
property of my citizens; you keep the public safe from an unreasonable
and trouble-generating minority; he maintains a totalitarian regime of
thought control.' -- Bernard, Yes Minister
James Nicoll
2017-04-17 00:37:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by James Nicoll
A Spell for Chameleon (Xanth, book 1) by Piers Anthony
http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/what-was-i-thinking
*Sharp intake of breath* Yes, this has been visited by an entire army of
suck fairies, and I'm surprised it got away so lightly in your column
(despite the URL). Does Anthony and his cheerful rape-y misogyny just
make you weary and a bit sad now?
More irritated than sad.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
David Johnston
2017-04-16 21:06:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Nicoll
A Spell for Chameleon (Xanth, book 1) by Piers Anthony
http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/what-was-i-thinking
When I was collecting stereotypical/recurrent world-building elements
for authors (for inspiration in designing planets for an RPG) the thing
that struck me about Piers Anthony is that his thing was societies that
defined it's inhabitants by capability and utility. The rulers would be
an oligarchy of people most endowed with some kind of special capability
and they would kill or banish people they defined as useless/incapable.
Carl Fink
2017-04-16 22:04:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by James Nicoll
A Spell for Chameleon (Xanth, book 1) by Piers Anthony
http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/what-was-i-thinking
When I was collecting stereotypical/recurrent world-building elements
for authors (for inspiration in designing planets for an RPG) the thing
that struck me about Piers Anthony is that his thing was societies that
defined it's inhabitants by capability and utility. The rulers would be
an oligarchy of people most endowed with some kind of special capability
and they would kill or banish people they defined as useless/incapable.
I had noticed that, too, as in his Apprentice Adept series.
--
Carl Fink ***@nitpicking.com

Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
Quadibloc
2017-04-17 01:13:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
the thing
that struck me about Piers Anthony is that his thing was societies that
defined it's inhabitants by capability and utility. The rulers would be
an oligarchy of people most endowed with some kind of special capability
and they would kill or banish people they defined as useless/incapable.
But since that produces a dramatic situation where the reader sympathizes with
those who are being threatened with being banished or killed, his stories are
about depicting that sort of thing as bad, not about promoting it.

That trying to be sex-positive without being excruciatingly politically correct
and feminist... risks going full-tilt into appalling sexism, as has happened
here, does not come as a surprise to me.

John Savard
David Johnston
2017-04-17 04:49:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
the thing
that struck me about Piers Anthony is that his thing was societies that
defined it's inhabitants by capability and utility. The rulers would be
an oligarchy of people most endowed with some kind of special capability
and they would kill or banish people they defined as useless/incapable.
But since that produces a dramatic situation where the reader sympathizes with
those who are being threatened with being banished or killed, his stories are
about depicting that sort of thing as bad, not about promoting it.
<snicker> No. Piers Anthony actually wrote a utopian novel entitled
Triple Detente. Guess what the oligarchic rulers of the society do to
make things run perfectly. Go on. Guess.
Quadibloc
2017-04-17 15:25:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
the thing
that struck me about Piers Anthony is that his thing was societies that
defined it's inhabitants by capability and utility. The rulers would be
an oligarchy of people most endowed with some kind of special capability
and they would kill or banish people they defined as useless/incapable.
But since that produces a dramatic situation where the reader sympathizes with
those who are being threatened with being banished or killed, his stories are
about depicting that sort of thing as bad, not about promoting it.
<snicker> No. Piers Anthony actually wrote a utopian novel entitled
Triple Detente. Guess what the oligarchic rulers of the society do to
make things run perfectly. Go on. Guess.
I think I remember that this story was discussed in this newsgroup a while back.
I thought it was about three alien races doing something in order to keep war
from breaking out between them - something which could, therefore, because of
the drastic need, be non-optimal.

I guess my point, though, seemed like a reasonable assessment of what I was
seeing in the description of the Xanth series.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2017-04-17 15:36:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
<snicker> No. Piers Anthony actually wrote a utopian novel entitled
Triple Detente. Guess what the oligarchic rulers of the society do to
make things run perfectly. Go on. Guess.
Instead of killing people for being useless and untalented

(spoiler space)

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Earth and Kazo were two planets at war. Both planets were badly overpopulated, and in sad ecological state; this, presumably is what motivated the war, each trying to steal resources from the other.

So the clever peace agreement they came up with is...

since overpopulation was the problem, the two sides agreed to a peace where *both* sides would "lose" the war - instead of humans ruling humans, Kazo ruling Kazo, and both being too wimpish and sentimental to thin out the population to the extent required... each race would take on the responsibility of being the "heavy" for carrying out the necessary policies.


So I guess your point is that here Piers Anthony seems to be approving of
widespread indiscriminate slaughter.

But he's only echoing deep green politically correct ideas of bringing man into
balance with nature, not advocating discrimination against the less able, so I
think that I can still stand by my defense of Xanth in this respect.

John Savard
Juho Julkunen
2017-04-17 16:47:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
But he's only echoing deep green politically correct ideas of bringing man into
balance with nature,
Now, "politically correct" is usually a deragotary phrase conservatives
like to use in place of "not being an asshole", because they like being
assholes.

But by what standard is population culling "politically correct"? It is
for the lunatic fringe of the environmentalists, sure, or Nazis, but
used contextually like that the phrase loses all semblance of meaning.
--
Juho Julkunen
Peter Trei
2017-04-17 16:59:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Quadibloc
But he's only echoing deep green politically correct ideas of bringing man into
balance with nature,
Now, "politically correct" is usually a deragotary phrase conservatives
like to use in place of "not being an asshole", because they like being
assholes.
But by what standard is population culling "politically correct"? It is
for the lunatic fringe of the environmentalists, sure, or Nazis, but
used contextually like that the phrase loses all semblance of meaning.
I don't see how it can be applied here to other than the 'deep greens', many of
whom *do* advocate drastic population reduction (though most don't want to
make that happen violently).

The term 'politically correct' is more than just a conservative dog-whistle.
It originated on the left, and can be used to describe groupthink of any kind.

pt
Gene Wirchenko
2017-04-17 20:31:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:59:00 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
Post by Peter Trei
The term 'politically correct' is more than just a conservative dog-whistle.
It originated on the left, and can be used to describe groupthink of any kind.
Sometimes, simple good manners get pilloried as being politically
correct.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Peter Trei
2017-04-17 20:53:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:59:00 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
[snip]
Post by Peter Trei
The term 'politically correct' is more than just a conservative dog-whistle.
It originated on the left, and can be used to describe groupthink of any kind.
Sometimes, simple good manners get pilloried as being politically
correct.
Sure. But what is 'simple good manners'? Can you provide an objective,
culture-free definition, valid at all times and places?

Sometimes, what group 'a' perceives as 'simple good manners' is
perceived by 'b' as 'dictatorial imposition of acceptable speech and
behavior'.

Forex, if a group regards it as 'simple good manners' for all women
to wear chadors when outside to prevent strange men from being tempted,
then women who don't want to do so can reasonably accuse those to do
of 'political correctness', while the chadored-by-choice will claim to be
exercising 'simple good manners'.

In free countries, no one has a right not be offended. Freedom isn't freedom
if one group claims, and enforces, exactly what one may be free about, because
they'll be offended of some 'thing different'.

pt


pt
Peter Trei
2017-04-17 20:57:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:59:00 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
[snip]
Post by Peter Trei
The term 'politically correct' is more than just a conservative dog-whistle.
It originated on the left, and can be used to describe groupthink of any kind.
Sometimes, simple good manners get pilloried as being politically
correct.
Sure. But what is 'simple good manners'? Can you provide an objective,
culture-free definition, valid at all times and places?
Sometimes, what group 'a' perceives as 'simple good manners' is
perceived by 'b' as 'dictatorial imposition of acceptable speech and
behavior'.
Forex, if a group regards it as 'simple good manners' for all women
to wear chadors when outside to prevent strange men from being tempted,
then women who don't want to do so can reasonably accuse those to do
of 'political correctness', while the chadored-by-choice will claim to be
exercising 'simple good manners'.
In free countries, no one has a right not be offended. Freedom isn't freedom
if one group claims, and enforces, exactly what one may be free about, because
they'll be offended of some 'thing different'.
^ "they'll be offended of someone who 'thinks different'.

I sometimes wish there was an 'edit post' ability on usenet.
pt
Gene Wirchenko
2017-04-18 03:10:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 13:53:55 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:59:00 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
[snip]
Post by Peter Trei
The term 'politically correct' is more than just a conservative dog-whistle.
It originated on the left, and can be used to describe groupthink of any kind.
Sometimes, simple good manners get pilloried as being politically
correct.
Sure. But what is 'simple good manners'? Can you provide an objective,
culture-free definition, valid at all times and places?
Of course not. However:

How about things like not hassling people? Tell someone to quit
hassling someone else and get slammed for "political correctness".

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Dimensional Traveler
2017-04-18 14:48:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 13:53:55 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:59:00 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
[snip]
Post by Peter Trei
The term 'politically correct' is more than just a conservative dog-whistle.
It originated on the left, and can be used to describe groupthink of any kind.
Sometimes, simple good manners get pilloried as being politically
correct.
Sure. But what is 'simple good manners'? Can you provide an objective,
culture-free definition, valid at all times and places?
How about things like not hassling people? Tell someone to quit
hassling someone else and get slammed for "political correctness".
Jehovah's Witnesses consider it good manners to come to your home and
save you through the word of God.
--
Some days you just don't have enough middle fingers!
Robert Woodward
2017-04-18 04:41:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:59:00 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
[snip]
Post by Peter Trei
The term 'politically correct' is more than just a conservative dog-whistle.
It originated on the left, and can be used to describe groupthink of any kind.
Sometimes, simple good manners get pilloried as being politically
correct.
I recall when simple good manners was pilloried for being politically
incorrect (not in those words, but that was meant).
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Cryptoengineer
2017-04-18 17:05:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:59:00 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
[snip]
Post by Peter Trei
The term 'politically correct' is more than just a conservative
dog-whistle. It originated on the left, and can be used to describe
groupthink of any kind.
Sometimes, simple good manners get pilloried as being
politically
correct.
I recall when simple good manners was pilloried for being politically
incorrect (not in those words, but that was meant).
Something along these lines, perhaps:
"How dare you hold the door open for me? I'm a woman, not a weakling!"

pt
Robert Woodward
2017-04-19 04:34:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:59:00 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
[snip]
Post by Peter Trei
The term 'politically correct' is more than just a conservative
dog-whistle. It originated on the left, and can be used to describe
groupthink of any kind.
Sometimes, simple good manners get pilloried as being
politically
correct.
I recall when simple good manners was pilloried for being politically
incorrect (not in those words, but that was meant).
"How dare you hold the door open for me? I'm a woman, not a weakling!"
Something like that, yes. In my personal case, considering the way I
went through doorways back in the day, there would have been a chance
that the door would hit her in the face if I hadn't stopped and held it
open.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
David Johnston
2017-04-19 04:51:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 09:59:00 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
[snip]
Post by Peter Trei
The term 'politically correct' is more than just a conservative
dog-whistle. It originated on the left, and can be used to describe
groupthink of any kind.
Sometimes, simple good manners get pilloried as being
politically
correct.
I recall when simple good manners was pilloried for being politically
incorrect (not in those words, but that was meant).
"How dare you hold the door open for me? I'm a woman, not a weakling!"
Something like that, yes. In my personal case, considering the way I
went through doorways back in the day, there would have been a chance
that the door would hit her in the face if I hadn't stopped and held it
open.
I always find that odd. I've held doors for people since I was a small
child. Never once has anyone ever objected. I guess because it's Canada?
Carl Fink
2017-04-19 13:02:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
I always find that odd. I've held doors for people since I was a small
child. Never once has anyone ever objected. I guess because it's Canada?
Same here. I've always assumed the "don't hold the door" feminists are like
the spit-on-the-wounded-vet pacifists: basically mythical.
--
Carl Fink ***@nitpicking.com

Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
Peter Trei
2017-04-19 15:22:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Carl Fink
Post by David Johnston
I always find that odd. I've held doors for people since I was a small
child. Never once has anyone ever objected. I guess because it's Canada?
Same here. I've always assumed the "don't hold the door" feminists are like
the spit-on-the-wounded-vet pacifists: basically mythical.
Perhaps so.

To pivot 90 degrees, door holding can be a bit angsty, both for the holder, and
the person held-for.

At what distance does the expectation to hold the door for someone following
set in? Ten feet? Twenty? Thirty?

If I see someone up ahead is holding the door for me, sometimes I'm grateful,
particularly if my hands are full. OTOH, I'll often be mildly annoyed, since
they've just laid an expectation on me to make use of their effort, and not
delay them - do I have to speed up? What if I was undecided if I wanted to use
that door right away?

pt
Dimensional Traveler
2017-04-19 17:31:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Carl Fink
Post by David Johnston
I always find that odd. I've held doors for people since I was a small
child. Never once has anyone ever objected. I guess because it's Canada?
Same here. I've always assumed the "don't hold the door" feminists are like
the spit-on-the-wounded-vet pacifists: basically mythical.
Perhaps so.
To pivot 90 degrees, door holding can be a bit angsty, both for the holder, and
the person held-for.
At what distance does the expectation to hold the door for someone following
set in? Ten feet? Twenty? Thirty?
If I see someone up ahead is holding the door for me, sometimes I'm grateful,
particularly if my hands are full. OTOH, I'll often be mildly annoyed, since
they've just laid an expectation on me to make use of their effort, and not
delay them - do I have to speed up? What if I was undecided if I wanted to use
that door right away?
pt
"Thank you, I'm not going in yet."
--
Some days you just don't have enough middle fingers!
Greg Goss
2017-04-20 03:35:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Carl Fink
Post by David Johnston
I always find that odd. I've held doors for people since I was a small
child. Never once has anyone ever objected. I guess because it's Canada?
Same here. I've always assumed the "don't hold the door" feminists are like
the spit-on-the-wounded-vet pacifists: basically mythical.
Perhaps so.
To pivot 90 degrees, door holding can be a bit angsty, both for the holder, and
the person held-for.
At what distance does the expectation to hold the door for someone following
set in? Ten feet? Twenty? Thirty?
If I see someone up ahead is holding the door for me, sometimes I'm grateful,
particularly if my hands are full. OTOH, I'll often be mildly annoyed, since
they've just laid an expectation on me to make use of their effort, and not
delay them - do I have to speed up? What if I was undecided if I wanted to use
that door right away?
https://twitter.com/trulycanada/status/301485888897179648?lang=en
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Peter Trei
2017-04-20 13:01:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Carl Fink
Post by David Johnston
I always find that odd. I've held doors for people since I was a small
child. Never once has anyone ever objected. I guess because it's Canada?
Same here. I've always assumed the "don't hold the door" feminists are like
the spit-on-the-wounded-vet pacifists: basically mythical.
Perhaps so.
To pivot 90 degrees, door holding can be a bit angsty, both for the holder, and
the person held-for.
At what distance does the expectation to hold the door for someone following
set in? Ten feet? Twenty? Thirty?
If I see someone up ahead is holding the door for me, sometimes I'm grateful,
particularly if my hands are full. OTOH, I'll often be mildly annoyed, since
they've just laid an expectation on me to make use of their effort, and not
delay them - do I have to speed up? What if I was undecided if I wanted to use
that door right away?
https://twitter.com/trulycanada/status/301485888897179648?lang=en
Precisely. Some of us get like that even down here in Eagleland.

pt
Joy Beeson
2017-04-21 02:58:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:22:00 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
To pivot 90 degrees, door holding can be a bit angsty, both for the holder, and
the person held-for.
I used to work out at a gym where the best place to park my bike was
in the airlock. When I was ready to leave, I would pretend to be
searching for something in my panniers until I was quite alone; if
someone saw that I intended to push my bike through the door, he would
rush to hold the door -- and stand exactly in my path. It was very
easy to open the door with my back while I held the bike with both
hands.

Once I happened to be near the door when the special bus let out a
stroke victim on crutches. I opened the door and stood behind it to
leave room for the crutches. She was utterly astonished.

Back in the sixties, some male said, in all sincerity, "But if women
get equality, we'll stop holding doors for them!" That was a double
jaw-dropper. First was that he thought that meaningless courtesies
were worth giving up all human rights -- and second was that they
*weren't* holding doors for us!

A few years later, it did happen once. I'd had lessons in how to let
a chair be held for me, but I was at a complete loss for how to
graciously accept a chivalrous door holding.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
Gene Wirchenko
2017-04-19 18:02:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Carl Fink
Post by David Johnston
I always find that odd. I've held doors for people since I was a small
child. Never once has anyone ever objected. I guess because it's Canada?
Same here. I've always assumed the "don't hold the door" feminists are like
the spit-on-the-wounded-vet pacifists: basically mythical.
They are not common, but if you run across one, the vitriol makes
an impression.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
J. Clarke
2017-04-19 22:23:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Carl Fink
Post by David Johnston
I always find that odd. I've held doors for people since I was a small
child. Never once has anyone ever objected. I guess because it's Canada?
Same here. I've always assumed the "don't hold the door" feminists are like
the spit-on-the-wounded-vet pacifists: basically mythical.
I have a cousin who used to be like that. After I started attempting to
make every door we passed through together hit her in the face she calmed
down a little.
Kevrob
2017-04-20 12:27:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Carl Fink
Post by David Johnston
I always find that odd. I've held doors for people since I was a small
child. Never once has anyone ever objected. I guess because it's Canada?
Same here. I've always assumed the "don't hold the door" feminists are like
the spit-on-the-wounded-vet pacifists: basically mythical.
I have a cousin who used to be like that. After I started attempting to
make every door we passed through together hit her in the face she calmed
down a little.
I learned the etiquette after feminism got traction was to hold the door
for people, not for "ladies." You hold it long enough so that the next
person can make it through. It doesn't make you Sir Walter with his cape.

It seems to work, especially if the next guy/gal is carrying stuff.

Regarding Quaddie's Norman reference, COMET TV* is going to run
the GOR film on the 21st. Is it a can't miss, Leonard Pinth-Garnell
level example of Bad Cinema, and will I need a gasoline-tanker's worth
of brain bleach if I tune in? SBIG?

Kevin R

* http://www.comettv.com/program-details/Feature+Film/Gor/10238/Fantasy/MV000230660000/

Kevin R
Quadibloc
2017-04-20 14:30:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Regarding Quaddie's Norman reference, COMET TV* is going to run
the GOR film on the 21st. Is it a can't miss, Leonard Pinth-Garnell
level example of Bad Cinema, and will I need a gasoline-tanker's worth
of brain bleach if I tune in? SBIG?
I wouldn't be surprised if that were _still_ the case, although I
vaguely remember hearing a mention of it which noted that the...
distinctive... elements of the Gor novels were heavily toned down in
the movie in order to make it something... that actors would be willing
to perform in, that venues would be willing to show, and so on and so
forth.

I suspect that while this will make it _somewhat_ more watchable, it
will not be enough to save it from being Bad Cinema. After all, it's a
"what were you thinking" kind of licensing opportunity.

John Savard
David Johnston
2017-04-20 17:24:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Carl Fink
Post by David Johnston
I always find that odd. I've held doors for people since I was a small
child. Never once has anyone ever objected. I guess because it's Canada?
Same here. I've always assumed the "don't hold the door" feminists are like
the spit-on-the-wounded-vet pacifists: basically mythical.
I have a cousin who used to be like that. After I started attempting to
make every door we passed through together hit her in the face she calmed
down a little.
I learned the etiquette after feminism got traction was to hold the door
for people, not for "ladies." You hold it long enough so that the next
person can make it through. It doesn't make you Sir Walter with his cape.
It seems to work, especially if the next guy/gal is carrying stuff.
Regarding Quaddie's Norman reference, COMET TV* is going to run
the GOR film on the 21st. Is it a can't miss, Leonard Pinth-Garnell
level example of Bad Cinema, and will I need a gasoline-tanker's worth
of brain bleach if I tune in? SBIG?
I found it to be a yawner. It was a loose adaptation of the first novel
after all, and Norman didn't start telling us about his sexual fantasies
until later.
Moriarty
2017-04-20 22:13:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by David Johnston
Post by Kevrob
Regarding Quaddie's Norman reference, COMET TV* is going to run
the GOR film on the 21st. Is it a can't miss, Leonard Pinth-Garnell
level example of Bad Cinema, and will I need a gasoline-tanker's worth
of brain bleach if I tune in? SBIG?
I found it to be a yawner. It was a loose adaptation of the first novel
after all, and Norman didn't start telling us about his sexual fantasies
until later.
AOL. If you take the S&M stuff out of the Gor books you're left with passably good S&S fantasy. The first novel had almost none of the objectionable stuff and was a reasonably good yarn.

The movie is a loose adaption of that book, made on a shoestring budget with cutprice script writers, cutprice actors(*) and a cutprice director.

The result is a bland, boring, forgettable movie.

(*) Oliver Reed was in the "Will Work For Booze" phase of his career.

-Moriarty
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-19 22:33:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Carl Fink
Post by David Johnston
I always find that odd. I've held doors for people since I was
a small child. Never once has anyone ever objected. I guess
because it's Canada?
Same here. I've always assumed the "don't hold the door"
basically mythical.
Rare, but not entirely mythical. Friend of mine ran into one of that
sort after he got back from Vietnam. When they asked "How could you
shoot a ten year old kid?" his reply was autoamtic - because it was
the answer: "With a .45." I believe that was the last time that
individual ever talked to him about anything.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
m***@sky.com
2017-04-20 17:38:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Carl Fink
Post by David Johnston
I always find that odd. I've held doors for people since I was
a small child. Never once has anyone ever objected. I guess
because it's Canada?
Same here. I've always assumed the "don't hold the door"
basically mythical.
Rare, but not entirely mythical. Friend of mine ran into one of that
sort after he got back from Vietnam. When they asked "How could you
shoot a ten year old kid?" his reply was autoamtic - because it was
the answer: "With a .45." I believe that was the last time that
individual ever talked to him about anything.
--
Terry Austin
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
The hero in Correia and Ringo's excellent "Monster Hunter Memoirs: Grunge" rebels against his left wing academic parents by (amongst many other things) becoming a Marine and is seriously wounded. There is a very funny scene in which his Mom invades the hospital to tell him he got what was coming to him and "Babykiller" is shouted by both parties.

(I was persuaded by my Father's subscription to "The Guardian" that the people writing its articles were self-indulgent idiots, and so my politics are very different from what his were. I was somewhat surprised to find that my Nephew is interested enough in politics to be doing a PPE now, but does not appear to have reacted against his Father's views to any very noticeable extent).
David Johnston
2017-04-20 17:46:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Carl Fink
Post by David Johnston
I always find that odd. I've held doors for people since I
was a small child. Never once has anyone ever objected. I
guess because it's Canada?
Same here. I've always assumed the "don't hold the door"
basically mythical.
Rare, but not entirely mythical. Friend of mine ran into one of
that sort after he got back from Vietnam. When they asked "How
could you shoot a ten year old kid?" his reply was autoamtic -
because it was the answer: "With a .45." I believe that was the
last time that individual ever talked to him about anything.
-- Terry Austin
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." --
David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Grunge" rebels against his left wing academic parents by (amongst
many other things) becoming a Marine and is seriously wounded. There
is a very funny scene in which his Mom invades the hospital to tell
him he got what was coming to him and "Babykiller" is shouted by both
parties.
A book with a scene that ax-grindingly stupid was "excellent"?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-20 18:03:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 11:33:06 PM UTC+1, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Carl Fink
Post by David Johnston
I always find that odd. I've held doors for people since I
was a small child. Never once has anyone ever objected. I
guess because it's Canada?
Same here. I've always assumed the "don't hold the door"
basically mythical.
Rare, but not entirely mythical. Friend of mine ran into one
of that sort after he got back from Vietnam. When they asked
"How could you shoot a ten year old kid?" his reply was
autoamtic - because it was the answer: "With a .45." I believe
that was the last time that individual ever talked to him
about anything.
-- Terry Austin
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more
asshole." -- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
The hero in Correia and Ringo's excellent "Monster Hunter
Memoirs: Grunge" rebels against his left wing academic parents
by (amongst many other things) becoming a Marine and is
seriously wounded. There is a very funny scene in which his Mom
invades the hospital to tell him he got what was coming to him
and "Babykiller" is shouted by both parties.
A book with a scene that ax-grindingly stupid was "excellent"?
It certainly sounds realistic. Nearly identical scenes have played
out right right here.

But I doubt I would use either "excellent" or "funny" to describe
it.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
m***@sky.com
2017-04-20 19:14:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 11:33:06 PM UTC+1, Gutless Umbrella
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Carl Fink
Post by David Johnston
I always find that odd. I've held doors for people since I
was a small child. Never once has anyone ever objected. I
guess because it's Canada?
Same here. I've always assumed the "don't hold the door"
basically mythical.
Rare, but not entirely mythical. Friend of mine ran into one of
that sort after he got back from Vietnam. When they asked "How
could you shoot a ten year old kid?" his reply was autoamtic -
because it was the answer: "With a .45." I believe that was the
last time that individual ever talked to him about anything.
-- Terry Austin
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." --
David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Grunge" rebels against his left wing academic parents by (amongst
many other things) becoming a Marine and is seriously wounded. There
is a very funny scene in which his Mom invades the hospital to tell
him he got what was coming to him and "Babykiller" is shouted by both
parties.
A book with a scene that ax-grindingly stupid was "excellent"?
There is no accounting for taste, and it is also possible that my description does not do it justice (I speak as somebody who believes that the title "Romeo and Juliet" would have be better as "why not to play with knives"). For those who would like more information, the relevant section is within the Free Sample material for the book on the Baen website, which for me is at http://www.baen.com/Chapters/9781476781495/9781476781495___4.htm.
Richard Hershberger
2017-04-20 12:37:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Carl Fink
Post by David Johnston
I always find that odd. I've held doors for people since I was a small
child. Never once has anyone ever objected. I guess because it's Canada?
Same here. I've always assumed the "don't hold the door" feminists are like
the spit-on-the-wounded-vet pacifists: basically mythical.
My experience is the same as David's: I have been holding doors open for decades with no reprisals. I won't say that the "don't hold the door" feminists don't exist at all, or at least that they never existed, but this is really mostly a thing for people who want to complaint about feminists.

Richard R. Hershberger
Chris Buckley
2017-04-20 14:22:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Hershberger
Post by Carl Fink
Post by David Johnston
I always find that odd. I've held doors for people since I was a small
child. Never once has anyone ever objected. I guess because it's Canada?
Same here. I've always assumed the "don't hold the door" feminists are like
the spit-on-the-wounded-vet pacifists: basically mythical.
My experience is the same as David's: I have been holding doors open for decades with no reprisals. I won't say that the "don't hold the door" feminists don't exist at all, or at least that they never existed, but this is really mostly a thing for people who want to complaint about feminists.
It used to be much more than that, but I regard the males as at fault,
with valid complaints from the feminists. It used to be the
politeness norm for the male to open the door even if they started out
behind the female and had to brush by them in order to get to the
door. If males were still bumping into females in their rush to get
by, I expect you would hear a lot more complaints from females today!

Chris
David Johnston
2017-04-20 17:27:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Richard Hershberger
Post by Carl Fink
Post by David Johnston
I always find that odd. I've held doors for people since I was a small
child. Never once has anyone ever objected. I guess because it's Canada?
Same here. I've always assumed the "don't hold the door" feminists are like
the spit-on-the-wounded-vet pacifists: basically mythical.
My experience is the same as David's: I have been holding doors open for decades with no reprisals. I won't say that the "don't hold the door" feminists don't exist at all, or at least that they never existed, but this is really mostly a thing for people who want to complaint about feminists.
It used to be much more than that, but I regard the males as at fault,
with valid complaints from the feminists. It used to be the
politeness norm for the male to open the door even if they started out
behind the female and had to brush by them in order to get to the
door. If males were still bumping into females in their rush to get
by, I expect you would hear a lot more complaints from females today!
Chris
Oh yeah. I suppose if you made a big deal out of getting in front so
you could do it instead of just doing it naturally because you were the
first at the door that could be annoying.
Greg Goss
2017-04-21 14:22:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Richard Hershberger
My experience is the same as David's: I have been holding doors open for decades with no reprisals. I won't say that the "don't hold the door" feminists don't exist at all, or at least that they never existed, but this is really mostly a thing for people who want to complaint about feminists.
It used to be much more than that, but I regard the males as at fault,
with valid complaints from the feminists. It used to be the
politeness norm for the male to open the door even if they started out
behind the female and had to brush by them in order to get to the
door. If males were still bumping into females in their rush to get
by, I expect you would hear a lot more complaints from females today!
I live in a region with winters. Most business establishments have
"airlock" style entries. So, entering ("pull" doors), whoever's first
to the door holds it for the second person, then that person holds the
second door for the first. On exiting ("push" door), the first person
exits, then holds the door for the second, who then exits the second
door and holds it for the first.

With two doors, you get a symmetry.

All my life, I've held doors whenever it increases the net total
convenience for everyone involved. Running around the car to open a
door for your date doesn't fit, and would just "feel stupid". Perhaps
that's why I'm single.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-04-21 15:09:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
All my life, I've held doors whenever it increases the net total
convenience for everyone involved. Running around the car to open a
door for your date doesn't fit, and would just "feel stupid". Perhaps
that's why I'm single.
I would walk (not run) around the car when on an offical date, but at
least 90% of the time my date/wife had the door open before I got
there.

When I drove somewhere with a woman and it wasn't officially a date,
it would depend on context -- is she carrying something? Is our final
destination on the driver or passenger side? Etc.

I doubt I've opened more car doors for women in the past fifty years
than I have fingers. I'm not sure I'd even need both hands.

(Opening doors for kids has been much, much more common.)
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
Default User
2017-04-21 19:18:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
All my life, I've held doors whenever it increases the net total
convenience for everyone involved.
I work in a fairly large building with only one restroom, and since I'm in engineering the workforce is overwhelmingly using the Mens Room. So it's reasonably common to have someone exiting when another is entering. It makes sense for the guy "in" to go first as there is more maneuvering room in the aisle. However, a fair percentage of the time that guy will decide to try to hold the door. As the door swings inward of course, that means he's standing in the doorway with an arm straight out holding the door. The door is one of those with a pneumatic closer, so it doesn't move very fast. I usually end up saying something like, "I got it", or "Come on out". I'm really thinking, "Get out of the way dumbass!"


Brian
Peter Trei
2017-04-21 19:55:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
Post by Greg Goss
All my life, I've held doors whenever it increases the net total
convenience for everyone involved.
I work in a fairly large building with only one restroom, and since I'm in engineering the workforce is overwhelmingly using the Mens Room. So it's reasonably common to have someone exiting when another is entering. It makes sense for the guy "in" to go first as there is more maneuvering room in the aisle. However, a fair percentage of the time that guy will decide to try to hold the door. As the door swings inward of course, that means he's standing in the doorway with an arm straight out holding the door. The door is one of those with a pneumatic closer, so it doesn't move very fast. I usually end up saying something like, "I got it", or "Come on out". I'm really thinking, "Get out of the way dumbass!"
I have a similar situation - while the bathroom facilities for both men and
women have the same capacity, about 90% of the employees on my floor are men.
This leads to an inversion of the usual situation - men sometimes have to
wait, but women, never.

The weird one I run into at my workplace is the unmanned door on the
side of the building. Its used more than the front door since its nearer the
parking.

It's an airlock, and the path up to the unlocked outer door has all the
doorholding angst described upthread.

However, once past the first door, employees have to wave their RFID badges
at a keypad, then enter a PIN to unlock the inner door and get in. This
step has got to be done individually - you *don't* get to go in without a
badge wave and a PIN. Tailgating is verboten.

Nevertheless, in a crowded situation, people often *do* hold the inner
door open (at least, for people they recognize), but watch the keypad to
make sure it flashes green after the person held for enters their PIN.
I've never seen someone fail - I guess you're supposed to slam the door
in their face in that case.

pt
m***@sky.com
2017-04-22 04:24:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Default User
Post by Greg Goss
All my life, I've held doors whenever it increases the net total
convenience for everyone involved.
I work in a fairly large building with only one restroom, and since I'm in engineering the workforce is overwhelmingly using the Mens Room. So it's reasonably common to have someone exiting when another is entering. It makes sense for the guy "in" to go first as there is more maneuvering room in the aisle. However, a fair percentage of the time that guy will decide to try to hold the door. As the door swings inward of course, that means he's standing in the doorway with an arm straight out holding the door. The door is one of those with a pneumatic closer, so it doesn't move very fast. I usually end up saying something like, "I got it", or "Come on out". I'm really thinking, "Get out of the way dumbass!"
I have a similar situation - while the bathroom facilities for both men and
women have the same capacity, about 90% of the employees on my floor are men.
This leads to an inversion of the usual situation - men sometimes have to
wait, but women, never.
The weird one I run into at my workplace is the unmanned door on the
side of the building. Its used more than the front door since its nearer the
parking.
It's an airlock, and the path up to the unlocked outer door has all the
doorholding angst described upthread.
However, once past the first door, employees have to wave their RFID badges
at a keypad, then enter a PIN to unlock the inner door and get in. This
step has got to be done individually - you *don't* get to go in without a
badge wave and a PIN. Tailgating is verboten.
Nevertheless, in a crowded situation, people often *do* hold the inner
door open (at least, for people they recognize), but watch the keypad to
make sure it flashes green after the person held for enters their PIN.
I've never seen someone fail - I guess you're supposed to slam the door
in their face in that case.
pt
The rise of a surveillance society (at least in the UK) may has positive effects. If a wrongdoer is not threatening violence here and now, it is sufficient for a non-cop to simply notice that here and now is where the cameras have captured wrong-doing. It may also be all they are allowed to do. I don't know the details, but apparently there was a case where a store security guard tried to apprehend a shoplifter who had secreted various bottles of alcohol in their clothing. In the struggle the bottles were broken and the shoplifter was cut with broken glass and died. The security guard was then in big trouble, and there is now an argument that there was no real need for them to apprehend the shoplifter, since the whole thing is on CCTV - let the cops chase them down and catch them in slow time.
Robert Carnegie
2017-04-22 13:34:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Default User
Post by Greg Goss
All my life, I've held doors whenever it increases the net total
convenience for everyone involved.
I work in a fairly large building with only one restroom, and since I'm in engineering the workforce is overwhelmingly using the Mens Room. So it's reasonably common to have someone exiting when another is entering. It makes sense for the guy "in" to go first as there is more maneuvering room in the aisle. However, a fair percentage of the time that guy will decide to try to hold the door. As the door swings inward of course, that means he's standing in the doorway with an arm straight out holding the door. The door is one of those with a pneumatic closer, so it doesn't move very fast. I usually end up saying something like, "I got it", or "Come on out". I'm really thinking, "Get out of the way dumbass!"
I have a similar situation - while the bathroom facilities for both men and
women have the same capacity, about 90% of the employees on my floor are men.
This leads to an inversion of the usual situation - men sometimes have to
wait, but women, never.
The weird one I run into at my workplace is the unmanned door on the
side of the building. Its used more than the front door since its nearer the
parking.
It's an airlock, and the path up to the unlocked outer door has all the
doorholding angst described upthread.
However, once past the first door, employees have to wave their RFID badges
at a keypad, then enter a PIN to unlock the inner door and get in. This
step has got to be done individually - you *don't* get to go in without a
badge wave and a PIN. Tailgating is verboten.
Nevertheless, in a crowded situation, people often *do* hold the inner
door open (at least, for people they recognize), but watch the keypad to
make sure it flashes green after the person held for enters their PIN.
I've never seen someone fail - I guess you're supposed to slam the door
in their face in that case.
pt
The rise of a surveillance society (at least in the UK) may has positive effects. If a wrongdoer is not threatening violence here and now, it is sufficient for a non-cop to simply notice that here and now is where the cameras have captured wrong-doing. It may also be all they are allowed to do. I don't know the details, but apparently there was a case where a store security guard tried to apprehend a shoplifter who had secreted various bottles of alcohol in their clothing. In the struggle the bottles were broken and the shoplifter was cut with broken glass and died. The security guard was then in big trouble, and there is now an argument that there was no real need for them to apprehend the shoplifter, since the whole thing is on CCTV - let the cops chase them down and catch them in slow time.
Video can be misleading. It can be staged.
David Mitchell
2017-04-22 04:43:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Richard Hershberger
My experience is the same as David's: I have been holding doors open for decades with no reprisals. I won't say that the "don't hold the door" feminists don't exist at all, or at least that they never existed, but this is really mostly a thing for people who want to complaint about feminists.
It used to be much more than that, but I regard the males as at fault,
with valid complaints from the feminists. It used to be the
politeness norm for the male to open the door even if they started out
behind the female and had to brush by them in order to get to the
door. If males were still bumping into females in their rush to get
by, I expect you would hear a lot more complaints from females today!
I live in a region with winters. Most business establishments have
"airlock" style entries. So, entering ("pull" doors), whoever's first
to the door holds it for the second person, then that person holds the
second door for the first. On exiting ("push" door), the first person
exits, then holds the door for the second, who then exits the second
door and holds it for the first.
With two doors, you get a symmetry.
All my life, I've held doors whenever it increases the net total
convenience for everyone involved. Running around the car to open a
door for your date doesn't fit, and would just "feel stupid".
Ditto. I once spent about five minutes holding the door to a Woolworth
store open, because it would have been rude to the person in whose face
I let it slam.

Not one of them said thank you, but that's the Welsh for you ;-)
Robert Bannister
2017-04-24 03:41:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Richard Hershberger
My experience is the same as David's: I have been holding doors open for decades with no reprisals. I won't say that the "don't hold the door" feminists don't exist at all, or at least that they never existed, but this is really mostly a thing for people who want to complaint about feminists.
It used to be much more than that, but I regard the males as at fault,
with valid complaints from the feminists. It used to be the
politeness norm for the male to open the door even if they started out
behind the female and had to brush by them in order to get to the
door. If males were still bumping into females in their rush to get
by, I expect you would hear a lot more complaints from females today!
I live in a region with winters. Most business establishments have
"airlock" style entries. So, entering ("pull" doors), whoever's first
to the door holds it for the second person, then that person holds the
second door for the first. On exiting ("push" door), the first person
exits, then holds the door for the second, who then exits the second
door and holds it for the first.
With two doors, you get a symmetry.
All my life, I've held doors whenever it increases the net total
convenience for everyone involved. Running around the car to open a
door for your date doesn't fit, and would just "feel stupid". Perhaps
that's why I'm single.
I sometimes do the car door thing, but mainly because having lost both
my car keys, I now have a non-remote key. So, on the rare occasions when
I'm not carrying something, it seems the natural thing to open the doors
from the passenger's side, but I don't make a big deal out of it.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Gene Wirchenko
2017-04-20 20:29:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 05:37:55 -0700 (PDT), Richard Hershberger
Post by Richard Hershberger
Post by Carl Fink
Post by David Johnston
I always find that odd. I've held doors for people since I was a small
child. Never once has anyone ever objected. I guess because it's Canada?
Same here. I've always assumed the "don't hold the door" feminists are like
the spit-on-the-wounded-vet pacifists: basically mythical.
My experience is the same as David's: I have been holding doors open for
decades with no reprisals. I won't say that the "don't hold the
door" feminists don't exist at all, or at least that they never
existed, but this is really mostly a thing for people who want to
complaint about feminists.

Or for feminists who want something to complain about.

The rest of us just get on with life.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
David Johnston
2017-04-17 17:40:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
<snicker> No. Piers Anthony actually wrote a utopian novel entitled
Triple Detente. Guess what the oligarchic rulers of the society do to
make things run perfectly. Go on. Guess.
Instead of killing people for being useless and untalented
(spoiler space)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Earth and Kazo were two planets at war. Both planets were badly overpopulated, and in sad ecological state; this, presumably is what motivated the war, each trying to steal resources from the other.
So the clever peace agreement they came up with is...
since overpopulation was the problem, the two sides agreed to a peace where *both* sides would "lose" the war - instead of humans ruling humans, Kazo ruling Kazo, and both being too wimpish and sentimental to thin out the population to the extent required... each race would take on the responsibility of being the "heavy" for carrying out the necessary policies.
So I guess your point is that here Piers Anthony seems to be approving of
widespread indiscriminate slaughter.
But he's only echoing deep green politically correct ideas of bringing man into
balance with nature, not advocating discrimination against the less able,
Except the slaughter wasn't indiscriminate at all. They were killing
everyone deemed to be "unproductive".
Peter Trei
2017-04-17 17:54:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
<snicker> No. Piers Anthony actually wrote a utopian novel entitled
Triple Detente. Guess what the oligarchic rulers of the society do to
make things run perfectly. Go on. Guess.
Instead of killing people for being useless and untalented
(spoiler space)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Earth and Kazo were two planets at war. Both planets were badly overpopulated, and in sad ecological state; this, presumably is what motivated the war, each trying to steal resources from the other.
So the clever peace agreement they came up with is...
since overpopulation was the problem, the two sides agreed to a peace where *both* sides would "lose" the war - instead of humans ruling humans, Kazo ruling Kazo, and both being too wimpish and sentimental to thin out the population to the extent required... each race would take on the responsibility of being the "heavy" for carrying out the necessary policies.
So I guess your point is that here Piers Anthony seems to be approving of
widespread indiscriminate slaughter.
But he's only echoing deep green politically correct ideas of bringing man into
balance with nature, not advocating discrimination against the less able,
Except the slaughter wasn't indiscriminate at all. They were killing
everyone deemed to be "unproductive".
I thought they wound up on the 'B' ark.

pt
Robert Carnegie
2017-04-17 19:20:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
<snicker> No. Piers Anthony actually wrote a utopian novel entitled
Triple Detente. Guess what the oligarchic rulers of the society do to
make things run perfectly. Go on. Guess.
Instead of killing people for being useless and untalented
(spoiler space)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Earth and Kazo were two planets at war. Both planets were badly overpopulated, and in sad ecological state; this, presumably is what motivated the war, each trying to steal resources from the other.
So the clever peace agreement they came up with is...
since overpopulation was the problem, the two sides agreed to a peace where *both* sides would "lose" the war - instead of humans ruling humans, Kazo ruling Kazo, and both being too wimpish and sentimental to thin out the population to the extent required... each race would take on the responsibility of being the "heavy" for carrying out the necessary policies.
So I guess your point is that here Piers Anthony seems to be approving of
widespread indiscriminate slaughter.
But he's only echoing deep green politically correct ideas of bringing man into
balance with nature, not advocating discrimination against the less able,
Except the slaughter wasn't indiscriminate at all. They were killing
everyone deemed to be "unproductive".
I thought they wound up on the 'B' ark.
And remember what happened to the people
who put them there.

Since indeed it is quite close to one of the
forms of social improvement practised by the Nazis,
there is no need to blame Piers Anthony for
thinking of it, since he didn't, but you can
wonder at its use in the context.

In the real world, I am happily assured that
the world population explosion basically is over.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
2017-04-17 19:54:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 12:20:22 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
In the real world, I am happily assured that
the world population explosion basically is over.
Well, the "explosion" may be over, depending how you define the term,
in that growth has slowed and will zero out if present trends
continue, but there are still echoes; we won't see peak population for
another few decades.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
Anthony Nance
2017-04-18 11:34:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
the thing
that struck me about Piers Anthony is that his thing was societies that
defined it's inhabitants by capability and utility. The rulers would be
an oligarchy of people most endowed with some kind of special capability
and they would kill or banish people they defined as useless/incapable.
But since that produces a dramatic situation where the reader sympathizes with
those who are being threatened with being banished or killed, his stories are
about depicting that sort of thing as bad, not about promoting it.
<snicker> No. Piers Anthony actually wrote a utopian novel entitled
Triple Detente. Guess what the oligarchic rulers of the society do to
make things run perfectly. Go on. Guess.
Vat girls? Goats? Daleks?
Juho Julkunen
2017-04-17 16:50:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
That trying to be sex-positive without being excruciatingly politically correct
and feminist... risks going full-tilt into appalling sexism, as has happened
"Being sex-positive without the concept of equality can be
problematic."

You don't say.
--
Juho Julkunen
Quadibloc
2017-04-17 17:16:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Quadibloc
That trying to be sex-positive without being excruciatingly politically correct
and feminist... risks going full-tilt into appalling sexism, as has happened
"Being sex-positive without the concept of equality can be
problematic."
You don't say.
Well, I didn't say... quite that... because that is only too obvious.

If one *does* have the "concept" of equality - so that one still opposes rape
and so on - but is not at pains to emphasize equality at every turn, then being
sex-positive runs the risk of holding up, say, a society like our stereotype of
Paris as the ideal.

*That* was what I was trying to say. That is the pit I saw Piers Anthony falling
into, _not_ the one John Norman fell into. From my... more conservative...
standpoint, I can draw a *distinction* between those two authors, despite them
both falling short of current ideals.

John Savard
David Johnston
2017-04-17 17:58:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Quadibloc
That trying to be sex-positive without being excruciatingly politically correct
and feminist... risks going full-tilt into appalling sexism, as has happened
"Being sex-positive without the concept of equality can be
problematic."
You don't say.
Well, I didn't say... quite that... because that is only too obvious.
If one *does* have the "concept" of equality - so that one still opposes rape
and so on -
The concept of equality is not required to oppose rape. Of course
bearing that in mind it's still the case that nonconsensual sex is a
massive world=building element in Xanth as the reason why the chimerical
part human species exist.
Quadibloc
2017-04-17 20:14:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
The concept of equality is not required to oppose rape.
It's not required to oppose _some_ rape.

Thus, societies in which women are regarded as inferior will still protect the
wives and daughters of the dominant group from rape... but they will often neglect
women from minority groups, or they will exclude forced marriage from their
definition of rape, and so on.

John Savard
Ahasuerus
2017-04-18 18:09:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by James Nicoll
A Spell for Chameleon (Xanth, book 1) by Piers Anthony
http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/what-was-i-thinking
When I was collecting stereotypical/recurrent world-building elements
for authors (for inspiration in designing planets for an RPG) the thing
that struck me about Piers Anthony is that his thing was societies that
defined it's inhabitants by capability and utility. The rulers would be
an oligarchy of people most endowed with some kind of special capability
and they would kill or banish people they defined as useless/incapable.
What I find interesting about Anthony is how much mileage he has gotten
out of panties over the decades. While entering a recent Anthony novel,
I skimmed the first chapter and they were right there, front and center!
I guess you have to stick with what works.
Quadibloc
2017-04-18 18:30:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ahasuerus
What I find interesting about Anthony is how much mileage he has gotten
out of panties over the decades. While entering a recent Anthony novel,
I skimmed the first chapter and they were right there, front and center!
I guess you have to stick with what works.
I remember there was one actually *titled* "The Color of Her Panties". About a
woman kept prisoner with nothing but them to wear, because some giant magical bird
was pacified by the color.

John Savard
Loading...