Discussion:
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ?
Add Reply
Lynn McGuire
2018-10-26 22:15:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.

I am really enjoying the indie authors on Amazon. About half of the
books that I read now are self published. Specifically, I am reading
_The Singularity Trap_ by Dennis Taylor and enjoying the hound out of
it. I loved his Bobiverse books and the inter-dimensional book.
https://www.amazon.com/Singularity-Trap-Dennis-Taylor/dp/1680680889/

And with all of that said, I see that Amazon has shut down its
CreateSpace subsidiary for self publishing books. Bummer !
https://1106design.com/2018/01/shuttering-createspaces-services-authors/

Lynn
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-10-26 23:01:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked
this question before but I have slept since then. The amount of
SF/F books out there now is simply amazing.
If qnantity defines a gold age, we're living in a golden age of
*publishing*, regardless of genre.
--
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.
Titus G
2018-10-26 23:25:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked
this question before but I have slept since then. The amount of
SF/F books out there now is simply amazing.
If qnantity defines a gold age, we're living in a golden age of
*publishing*, regardless of genre.
When I go to the supermarket, I mainly buy raw vegetables, raw fish, raw
nuts, raw blah blah blah blah.... The amount of processed food with
added sugar, salt, flavouring chemicals and preservatives out there now
is simply amazing.
Titus G
2018-10-26 23:31:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ?  I may have asked
this question before but I have slept since then.  The amount of
SF/F books out there now is simply amazing.
If qnantity defines a gold age, we're living in a golden age of
*publishing*, regardless of genre.
When I go to the supermarket, I mainly buy raw vegetables, raw fish, raw
 nuts, raw blah blah blah blah.... The amount of processed food with
added sugar, salt, flavouring chemicals and preservatives out there now
is simply amazing.
On second thought, I am not qualified to make that criticism as I do not
read enough current SF.
Sorry.
So glad I am not Japanese.
Lynn McGuire
2018-10-26 23:55:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked
this question before but I have slept since then. The amount of
SF/F books out there now is simply amazing.
If qnantity defines a gold age, we're living in a golden age of
*publishing*, regardless of genre.
True that.

Lynn
Scott Lurndal
2018-10-26 23:29:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
Outside of genre books (urban fantasy, apocalyptic fantasy, AltHist) and
long running series (Honorverse, Liadenverse) are there
really that many _good_ SF books being published?
Lynn McGuire
2018-10-27 00:02:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
Outside of genre books (urban fantasy, apocalyptic fantasy, AltHist) and
long running series (Honorverse, Liadenverse) are there
really that many _good_ SF books being published?
You forgot Space Opera. _We Are Legion (We Are Bob)_ and _The Martian_
come to mind. And Military SF (Marko Kloos).
https://www.amazon.com/We-Are-Legion-Bob-Bobiverse/dp/1680680587/
https://www.amazon.com/Martian-Andy-Weir/dp/0553418025/

I am not sure what genre _Ready Player One_ would be cast as, Amazon has
it listed as "Humorous Science Fiction".
https://www.amazon.com/Ready-Player-One-Ernest-Cline/dp/0307887448/

Lynn
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2018-10-27 00:17:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
Outside of genre books (urban fantasy, apocalyptic fantasy, AltHist) and
long running series (Honorverse, Liadenverse) are there
really that many _good_ SF books being published?
That's kind of a trick question of the "outside of the stuff you like, what's
good" variety. It also depends on the definition of SF, which we pretty much
agree here is undefinable.

I do think to some extent what some might call "real SF" has been killed
by the realization that it won't be anything recognizable as, or
comprehensible by, mark one humans dealing with it.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Robert Carnegie
2018-10-27 15:52:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
Outside of genre books (urban fantasy, apocalyptic fantasy, AltHist) and
long running series (Honorverse, Liadenverse) are there
really that many _good_ SF books being published?
That's kind of a trick question of the "outside of the stuff you like, what's
good" variety. It also depends on the definition of SF, which we pretty much
agree here is undefinable.
I do think to some extent what some might call "real SF" has been killed
by the realization that it won't be anything recognizable as, or
comprehensible by, mark one humans dealing with it.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
I'm a bit confused. Do you mean that ordinary people won't
understand "real SF" written nowadays, which presumably will
be full of quantums and telomeres and other difficult science
things, or that the foreseeable future will have dispensed
with ordinary people altogether and so "real SF" has to be
populated only with clones and androids and gestalt swarms and
corporations granted citizenship without including any
traditional-biology produced humanoids at all?

A pessimistic outlook - but Aldous Huxley made something of it.
(With drugs.) <http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/7/>
refreshes my recollection that _1984_ also had a national plan
to eliminate sexual intercourse although apparently without
a practical alternative as far as I remember (clones etc).

And of course: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man> -
and woman - if only there wasn't a shortage of the parts.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2018-10-27 18:34:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
Outside of genre books (urban fantasy, apocalyptic fantasy, AltHist) and
long running series (Honorverse, Liadenverse) are there
really that many _good_ SF books being published?
That's kind of a trick question of the "outside of the stuff you like, what's
good" variety. It also depends on the definition of SF, which we pretty much
agree here is undefinable.
I do think to some extent what some might call "real SF" has been killed
by the realization that it won't be anything recognizable as, or
comprehensible by, mark one humans dealing with it.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
I'm a bit confused. Do you mean that ordinary people won't
understand "real SF" written nowadays, which presumably will
be full of quantums and telomeres and other difficult science
things, or that the foreseeable future will have dispensed
with ordinary people altogether and so "real SF" has to be
populated only with clones and androids and gestalt swarms and
corporations granted citizenship without including any
traditional-biology produced humanoids at all?
The second. In the 30s you could write about humans facing the
galaxy in might spaceships and it was relatable because human nature
is eternal. If transhumanism and AI are things, and I think they probably are,
then human nature is not eternal, and that's not relatable. I think
that's probably partly responsible for the blossoming of alternate
SF genres.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Robert Carnegie
2018-10-27 23:00:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
Outside of genre books (urban fantasy, apocalyptic fantasy, AltHist) and
long running series (Honorverse, Liadenverse) are there
really that many _good_ SF books being published?
That's kind of a trick question of the "outside of the stuff you like, what's
good" variety. It also depends on the definition of SF, which we pretty much
agree here is undefinable.
I do think to some extent what some might call "real SF" has been killed
by the realization that it won't be anything recognizable as, or
comprehensible by, mark one humans dealing with it.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
I'm a bit confused. Do you mean that ordinary people won't
understand "real SF" written nowadays, which presumably will
be full of quantums and telomeres and other difficult science
things, or that the foreseeable future will have dispensed
with ordinary people altogether and so "real SF" has to be
populated only with clones and androids and gestalt swarms and
corporations granted citizenship without including any
traditional-biology produced humanoids at all?
The second. In the 30s you could write about humans facing the
galaxy in might spaceships and it was relatable because human nature
is eternal. If transhumanism and AI are things, and I think they probably are,
then human nature is not eternal, and that's not relatable. I think
that's probably partly responsible for the blossoming of alternate
SF genres.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Star Trek did deal with the ultimate computer.

Spoiler:

They had to turn it off.

But not quite that simple, it wouldn't let them.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-10-28 01:37:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
Outside of genre books (urban fantasy, apocalyptic fantasy, AltHist) and
long running series (Honorverse, Liadenverse) are there
really that many _good_ SF books being published?
That's kind of a trick question of the "outside of the stuff you like, what's
good" variety. It also depends on the definition of SF, which we pretty much
agree here is undefinable.
I do think to some extent what some might call "real SF" has been killed
by the realization that it won't be anything recognizable as, or
comprehensible by, mark one humans dealing with it.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
I'm a bit confused. Do you mean that ordinary people won't
understand "real SF" written nowadays, which presumably will
be full of quantums and telomeres and other difficult science
things, or that the foreseeable future will have dispensed
with ordinary people altogether and so "real SF" has to be
populated only with clones and androids and gestalt swarms and
corporations granted citizenship without including any
traditional-biology produced humanoids at all?
The second. In the 30s you could write about humans facing the
galaxy in might spaceships and it was relatable because human nature
is eternal. If transhumanism and AI are things, and I think they probably are,
then human nature is not eternal, and that's not relatable. I think
that's probably partly responsible for the blossoming of alternate
SF genres.
Star Trek did deal with the ultimate computer.
They had to turn it off.
But not quite that simple, it wouldn't let them.
How do you turn off The Cloud? :P
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-10-28 02:19:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
Outside of genre books (urban fantasy, apocalyptic fantasy, AltHist) and
long running series (Honorverse, Liadenverse) are there
really that many _good_ SF books being published?
That's kind of a trick question of the "outside of the stuff you
like, what's
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
good" variety. It also depends on the definition of SF, which we
pretty much
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
agree here is undefinable.
I do think to some extent what some might call "real SF" has been killed
by the realization that it won't be anything recognizable as, or
comprehensible by, mark one humans dealing with it.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
I'm a bit confused. Do you mean that ordinary people won't
understand "real SF" written nowadays, which presumably will
be full of quantums and telomeres and other difficult science
things, or that the foreseeable future will have dispensed
with ordinary people altogether and so "real SF" has to be
populated only with clones and androids and gestalt swarms and
corporations granted citizenship without including any
traditional-biology produced humanoids at all?
The second. In the 30s you could write about humans facing the
galaxy in might spaceships and it was relatable because human nature
is eternal. If transhumanism and AI are things, and I think they
probably are,
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
then human nature is not eternal, and that's not relatable. I think
that's probably partly responsible for the blossoming of alternate
SF genres.
Star Trek did deal with the ultimate computer.
They had to turn it off.
But not quite that simple, it wouldn't let them.
How do you turn off The Cloud? :P
*I* don't know. But I'd bet a case of cookies that there are
those who do.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
J. Clarke
2018-10-28 03:45:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
Outside of genre books (urban fantasy, apocalyptic fantasy, AltHist) and
long running series (Honorverse, Liadenverse) are there
really that many _good_ SF books being published?
That's kind of a trick question of the "outside of the stuff you
like, what's
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
good" variety. It also depends on the definition of SF, which we
pretty much
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
agree here is undefinable.
I do think to some extent what some might call "real SF" has been killed
by the realization that it won't be anything recognizable as, or
comprehensible by, mark one humans dealing with it.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
I'm a bit confused. Do you mean that ordinary people won't
understand "real SF" written nowadays, which presumably will
be full of quantums and telomeres and other difficult science
things, or that the foreseeable future will have dispensed
with ordinary people altogether and so "real SF" has to be
populated only with clones and androids and gestalt swarms and
corporations granted citizenship without including any
traditional-biology produced humanoids at all?
The second. In the 30s you could write about humans facing the
galaxy in might spaceships and it was relatable because human nature
is eternal. If transhumanism and AI are things, and I think they
probably are,
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
then human nature is not eternal, and that's not relatable. I think
that's probably partly responsible for the blossoming of alternate
SF genres.
Star Trek did deal with the ultimate computer.
They had to turn it off.
But not quite that simple, it wouldn't let them.
How do you turn off The Cloud? :P
*I* don't know. But I'd bet a case of cookies that there are
those who do.
Pull the main breakers on the datacenters. "The cloud" is not
something that resides on individual personal computers in people's
homes or the like. It resides on massive server farms. Shut those
down and "the cloud" as we know it goes away.

"Cloud services" is another name for renting computer time. The sad
part is that enough people have bought it that people who do _not_
want it still have to use it to do business.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-10-28 05:42:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
Outside of genre books (urban fantasy, apocalyptic fantasy, AltHist) and
long running series (Honorverse, Liadenverse) are there
really that many _good_ SF books being published?
That's kind of a trick question of the "outside of the stuff you
like, what's
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
good" variety. It also depends on the definition of SF, which we
pretty much
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
agree here is undefinable.
I do think to some extent what some might call "real SF" has been killed
by the realization that it won't be anything recognizable as, or
comprehensible by, mark one humans dealing with it.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
I'm a bit confused. Do you mean that ordinary people won't
understand "real SF" written nowadays, which presumably will
be full of quantums and telomeres and other difficult science
things, or that the foreseeable future will have dispensed
with ordinary people altogether and so "real SF" has to be
populated only with clones and androids and gestalt swarms and
corporations granted citizenship without including any
traditional-biology produced humanoids at all?
The second. In the 30s you could write about humans facing the
galaxy in might spaceships and it was relatable because human nature
is eternal. If transhumanism and AI are things, and I think they
probably are,
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
then human nature is not eternal, and that's not relatable. I think
that's probably partly responsible for the blossoming of alternate
SF genres.
Star Trek did deal with the ultimate computer.
They had to turn it off.
But not quite that simple, it wouldn't let them.
How do you turn off The Cloud? :P
*I* don't know. But I'd bet a case of cookies that there are
those who do.
Pull the main breakers on the datacenters. "The cloud" is not
something that resides on individual personal computers in people's
homes or the like. It resides on massive server farms. Shut those
down and "the cloud" as we know it goes away.
"Cloud services" is another name for renting computer time. The sad
part is that enough people have bought it that people who do _not_
want it still have to use it to do business.
All part of Skynet's plan. *mmwhahaha*
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Greg Goss
2018-11-03 01:46:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
Outside of genre books (urban fantasy, apocalyptic fantasy, AltHist) and
long running series (Honorverse, Liadenverse) are there
really that many _good_ SF books being published?
That's kind of a trick question of the "outside of the stuff you
like, what's
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
good" variety. It also depends on the definition of SF, which we
pretty much
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
agree here is undefinable.
I do think to some extent what some might call "real SF" has been killed
by the realization that it won't be anything recognizable as, or
comprehensible by, mark one humans dealing with it.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
I'm a bit confused. Do you mean that ordinary people won't
understand "real SF" written nowadays, which presumably will
be full of quantums and telomeres and other difficult science
things, or that the foreseeable future will have dispensed
with ordinary people altogether and so "real SF" has to be
populated only with clones and androids and gestalt swarms and
corporations granted citizenship without including any
traditional-biology produced humanoids at all?
The second. In the 30s you could write about humans facing the
galaxy in might spaceships and it was relatable because human nature
is eternal. If transhumanism and AI are things, and I think they
probably are,
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
then human nature is not eternal, and that's not relatable. I think
that's probably partly responsible for the blossoming of alternate
SF genres.
Star Trek did deal with the ultimate computer.
They had to turn it off.
But not quite that simple, it wouldn't let them.
How do you turn off The Cloud? :P
*I* don't know. But I'd bet a case of cookies that there are
those who do.
Pull the main breakers on the datacenters. "The cloud" is not
something that resides on individual personal computers in people's
homes or the like. It resides on massive server farms. Shut those
down and "the cloud" as we know it goes away.
"Cloud services" is another name for renting computer time. The sad
part is that enough people have bought it that people who do _not_
want it still have to use it to do business.
"oolcay itay."

In one of the first scenes between our viewpoint character and "P1"
the being he accidentally released into the seventies version of the
cloud, P1 turns off and reboots the computer he's communicating with
it on. In the climax of the book, P1 loads all of itself into a
Crystal Palace megacomputer where it is isolated and killed.

Access to the Googleplex datacenters is probably controlled by
smartcard. They don't want just anyone to pull the breakers. And who
decides whether a particular card is allowed in?

The climax of 2001 is centered around who gets to pull the breakers.
Or the computing cores. Whatever.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
J. Clarke
2018-11-03 02:26:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Greg Goss
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
Outside of genre books (urban fantasy, apocalyptic fantasy, AltHist) and
long running series (Honorverse, Liadenverse) are there
really that many _good_ SF books being published?
That's kind of a trick question of the "outside of the stuff you
like, what's
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
good" variety. It also depends on the definition of SF, which we
pretty much
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
agree here is undefinable.
I do think to some extent what some might call "real SF" has been killed
by the realization that it won't be anything recognizable as, or
comprehensible by, mark one humans dealing with it.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
I'm a bit confused. Do you mean that ordinary people won't
understand "real SF" written nowadays, which presumably will
be full of quantums and telomeres and other difficult science
things, or that the foreseeable future will have dispensed
with ordinary people altogether and so "real SF" has to be
populated only with clones and androids and gestalt swarms and
corporations granted citizenship without including any
traditional-biology produced humanoids at all?
The second. In the 30s you could write about humans facing the
galaxy in might spaceships and it was relatable because human nature
is eternal. If transhumanism and AI are things, and I think they
probably are,
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
then human nature is not eternal, and that's not relatable. I think
that's probably partly responsible for the blossoming of alternate
SF genres.
Star Trek did deal with the ultimate computer.
They had to turn it off.
But not quite that simple, it wouldn't let them.
How do you turn off The Cloud? :P
*I* don't know. But I'd bet a case of cookies that there are
those who do.
Pull the main breakers on the datacenters. "The cloud" is not
something that resides on individual personal computers in people's
homes or the like. It resides on massive server farms. Shut those
down and "the cloud" as we know it goes away.
"Cloud services" is another name for renting computer time. The sad
part is that enough people have bought it that people who do _not_
want it still have to use it to do business.
"oolcay itay."
In one of the first scenes between our viewpoint character and "P1"
the being he accidentally released into the seventies version of the
cloud, P1 turns off and reboots the computer he's communicating with
it on. In the climax of the book, P1 loads all of itself into a
Crystal Palace megacomputer where it is isolated and killed.
Access to the Googleplex datacenters is probably controlled by
smartcard. They don't want just anyone to pull the breakers. And who
decides whether a particular card is allowed in?
There is something called a SWAT team. They have things known as
"breaching charges".

If that does not work, there are things called B-52s. They carry
things called "thermonuclear bombs".
Post by Greg Goss
The climax of 2001 is centered around who gets to pull the breakers.
Or the computing cores. Whatever.
-dsr-
2018-10-28 19:01:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Dimensional Traveler
How do you turn off The Cloud? :P
*I* don't know. But I'd bet a case of cookies that there are
those who do.
It's harder than it used to be, but certainly do-able by a nation-state
or large corporation scaled power that didn't care about the consequences.
Coordination would be a significant issue, as would finding enough people
to get it done.

The master target list would fit two double-sided sheets of paper in 10
point type.

-dsr-
Scott Lurndal
2018-10-29 12:38:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by -dsr-
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Dimensional Traveler
How do you turn off The Cloud? :P
*I* don't know. But I'd bet a case of cookies that there are
those who do.
It's harder than it used to be, but certainly do-able by a nation-state
or large corporation scaled power that didn't care about the consequences.
Coordination would be a significant issue, as would finding enough people
to get it done.
Just send out a bunch of bogus BGP messages and ignore the data centers.
-dsr-
2018-10-29 17:30:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by -dsr-
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Dimensional Traveler
How do you turn off The Cloud? :P
*I* don't know. But I'd bet a case of cookies that there are
those who do.
It's harder than it used to be, but certainly do-able by a nation-state
or large corporation scaled power that didn't care about the consequences.
Coordination would be a significant issue, as would finding enough people
to get it done.
Just send out a bunch of bogus BGP messages and ignore the data centers.
It's not the data centers per se, it's the transoceanic cables and the
largest meet-me facilities / IXPs.

-dsr-
David DeLaney
2018-10-29 10:57:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Dimensional Traveler
How do you turn off The Cloud? :P
*I* don't know. But I'd bet a case of cookies that there are
those who do.
DT has misquoted The Sound of Music, I see.

Dave, a flibbertigibbet, a will-o-the-wisp, a clown
--
\/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>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-10-29 15:24:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Dimensional Traveler
How do you turn off The Cloud? :P
*I* don't know. But I'd bet a case of cookies that there are
those who do.
DT has misquoted The Sound of Music, I see.
I did?
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
David DeLaney
2018-11-01 16:59:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Dimensional Traveler
How do you turn off The Cloud? :P
*I* don't know. But I'd bet a case of cookies that there are
those who do.
DT has misquoted The Sound of Music, I see.
I did?
"How do you catch The Cloud and pin it doooown?"

Dave, there will be a short pause while everyone lets the earworm run to the end
--
\/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>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-11-01 17:26:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Dimensional Traveler
How do you turn off The Cloud? :P
*I* don't know. But I'd bet a case of cookies that there are
those who do.
DT has misquoted The Sound of Music, I see.
I did?
"How do you catch The Cloud and pin it doooown?"
Dave, there will be a short pause while everyone lets the earworm run to the end
*looks blank for a moment then realizes the *whoosh* sound was probably
a good thing and runs for cover*
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Jerry Brown
2018-10-28 07:08:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 16:00:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
Outside of genre books (urban fantasy, apocalyptic fantasy, AltHist) and
long running series (Honorverse, Liadenverse) are there
really that many _good_ SF books being published?
That's kind of a trick question of the "outside of the stuff you like, what's
good" variety. It also depends on the definition of SF, which we pretty much
agree here is undefinable.
I do think to some extent what some might call "real SF" has been killed
by the realization that it won't be anything recognizable as, or
comprehensible by, mark one humans dealing with it.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
I'm a bit confused. Do you mean that ordinary people won't
understand "real SF" written nowadays, which presumably will
be full of quantums and telomeres and other difficult science
things, or that the foreseeable future will have dispensed
with ordinary people altogether and so "real SF" has to be
populated only with clones and androids and gestalt swarms and
corporations granted citizenship without including any
traditional-biology produced humanoids at all?
The second. In the 30s you could write about humans facing the
galaxy in might spaceships and it was relatable because human nature
is eternal. If transhumanism and AI are things, and I think they probably are,
then human nature is not eternal, and that's not relatable. I think
that's probably partly responsible for the blossoming of alternate
SF genres.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Star Trek did deal with the ultimate computer.
They had to turn it off.
But not quite that simple, it wouldn't let them.
And Fredric Brown did that in one page: "Answer" (1954).
--
Jerry Brown

A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Mike Van Pelt
2018-10-29 22:22:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Star Trek did deal with the ultimate computer.
They had to turn it off.
But not quite that simple, it wouldn't let them.
M-5 was a bit nicer than the computer in that story by (Clarke? Asimov?)
where some wag decided to ask The Ultimate Computer "Is there a God?"

Computer's answer: "There is now."

Fastest person on the draw, alas, got struck by lightning halfway
to the "Off" switch. (Which is kind of what happened when they
tried to turn off M-5, but that was an accident. And M-5
was apparently a theist with no delusions of his own deity.)
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-10-29 22:31:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article
Post by Robert Carnegie
Star Trek did deal with the ultimate computer.
They had to turn it off.
But not quite that simple, it wouldn't let them.
M-5 was a bit nicer than the computer in that story by (Clarke?
Asimov?) where some wag decided to ask The Ultimate Computer "Is
there a God?"
Computer's answer: "There is now."
Fastest person on the draw, alas, got struck by lightning
halfway to the "Off" switch. (Which is kind of what happened
when they tried to turn off M-5, but that was an accident.
That death was. The rest, not so much.
And
M-5 was apparently a theist with no delusions of his own deity.)
M-5 was also, by the standards of the show, pretty seriously insane.
--
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.
p***@hotmail.com
2018-10-29 23:20:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Robert Carnegie
Star Trek did deal with the ultimate computer.
They had to turn it off.
But not quite that simple, it wouldn't let them.
M-5 was a bit nicer than the computer in that story by (Clarke? Asimov?)
where some wag decided to ask The Ultimate Computer "Is there a God?"
Computer's answer: "There is now."
The author was Frederick Brown. I don't recall the title; it was one
of the short-short stories for which he is famous. Larry Niven has
said that this a very hard form to do successfully.
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Fastest person on the draw, alas, got struck by lightning halfway
to the "Off" switch. (Which is kind of what happened when they
tried to turn off M-5, but that was an accident. And M-5
was apparently a theist with no delusions of his own deity.)
It was from a cloudless sky, and the lightning bolt also welded
the switch on.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
Moriarty
2018-10-29 23:31:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Robert Carnegie
Star Trek did deal with the ultimate computer.
They had to turn it off.
But not quite that simple, it wouldn't let them.
M-5 was a bit nicer than the computer in that story by (Clarke? Asimov?)
where some wag decided to ask The Ultimate Computer "Is there a God?"
Computer's answer: "There is now."
The author was Frederick Brown. I don't recall the title; it was one
of the short-short stories for which he is famous. Larry Niven has
said that this a very hard form to do successfully.
"Answer", available for free here:

http://www.roma1.infn.it/~anzel/answer.html

It was also wonderfully parodied, or homaged, by Douglas Adams.

-Moriarty
Robert Carnegie
2018-10-30 02:59:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Moriarty
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Robert Carnegie
Star Trek did deal with the ultimate computer.
They had to turn it off.
But not quite that simple, it wouldn't let them.
M-5 was a bit nicer than the computer in that story by (Clarke? Asimov?)
where some wag decided to ask The Ultimate Computer "Is there a God?"
Computer's answer: "There is now."
The author was Frederick Brown. I don't recall the title; it was one
of the short-short stories for which he is famous. Larry Niven has
said that this a very hard form to do successfully.
http://www.roma1.infn.it/~anzel/answer.html
It was also wonderfully parodied, or homaged, by Douglas Adams.
-Moriarty
Hmm... Douglas Adams wrote about several deeply thoughtful computers,
but I can't place this one. Polyphase Avatron? No... probably not?
Dimensional Traveler
2018-10-30 04:03:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Moriarty
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Robert Carnegie
Star Trek did deal with the ultimate computer.
They had to turn it off.
But not quite that simple, it wouldn't let them.
M-5 was a bit nicer than the computer in that story by (Clarke? Asimov?)
where some wag decided to ask The Ultimate Computer "Is there a God?"
Computer's answer: "There is now."
The author was Frederick Brown. I don't recall the title; it was one
of the short-short stories for which he is famous. Larry Niven has
said that this a very hard form to do successfully.
http://www.roma1.infn.it/~anzel/answer.html
It was also wonderfully parodied, or homaged, by Douglas Adams.
-Moriarty
Hmm... Douglas Adams wrote about several deeply thoughtful computers,
but I can't place this one. Polyphase Avatron? No... probably not?
I don't remember the computer's name but the reference could be to the
computer that found the answer to the ultimate question but couldn't
determine what the question was.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Robert Carnegie
2018-10-30 23:28:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Moriarty
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Robert Carnegie
Star Trek did deal with the ultimate computer.
They had to turn it off.
But not quite that simple, it wouldn't let them.
M-5 was a bit nicer than the computer in that story by (Clarke? Asimov?)
where some wag decided to ask The Ultimate Computer "Is there a God?"
Computer's answer: "There is now."
The author was Frederick Brown. I don't recall the title; it was one
of the short-short stories for which he is famous. Larry Niven has
said that this a very hard form to do successfully.
http://www.roma1.infn.it/~anzel/answer.html
It was also wonderfully parodied, or homaged, by Douglas Adams.
-Moriarty
Hmm... Douglas Adams wrote about several deeply thoughtful computers,
but I can't place this one. Polyphase Avatron? No... probably not?
I don't remember the computer's name but the reference could be to the
computer that found the answer to the ultimate question but couldn't
determine what the question was.
Oh, then it probably /is/ Deep Thought itself? Answer objective,
check. As for god complex and not being turned off... it /was/ turned
off after a test phase when it accidentally was switched on without
its data banks, and still managed to prove in abstract logic the
existence of rice pudding and income tax before the lights went out.
And it managed by subtle argument on-screen to talk its society into
keeping it on for... quite a while. I wonder what it's doing now?

And it had a line in evangelical pronouncements about the only
computer better than itself, but not yet built - the one that finds out
The Ultimate Question. Or that should, spoiler spoiler!

Xoanon was a computer in Doctor Who that thought it was God,
the main problem in this discussion being that it doesn't seem to have
anything to do with Douglas Adams - although its post-match interview
chimes in my memory with the late thoughts of Hactar in
_Life, The Universe, and Everything_.
Jerry Brown
2018-10-30 06:40:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Robert Carnegie
Star Trek did deal with the ultimate computer.
They had to turn it off.
But not quite that simple, it wouldn't let them.
M-5 was a bit nicer than the computer in that story by (Clarke? Asimov?)
where some wag decided to ask The Ultimate Computer "Is there a God?"
Computer's answer: "There is now."
The author was Frederick Brown.
_Fredric_ Brown
Post by p***@hotmail.com
I don't recall the title;
Answer (1954), as I mentioned upthread.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
it was one
of the short-short stories for which he is famous. Larry Niven has
said that this a very hard form to do successfully.
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Fastest person on the draw, alas, got struck by lightning halfway
to the "Off" switch. (Which is kind of what happened when they
tried to turn off M-5, but that was an accident. And M-5
was apparently a theist with no delusions of his own deity.)
It was from a cloudless sky, and the lightning bolt also welded
the switch on.
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
--
Jerry Brown

A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Greg Goss
2018-11-03 01:50:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Robert Carnegie
Star Trek did deal with the ultimate computer.
They had to turn it off.
But not quite that simple, it wouldn't let them.
M-5 was a bit nicer than the computer in that story by (Clarke? Asimov?)
where some wag decided to ask The Ultimate Computer "Is there a God?"
Computer's answer: "There is now."
Fastest person on the draw, alas, got struck by lightning halfway
to the "Off" switch. (Which is kind of what happened when they
tried to turn off M-5, but that was an accident. And M-5
was apparently a theist with no delusions of his own deity.)
Someone cited a Brown story. Could be. I read the first half in a
cartoon in a computer mag somewhere, but it could have been a story
earlier. I've read pretty much everything by Asimov and Clarke, so
that leaves the Brown.

The Asimov story is about reversing entropy to avoid the black death
of the universe. Since the humans were long gone, the computer
decided that a demonstration was required. "Let there be light!"
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
J. Clarke
2018-11-03 02:27:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Robert Carnegie
Star Trek did deal with the ultimate computer.
They had to turn it off.
But not quite that simple, it wouldn't let them.
M-5 was a bit nicer than the computer in that story by (Clarke? Asimov?)
where some wag decided to ask The Ultimate Computer "Is there a God?"
Computer's answer: "There is now."
Fastest person on the draw, alas, got struck by lightning halfway
to the "Off" switch. (Which is kind of what happened when they
tried to turn off M-5, but that was an accident. And M-5
was apparently a theist with no delusions of his own deity.)
Someone cited a Brown story. Could be. I read the first half in a
cartoon in a computer mag somewhere, but it could have been a story
earlier. I've read pretty much everything by Asimov and Clarke, so
that leaves the Brown.
The Asimov story is about reversing entropy to avoid the black death
of the universe. Since the humans were long gone, the computer
decided that a demonstration was required. "Let there be light!"
I presume you have seen "Dark Star".
Cryptoengineer
2018-11-03 03:54:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Robert Carnegie
Star Trek did deal with the ultimate computer.
They had to turn it off.
But not quite that simple, it wouldn't let them.
M-5 was a bit nicer than the computer in that story by (Clarke?
Asimov?) where some wag decided to ask The Ultimate Computer "Is
there a God?"
Computer's answer: "There is now."
Fastest person on the draw, alas, got struck by lightning halfway
to the "Off" switch. (Which is kind of what happened when they
tried to turn off M-5, but that was an accident. And M-5 was
apparently a theist with no delusions of his own deity.)
Someone cited a Brown story. Could be. I read the first half in a
cartoon in a computer mag somewhere, but it could have been a story
earlier. I've read pretty much everything by Asimov and Clarke, so
that leaves the Brown.
The Asimov story is about reversing entropy to avoid the black death
of the universe. Since the humans were long gone, the computer
decided that a demonstration was required. "Let there be light!"
I presume you have seen "Dark Star".
Sigh....

Asimov wrote "The Last Question", which was 'Can entropy be reversed?'.

Fred Brown wrote 'Answer', which has the line 'There is now.' (different
question).

pt
J. Clarke
2018-11-03 04:55:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 02 Nov 2018 22:54:20 -0500, Cryptoengineer
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Robert Carnegie
Star Trek did deal with the ultimate computer.
They had to turn it off.
But not quite that simple, it wouldn't let them.
M-5 was a bit nicer than the computer in that story by (Clarke?
Asimov?) where some wag decided to ask The Ultimate Computer "Is
there a God?"
Computer's answer: "There is now."
Fastest person on the draw, alas, got struck by lightning halfway
to the "Off" switch. (Which is kind of what happened when they
tried to turn off M-5, but that was an accident. And M-5 was
apparently a theist with no delusions of his own deity.)
Someone cited a Brown story. Could be. I read the first half in a
cartoon in a computer mag somewhere, but it could have been a story
earlier. I've read pretty much everything by Asimov and Clarke, so
that leaves the Brown.
The Asimov story is about reversing entropy to avoid the black death
of the universe. Since the humans were long gone, the computer
decided that a demonstration was required. "Let there be light!"
I presume you have seen "Dark Star".
Sigh....
Asimov wrote "The Last Question", which was 'Can entropy be reversed?'.
Fred Brown wrote 'Answer', which has the line 'There is now.' (different
question).
Why the sigh?
Greg Goss
2018-11-03 01:39:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
The second. In the 30s you could write about humans facing the
galaxy in might spaceships and it was relatable because human nature
is eternal. If transhumanism and AI are things, and I think they probably are,
then human nature is not eternal, and that's not relatable. I think
that's probably partly responsible for the blossoming of alternate
SF genres.
I like Vinge's "zones". Where we live, transhuman intelligence,
whether machine based or pushed-evolution, just "doesn't work". You
need to go "up" before these work.

So you get his "A Fire Upon the Deep". Human humans are working on an
archaeology project at the upper edge of the human-level zone and
release something. A refugee ship ends up a bit deeper, but still in
human-class while warfare rages across the next level up. I don't
remember why the refugee ship was the key to defeating the monster,
but clues arrive from above.

The middle transition of the novel shows moderate transhuman class
people reasonably well.

His "Marooned in Real Time" struggles to display
not-QUITE-transhuman-yet, but one of the refugees in that book was
"from" very shortly before the singularity. I don't remember why he
had no implant support hardware on him when he was captured by the
sun.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2018-10-27 00:39:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
Outside of genre books
SF *IS* a genre. All SF of all types are genre books. The genres are
generally SF/F, horror/thriller, romance, and mystery (there's westerns
but those have faded).
Post by Scott Lurndal
(urban fantasy, apocalyptic fantasy, AltHist) and
long running series (Honorverse, Liadenverse) are there
really that many _good_ SF books being published?
Just by law of averages, yes. There's 300k books being published each
year by self-and-small publishers, and a lot by traditional publishers.
A large chunk of the smaller press is genre, and SF, so yeah.

There's a lot of crap, too, but that's just Sturgeon's Law.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
Lynn McGuire
2018-10-27 01:37:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ?  I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then.  The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
Outside of genre books
    SF *IS* a genre. All SF of all types are genre books. The genres
are generally SF/F, horror/thriller, romance, and mystery (there's
westerns but those have faded).
Post by Scott Lurndal
(urban fantasy, apocalyptic fantasy, AltHist) and
long running series (Honorverse, Liadenverse) are there
really that many _good_ SF books being published?
    Just by law of averages, yes. There's 300k books being published
each year by self-and-small publishers, and a lot by traditional
publishers. A large chunk of the smaller press is genre, and SF, so yeah.
    There's a lot of crap, too, but that's just Sturgeon's Law.
Which genre do the Jack Reacher books fit in ? I am reading my way
through those also. I would call them action thriller.

And 300K books/year is a lot of freaking books. Any stats on how that
number has grown over the last 100 years ?

I have 500+ books in my SBR (strategic book reserve) and don't seem to
be reducing it much. I can resist a slot machine all day long but
Amazon seems to be a good place to fill up my credit card at.

Lynn
Titus G
2018-10-27 02:08:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 27/10/18 2:37 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
snip
Post by Lynn McGuire
Which genre do the Jack Reacher books fit in ?
Redemptive violence children's fantasy for those intelligent youngsters
who realise that Superman flying is impossible magic but an all in one
infallible judge, jury and executioner impervious to Climate Change and
probably EMP "events" as well, (a frequent occurrence in Texas where
even the cows should learn how to swim), is really how the world works.

Politicians are more plausible.

  I am reading my way
Post by Lynn McGuire
through those also.  I would call them action thriller.
Have you read the Al Gore Inaction Thriller, "I Won't Kill You Myself
Like Ejackulation Preacher Probably Would If You Disagreed With Him, But
I Think That Even The People That Agree With Me Will Be Killed As Well
By AGW."?

Or do you not classify it as SF?

(This post sponsored by Stolen X Dark X premium aged rum.)
Lynn McGuire
2018-10-27 23:39:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by Lynn McGuire
Which genre do the Jack Reacher books fit in ?
Redemptive violence children's fantasy for those intelligent youngsters
who realise that Superman flying is impossible magic but an all in one
infallible judge, jury and executioner impervious to Climate Change and
probably EMP "events" as well, (a frequent occurrence in Texas where
even the cows should learn how to swim), is really how the world works.
Politicians are more plausible.
  I am reading my way
Post by Lynn McGuire
through those also.  I would call them action thriller.
Have you read the Al Gore Inaction Thriller, "I Won't Kill You Myself
Like Ejackulation Preacher Probably Would If You Disagreed With Him, But
I Think That Even The People That Agree With Me Will Be Killed As Well
By AGW."?
Or do you not classify it as SF?
(This post sponsored by Stolen X Dark X premium aged rum.)
Wow, we have a candidate for the bottom of the group with Alan Baker and
Quaddy.

Lynn
Moriarty
2018-10-29 21:29:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by Lynn McGuire
Which genre do the Jack Reacher books fit in ?
Redemptive violence children's fantasy for those intelligent youngsters
who realise that Superman flying is impossible magic but an all in one
infallible judge, jury and executioner impervious to Climate Change and
probably EMP "events" as well, (a frequent occurrence in Texas where
even the cows should learn how to swim), is really how the world works.
I file Jack Reacher under the "Unreadable crap filled with stupid plotholes, implausible coincidences and vacuous teenage boy wish fulfillment sex fantasies, whose success demonstrates that the reading public has no taste or discernment" genre.

I read the first one and felt dumber for having done so.

-Moriarty
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-10-29 22:30:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 1:09:03 PM UTC+11, Titus G
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by Lynn McGuire
Which genre do the Jack Reacher books fit in ?
Redemptive violence children's fantasy for those intelligent
youngsters who realise that Superman flying is impossible magic
but an all in one infallible judge, jury and executioner
impervious to Climate Change and probably EMP "events" as well,
(a frequent occurrence in Texas where even the cows should
learn how to swim), is really how the world works.
I file Jack Reacher under the "Unreadable crap filled with
stupid plotholes, implausible coincidences and vacuous teenage
boy wish fulfillment sex fantasies, whose success demonstrates
that the reading public has no taste or discernment" genre.
I classify it as "Tom Cruise did a movie version, so who cares? It
can't possibly not suck."
I read the first one and felt dumber for having done so.
I'd never even heard of it until the movie.
--
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.
Moriarty
2018-10-29 23:02:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 1:09:03 PM UTC+11, Titus G
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by Lynn McGuire
Which genre do the Jack Reacher books fit in ?
Redemptive violence children's fantasy for those intelligent
youngsters who realise that Superman flying is impossible magic
but an all in one infallible judge, jury and executioner
impervious to Climate Change and probably EMP "events" as well,
(a frequent occurrence in Texas where even the cows should
learn how to swim), is really how the world works.
I file Jack Reacher under the "Unreadable crap filled with
stupid plotholes, implausible coincidences and vacuous teenage
boy wish fulfillment sex fantasies, whose success demonstrates
that the reading public has no taste or discernment" genre.
I classify it as "Tom Cruise did a movie version, so who cares? It
can't possibly not suck."
I watched the movie on a long haul flight, after my kindle broke, and didn't think it was too bad. Compared to the one book, which I read afterwards, it was high art. Possibly a rare case of a Hollywood scriptwriter taking out implausible crap from source material, rather than their usual practice of putting it in?

-Moriarty
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-10-29 23:23:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 9:30:31 AM UTC+11, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 1:09:03 PM UTC+11, Titus G
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by Lynn McGuire
Which genre do the Jack Reacher books fit in ?
Redemptive violence children's fantasy for those intelligent
youngsters who realise that Superman flying is impossible
magic but an all in one infallible judge, jury and
executioner impervious to Climate Change and probably EMP
"events" as well, (a frequent occurrence in Texas where even
the cows should learn how to swim), is really how the world
works.
I file Jack Reacher under the "Unreadable crap filled with
stupid plotholes, implausible coincidences and vacuous
teenage boy wish fulfillment sex fantasies, whose success
demonstrates that the reading public has no taste or
discernment" genre.
I classify it as "Tom Cruise did a movie version, so who cares?
It can't possibly not suck."
I watched the movie on a long haul flight, after my kindle
broke, and didn't think it was too bad.
I can't stand Tom Cruise, who only plays Tom Cruise, but not the
real Tom Cruise, the one that exists only in his tiny little head
(isn't he something like a foot shorter than the character?). The
only time I've ever seen him with an expression other than smug
arrogance is the scene in the Mission Impossible movie (couldn't
avoid the trailers) where he's strapped to the outside of an
airplane taking off (a stunt for which I'll give credit for doing
himself, but the man still can't act - I'm sure he really was
terrified).
Compared to the one
book, which I read afterwards, it was high art. Possibly a rare
case of a Hollywood scriptwriter taking out implausible crap
from source material, rather than their usual practice of
putting it in?
Accidents do happen.
--
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.
Mike Van Pelt
2018-10-29 23:27:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Moriarty
I watched the movie on a long haul flight, after my kindle
broke, and didn't think it was too bad. Compared to the one
book, which I read afterwards, it was high art. Possibly a rare
case of a Hollywood scriptwriter taking out implausible crap
from source material, rather than their usual practice of
putting it in?
Kind of like "Forrest Gump", where they took out the whole
section where Gump was sent into space in a Gemini capsule
with an orangutang, re-entered off course, splashed down
in Raquel Welch's swimming pool, and he and the orangutang
dragged her along for far too many pages of "amuzing" hijinks.

If I'd read the book first, I'd only have seen the movie
at gunpoint. (And I'd have had to think about it...)
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-10-29 23:29:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Moriarty
I watched the movie on a long haul flight, after my kindle
broke, and didn't think it was too bad. Compared to the one
book, which I read afterwards, it was high art. Possibly a rare
case of a Hollywood scriptwriter taking out implausible crap
from source material, rather than their usual practice of
putting it in?
Kind of like "Forrest Gump", where they took out the whole
section where Gump was sent into space in a Gemini capsule
with an orangutang, re-entered off course, splashed down
in Raquel Welch's swimming pool, and he and the orangutang
dragged her along for far too many pages of "amuzing" hijinks.
You realize, I hope, that the only reason they cut that out was
likely that they couldn't afford Raquel Welch.
Post by Mike Van Pelt
If I'd read the book first, I'd only have seen the movie
at gunpoint. (And I'd have had to think about it...)
Never read the book or seen the movie, and I have no regrets.
--
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.
Mike Van Pelt
2018-10-30 00:01:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Kind of like "Forrest Gump", where they took out the whole
section where Gump was sent into space in a Gemini capsule
with an orangutang, re-entered off course, splashed down
in Raquel Welch's swimming pool, and he and the orangutang
dragged her along for far too many pages of "amuzing" hijinks.
You realize, I hope, that the only reason they cut that out was
likely that they couldn't afford Raquel Welch.
Quite likely. Also likely, if they had showed her the script,
she'd have said "Oh **HELL* no!"

Plus, the setting was back in the 60s. Plastic surgery
can only do so much.

If they'd really wanted to that segment, they'd just have had
to use whoever had a similar position in pop culture.

Kim Kardumassian, ow! My brain!
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
J. Clarke
2018-10-30 01:49:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Kind of like "Forrest Gump", where they took out the whole
section where Gump was sent into space in a Gemini capsule
with an orangutang, re-entered off course, splashed down
in Raquel Welch's swimming pool, and he and the orangutang
dragged her along for far too many pages of "amuzing" hijinks.
You realize, I hope, that the only reason they cut that out was
likely that they couldn't afford Raquel Welch.
Quite likely. Also likely, if they had showed her the script,
she'd have said "Oh **HELL* no!"
Plus, the setting was back in the 60s. Plastic surgery
can only do so much.
When the movie was made she was over 50. When the events in the movie
took place she was under 30.
Post by Mike Van Pelt
If they'd really wanted to that segment, they'd just have had
to use whoever had a similar position in pop culture.
Kim Kardumassian, ow! My brain!
Nahh, nobody's ever pretended that Kim Kardumassian could act. Who
today has a great body, limited talent, and a movie career?
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-10-30 15:54:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Kind of like "Forrest Gump", where they took out the whole
section where Gump was sent into space in a Gemini capsule
with an orangutang, re-entered off course, splashed down
in Raquel Welch's swimming pool, and he and the orangutang
dragged her along for far too many pages of "amuzing"
hijinks.
You realize, I hope, that the only reason they cut that out was
likely that they couldn't afford Raquel Welch.
Quite likely. Also likely, if they had showed her the script,
she'd have said "Oh **HELL* no!"
Plus, the setting was back in the 60s. Plastic surgery
can only do so much.
When the movie was made she was over 50. When the events in the
movie took place she was under 30.
Which is to say, even a mediocre makeup artist could have made her
look like a teenager.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Mike Van Pelt
If they'd really wanted to that segment, they'd just have had
to use whoever had a similar position in pop culture.
Kim Kardumassian, ow! My brain!
Nahh, nobody's ever pretended that Kim Kardumassian could act.
Who today has a great body, limited talent, and a movie career?
The studios crank them out by the dozen. Always have.
--
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.
Jerry Brown
2018-10-30 06:43:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Kind of like "Forrest Gump", where they took out the whole
section where Gump was sent into space in a Gemini capsule
with an orangutang, re-entered off course, splashed down
in Raquel Welch's swimming pool, and he and the orangutang
dragged her along for far too many pages of "amuzing" hijinks.
You realize, I hope, that the only reason they cut that out was
likely that they couldn't afford Raquel Welch.
Quite likely. Also likely, if they had showed her the script,
she'd have said "Oh **HELL* no!"
Plus, the setting was back in the 60s. Plastic surgery
can only do so much.
Her daughter Tahnee pretty much looks like she did in her prime (or
did at the time FG came out).
Post by Mike Van Pelt
If they'd really wanted to that segment, they'd just have had
to use whoever had a similar position in pop culture.
Kim Kardumassian, ow! My brain!
--
Jerry Brown

A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
J. Clarke
2018-10-31 03:53:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 06:43:34 +0000, Jerry Brown
Post by Jerry Brown
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Kind of like "Forrest Gump", where they took out the whole
section where Gump was sent into space in a Gemini capsule
with an orangutang, re-entered off course, splashed down
in Raquel Welch's swimming pool, and he and the orangutang
dragged her along for far too many pages of "amuzing" hijinks.
You realize, I hope, that the only reason they cut that out was
likely that they couldn't afford Raquel Welch.
Quite likely. Also likely, if they had showed her the script,
she'd have said "Oh **HELL* no!"
Plus, the setting was back in the 60s. Plastic surgery
can only do so much.
Her daughter Tahnee pretty much looks like she did in her prime (or
did at the time FG came out).
I'd forgotten that that was her in Cocoon and the sequel. I think
she could have pulled off playing her mom, they'd have probably had a
good laugh about it.
Post by Jerry Brown
Post by Mike Van Pelt
If they'd really wanted to that segment, they'd just have had
to use whoever had a similar position in pop culture.
Kim Kardumassian, ow! My brain!
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2018-10-31 04:02:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 06:43:34 +0000, Jerry Brown
Post by Jerry Brown
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Kind of like "Forrest Gump", where they took out the whole
section where Gump was sent into space in a Gemini capsule
with an orangutang, re-entered off course, splashed down
in Raquel Welch's swimming pool, and he and the orangutang
dragged her along for far too many pages of "amuzing" hijinks.
You realize, I hope, that the only reason they cut that out was
likely that they couldn't afford Raquel Welch.
Quite likely. Also likely, if they had showed her the script,
she'd have said "Oh **HELL* no!"
Plus, the setting was back in the 60s. Plastic surgery
can only do so much.
Her daughter Tahnee pretty much looks like she did in her prime (or
did at the time FG came out).
I'd forgotten that that was her in Cocoon and the sequel. I think
she could have pulled off playing her mom, they'd have probably had a
good laugh about it.
Post by Jerry Brown
Post by Mike Van Pelt
If they'd really wanted to that segment, they'd just have had
to use whoever had a similar position in pop culture.
Kim Kardumassian, ow! My brain!
I'm surprised to find out there is such a section in the book. (In fact
I didn't know there was a book). Seems like a pretty good risk for a
lawsuit. I guess the author must be friends with Welch?
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-10-30 15:53:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Kind of like "Forrest Gump", where they took out the whole
section where Gump was sent into space in a Gemini capsule
with an orangutang, re-entered off course, splashed down
in Raquel Welch's swimming pool, and he and the orangutang
dragged her along for far too many pages of "amuzing" hijinks.
You realize, I hope, that the only reason they cut that out was
likely that they couldn't afford Raquel Welch.
Quite likely. Also likely, if they had showed her the script,
she'd have said "Oh **HELL* no!"
These days, I suspect the closest she'd get to hell no would be to
add enough zeros onto her price to justify selling her dignity.
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Plus, the setting was back in the 60s. Plastic surgery
can only do so much.
Plastic surgery, yeah, but Hollywood doesn't use plastic surgery,
they use a bucket of spackle and a trowel. And their makeup artists
are some of the most genius level artists in the world.
Post by Mike Van Pelt
If they'd really wanted to that segment, they'd just have had
to use whoever had a similar position in pop culture.
Who they would still have to pay, and if it's someone as
recongizable today as Welch was in her heydey, they still couldn't
afford it (especially after paying for Cruise). It's also possible
Cruise wouldn't have been interested in being in a film with anyone
famous enough to rival him in the news coverage. By most accounts,
what he lacks in physical size, he makes up for in ego size.
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Kim Kardumassian, ow! My brain!
That still would have been a big step up from Cruise, IMO.
--
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.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-10-30 17:13:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Kind of like "Forrest Gump", where they took out the whole
section where Gump was sent into space in a Gemini capsule
with an orangutang, re-entered off course, splashed down
in Raquel Welch's swimming pool, and he and the orangutang
dragged her along for far too many pages of "amuzing" hijinks.
You realize, I hope, that the only reason they cut that out was
likely that they couldn't afford Raquel Welch.
Quite likely. Also likely, if they had showed her the script,
she'd have said "Oh **HELL* no!"
These days, I suspect the closest she'd get to hell no would be to
add enough zeros onto her price to justify selling her dignity.
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Plus, the setting was back in the 60s. Plastic surgery
can only do so much.
Plastic surgery, yeah, but Hollywood doesn't use plastic surgery,
they use a bucket of spackle and a trowel. And their makeup artists
are some of the most genius level artists in the world.
Post by Mike Van Pelt
If they'd really wanted to that segment, they'd just have had
to use whoever had a similar position in pop culture.
Who they would still have to pay, and if it's someone as
recongizable today as Welch was in her heydey, they still couldn't
afford it (especially after paying for Cruise). It's also possible
Cruise wouldn't have been interested in being in a film with anyone
famous enough to rival him in the news coverage. By most accounts,
what he lacks in physical size, he makes up for in ego size.
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Kim Kardumassian, ow! My brain!
That still would have been a big step up from Cruise, IMO.
I don't remember seeing Tom Cruise in 'Forest Gump'.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2018-10-30 17:22:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Kind of like "Forrest Gump", where they took out the whole
section where Gump was sent into space in a Gemini capsule
with an orangutang, re-entered off course, splashed down
in Raquel Welch's swimming pool, and he and the orangutang
dragged her along for far too many pages of "amuzing" hijinks.
You realize, I hope, that the only reason they cut that out was
likely that they couldn't afford Raquel Welch.
Quite likely. Also likely, if they had showed her the script,
she'd have said "Oh **HELL* no!"
These days, I suspect the closest she'd get to hell no would be to
add enough zeros onto her price to justify selling her dignity.
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Plus, the setting was back in the 60s. Plastic surgery
can only do so much.
Plastic surgery, yeah, but Hollywood doesn't use plastic surgery,
they use a bucket of spackle and a trowel. And their makeup artists
are some of the most genius level artists in the world.
Post by Mike Van Pelt
If they'd really wanted to that segment, they'd just have had
to use whoever had a similar position in pop culture.
Who they would still have to pay, and if it's someone as
recongizable today as Welch was in her heydey, they still couldn't
afford it (especially after paying for Cruise). It's also possible
Cruise wouldn't have been interested in being in a film with anyone
famous enough to rival him in the news coverage. By most accounts,
what he lacks in physical size, he makes up for in ego size.
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Kim Kardumassian, ow! My brain!
That still would have been a big step up from Cruise, IMO.
I don't remember seeing Tom Cruise in 'Forest Gump'.
Yep, that was Hanks. I first noticed in "Big" that "hey this guy can
really act!", and "Gump" sealed the deal. To me, the key scene was the
last one where Gump tells his son he will be there when his son gets
out of school, and you know that regardless of plagues-of-locusts,
nuclear-holocasts, or zombie-apocalypses, he *will* be there.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-10-30 18:27:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Kind of like "Forrest Gump", where they took out the whole
section where Gump was sent into space in a Gemini capsule
with an orangutang, re-entered off course, splashed down
in Raquel Welch's swimming pool, and he and the orangutang
dragged her along for far too many pages of "amuzing"
hijinks.
You realize, I hope, that the only reason they cut that out
was likely that they couldn't afford Raquel Welch.
Quite likely. Also likely, if they had showed her the script,
she'd have said "Oh **HELL* no!"
These days, I suspect the closest she'd get to hell no would be
to add enough zeros onto her price to justify selling her
dignity.
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Plus, the setting was back in the 60s. Plastic surgery
can only do so much.
Plastic surgery, yeah, but Hollywood doesn't use plastic
surgery, they use a bucket of spackle and a trowel. And their
makeup artists are some of the most genius level artists in the
world.
Post by Mike Van Pelt
If they'd really wanted to that segment, they'd just have had
to use whoever had a similar position in pop culture.
Who they would still have to pay, and if it's someone as
recongizable today as Welch was in her heydey, they still
couldn't afford it (especially after paying for Cruise). It's
also possible Cruise wouldn't have been interested in being in
a film with anyone famous enough to rival him in the news
coverage. By most accounts, what he lacks in physical size, he
makes up for in ego size.
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Kim Kardumassian, ow! My brain!
That still would have been a big step up from Cruise, IMO.
I don't remember seeing Tom Cruise in 'Forest Gump'.
Neither do I, but she'd still be a step up.
--
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.
Kevrob
2018-10-30 23:52:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
I don't remember seeing Tom Cruise in 'Forest Gump'.
That's becaause he was always standing _behind_ Tom Hanks.
(6' 0" acc to tha interwebs.)

Kevin R
Greg Goss
2018-11-03 01:57:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Moriarty
Possibly a rare case of a Hollywood scriptwriter taking out
implausible crap from source material, rather than their usual
practice of putting it in?
Angels and Demons was another. MOST of the most implausible crap was
removed, but, being a Dan Brown novel, that still left a lot of room
for implausible crap to remain.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Lynn McGuire
2018-10-29 23:05:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 1:09:03 PM UTC+11, Titus G
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by Lynn McGuire
Which genre do the Jack Reacher books fit in ?
Redemptive violence children's fantasy for those intelligent
youngsters who realise that Superman flying is impossible magic
but an all in one infallible judge, jury and executioner
impervious to Climate Change and probably EMP "events" as well,
(a frequent occurrence in Texas where even the cows should
learn how to swim), is really how the world works.
I file Jack Reacher under the "Unreadable crap filled with
stupid plotholes, implausible coincidences and vacuous teenage
boy wish fulfillment sex fantasies, whose success demonstrates
that the reading public has no taste or discernment" genre.
I classify it as "Tom Cruise did a movie version, so who cares? It
can't possibly not suck."
I read the first one and felt dumber for having done so.
I'd never even heard of it until the movie.
Tom Cruise has made two Jack Reacher movies so far.

Lynn
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-10-29 23:24:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 1:09:03 PM UTC+11, Titus G
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by Lynn McGuire
Which genre do the Jack Reacher books fit in ?
Redemptive violence children's fantasy for those intelligent
youngsters who realise that Superman flying is impossible
magic but an all in one infallible judge, jury and
executioner impervious to Climate Change and probably EMP
"events" as well, (a frequent occurrence in Texas where even
the cows should learn how to swim), is really how the world
works.
I file Jack Reacher under the "Unreadable crap filled with
stupid plotholes, implausible coincidences and vacuous teenage
boy wish fulfillment sex fantasies, whose success demonstrates
that the reading public has no taste or discernment" genre.
I classify it as "Tom Cruise did a movie version, so who cares?
It can't possibly not suck."
I read the first one and felt dumber for having done so.
I'd never even heard of it until the movie.
Tom Cruise has made two Jack Reacher movies so far.
One, two, a hundred, it's all the same to me: Stuff I will never
willingly watch even if the alternative is being bored to the
point of wanting to jump off a cliff. Can't stand him as an actor
(or a human being, if any of the paparaizzi reports are even
remotely based on fact).

The only entertainment value he's ever offered me was to be the
butt of a South Park episode.
--
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.
Joe Bernstein
2018-10-30 01:58:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <***@gmail.com> wrote in news:***@69.16.179.42:

[Tom Cruise]
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Can't stand him as an actor
(or a human being, if any of the paparaizzi reports are even
remotely based on fact).
The only entertainment value he's ever offered me was to be the
butt of a South Park episode.
I'm not a fan, so hadn't kept track. (I'd actually mixed him up with
Brad Pitt in <Thelma & Louise>.) Looks like I've seen him in <Risky
Business>, <Eyes Wide Shut>, and maybe <Legend> (but I doubt I've
actually seen that). I don't remember him adding anything to <Eyes
Wide Shut> for me, but in <Risky Business> he was probably a better
choice than Joe Schmoe from Kokomo.

-- JLB
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-10-30 15:57:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe Bernstein
[Tom Cruise]
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Can't stand him as an actor
(or a human being, if any of the paparaizzi reports are even
remotely based on fact).
The only entertainment value he's ever offered me was to be the
butt of a South Park episode.
I'm not a fan, so hadn't kept track. (I'd actually mixed him up
with Brad Pitt in <Thelma & Louise>.) Looks like I've seen him
in <Risky Business>, <Eyes Wide Shut>, and maybe <Legend> (but I
doubt I've actually seen that). I don't remember him adding
anything to <Eyes Wide Shut> for me, but in <Risky Business> he
was probably a better choice than Joe Schmoe from Kokomo.
To a degree, he's like Will Ferrel. What he does, he does better than
almost anybody (given how much money his movies make), but what he
does offers me absolutely no entertainment value whatsoever. The
major differences are that a) Will Ferrel's "standard" character
makes me want to punch him in the testicles with brass knuckles,
where Cruise's "standard" character makes me want to fall asleep, and
b) Ferrel has proven he's capable of doing something *else* on a
couple of occasions.
--
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.
Lynn McGuire
2018-10-30 17:17:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 1:09:03 PM UTC+11, Titus G
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by Lynn McGuire
Which genre do the Jack Reacher books fit in ?
Redemptive violence children's fantasy for those intelligent
youngsters who realise that Superman flying is impossible
magic but an all in one infallible judge, jury and
executioner impervious to Climate Change and probably EMP
"events" as well, (a frequent occurrence in Texas where even
the cows should learn how to swim), is really how the world
works.
I file Jack Reacher under the "Unreadable crap filled with
stupid plotholes, implausible coincidences and vacuous teenage
boy wish fulfillment sex fantasies, whose success demonstrates
that the reading public has no taste or discernment" genre.
I classify it as "Tom Cruise did a movie version, so who cares?
It can't possibly not suck."
I read the first one and felt dumber for having done so.
I'd never even heard of it until the movie.
Tom Cruise has made two Jack Reacher movies so far.
One, two, a hundred, it's all the same to me: Stuff I will never
willingly watch even if the alternative is being bored to the
point of wanting to jump off a cliff. Can't stand him as an actor
(or a human being, if any of the paparaizzi reports are even
remotely based on fact).
The only entertainment value he's ever offered me was to be the
butt of a South Park episode.
The funny thing about Tom Cruise in the Jack Reacher movies is that Jack
Reacher is 6'5" in the books and Tom Cruise is 5'6" in real life.

I do like most of the Mission Impossible movies and TC's scifi movies
such as "Oblivion" and "Edge of Tomorrow". "Kinght and Day" is freaking
hilarious.

https://www.businessinsider.com/tom-cruise-movies-ranked-from-worst-to-best-2018-7#9-interview-with-the-vampire-1994-34

Lynn
Greg Goss
2018-11-03 02:22:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
Tom Cruise has made two Jack Reacher movies so far.
One, two, a hundred, it's all the same to me: Stuff I will never
willingly watch even if the alternative is being bored to the
point of wanting to jump off a cliff. Can't stand him as an actor
(or a human being, if any of the paparaizzi reports are even
remotely based on fact).
The only entertainment value he's ever offered me was to be the
butt of a South Park episode.
Presumably "lawyers" are why the internet (per Google) never seems to
have heard of the Bob Rivers parody song
"This Crazy Little Guy - Tom Cruise."

Youtube doesn't know it. A search for lyrics sites for it finds
nothing. So either it's been erased from existence or google is
fighting me again.

[long search through a badly organized MP3 collection]

OK, that's why the internet's never heard of it. It's not Bob Rivers,
but rather Odd Squad, who have a much lighter world "presence" than
Bob Rivers. [more googling] OK, *NO* web presence whatoever.

There is no trace online of either the group or the "Mixed Nuts and
Mistletoe" CD that my late first wife had. Hmmm. Can't ask HER where
it came from.

Can a group actually make multiple CDs and not be noticed by Google?
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-10-29 23:36:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 1:09:03 PM UTC+11, Titus G
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by Lynn McGuire
Which genre do the Jack Reacher books fit in ?
Redemptive violence children's fantasy for those intelligent
youngsters who realise that Superman flying is impossible magic
but an all in one infallible judge, jury and executioner
impervious to Climate Change and probably EMP "events" as well,
(a frequent occurrence in Texas where even the cows should
learn how to swim), is really how the world works.
I file Jack Reacher under the "Unreadable crap filled with
stupid plotholes, implausible coincidences and vacuous teenage
boy wish fulfillment sex fantasies, whose success demonstrates
that the reading public has no taste or discernment" genre.
I classify it as "Tom Cruise did a movie version, so who cares? It
can't possibly not suck."
I read the first one and felt dumber for having done so.
I'd never even heard of it until the movie.
Tom Cruise has made two Jack Reacher movies so far.
And from what I hear, if you take two Tom Cruises and stack one atop the
other they might just about be as tall as Reacher. :D
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Titus G
2018-10-29 23:27:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 30/10/18 10:29 AM, Moriarty wrote:
snip
Post by Moriarty
I file Jack Reacher under the "Unreadable crap filled with stupid
plotholes, implausible coincidences and vacuous teenage boy wish
fulfillment sex fantasies, whose success demonstrates that the
reading public has no taste or discernment" genre.
I read the first one and felt dumber for having done so.
-Moriarty
THE FIRST ONE. (I am also dumber than when I read it in 2012 but not so
dumb as to read another, yet.)

Full stops. Everywhere. Too many full stops. Short sentences. Too many
short sentences. Not enough verbs. Too many short sentences without verbs.
Unbelievable co-incidences. Too many unbelievable co-incidences.
Unbelievable scenarios. Strange people.

In the first quarter of the book he awakes in an overnight bus in the
middle of nowhere and gets off at the next stop on a whim, discovers a
body, is arrested for murder, spends the weekend in jail where he breaks
the cheekbones and nose of another prisoner in one incident, extracts an
eyeball from another prisoner and murders a third prisoner in another
incident, this time in self defence, before being released on the
Monday. On Monday night he shares the bed of the town's only female
police officer and the chief detective has enlisted his assistance in
solving the murder.
We soon discover the murder victim is Reacher's brother whom he has not
seen in seven years.
Even worse, is the murder. Reacher boasts his combat skills are the best
the military could produce given that his duty as an MP confronting
trained killers such as Marines meant he had to be better trained and
able so why did he decide to inflict maximum damage and kill the
prisoner in the jail when he would have had the skills to disable him as
he already had with two others?
Judge, jury, executioner. Staring into the abyss. Moral equal of those
he kills.
I am not averse to violence in other reading so perhaps it is
mainly the plot and writing style that annoys me. Reacher's
predilection for imposing his justice is the opposite of what I expect
an action mystery to be which is usually the investigation of such
uncivilised behaviour. Tsk, tsk.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-10-29 23:32:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by Moriarty
I file Jack Reacher under the "Unreadable crap filled with
stupid plotholes, implausible coincidences and vacuous teenage
boy wish fulfillment sex fantasies, whose success demonstrates
that the reading public has no taste or discernment" genre.
I read the first one and felt dumber for having done so.
-Moriarty
THE FIRST ONE. (I am also dumber than when I read it in 2012 but
not so dumb as to read another, yet.)
Full stops. Everywhere. Too many full stops. Short sentences.
Too many short sentences. Not enough verbs. Too many short
sentences without verbs. Unbelievable co-incidences. Too many
unbelievable co-incidences. Unbelievable scenarios. Strange
people.
In the first quarter of the book he awakes in an overnight bus
in the middle of nowhere and gets off at the next stop on a
whim, discovers a body, is arrested for murder, spends the
weekend in jail where he breaks the cheekbones and nose of
another prisoner in one incident, extracts an eyeball from
another prisoner and murders a third prisoner in another
incident, this time in self defence, before being released on
the Monday. On Monday night he shares the bed of the town's only
female police officer and the chief detective has enlisted his
assistance in solving the murder.
We soon discover the murder victim is Reacher's brother whom he
has not seen in seven years.
Even worse, is the murder. Reacher boasts his combat skills are
the best the military could produce given that his duty as an MP
confronting trained killers such as Marines meant he had to be
better trained and able so why did he decide to inflict maximum
damage and kill the prisoner in the jail when he would have had
the skills to disable him as he already had with two others?
Judge, jury, executioner. Staring into the abyss. Moral equal of
those he kills.
I am not averse to violence in other reading so perhaps it is
mainly the plot and writing style that annoys me. Reacher's
predilection for imposing his justice is the opposite of what I
expect an action mystery to be which is usually the
investigation of such uncivilised behaviour. Tsk, tsk.
That sounds like a cartoon parody of a Quentin Tarantino movie
writen by a fourteen year old doing LSD.
--
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.
Moriarty
2018-10-29 23:53:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by Moriarty
I file Jack Reacher under the "Unreadable crap filled with
stupid plotholes, implausible coincidences and vacuous teenage
boy wish fulfillment sex fantasies, whose success demonstrates
that the reading public has no taste or discernment" genre.
I read the first one and felt dumber for having done so.
-Moriarty
THE FIRST ONE. (I am also dumber than when I read it in 2012 but
not so dumb as to read another, yet.)
Full stops. Everywhere. Too many full stops. Short sentences.
Too many short sentences. Not enough verbs. Too many short
sentences without verbs. Unbelievable co-incidences. Too many
unbelievable co-incidences. Unbelievable scenarios. Strange
people.
I'd mercifully forgotten. The Full. Stops. Thanks for. Reminding. Me.
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Titus G
In the first quarter of the book he awakes in an overnight bus
in the middle of nowhere and gets off at the next stop on a
whim, discovers a body, is arrested for murder, spends the
weekend in jail where he breaks the cheekbones and nose of
another prisoner in one incident, extracts an eyeball from
another prisoner and murders a third prisoner in another
incident, this time in self defence, before being released on
the Monday. On Monday night he shares the bed of the town's only
female police officer
Not just a female police officer, but a female police officer who's incredibly hot. And single. And stupid, as evidenced by her hopping into bed with a murder suspect she's known for only a few hours.

In hindsight, this is where I should have stopped.

and the chief detective has enlisted his
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Titus G
assistance in solving the murder.
And I should have definitely stopped here.
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Titus G
We soon discover the murder victim is Reacher's brother whom he
has not seen in seven years.
Not just that, but the brother is a top secret investigator for the Super Secret Department of Secrecy, investigating something of vital of importance to the US Government. He follows up a lead to the town of West Bumfuck, carelessly gets himself murdered, and *no-one* from his Department comes to investigate. Rather, the local hillbilly police force is left with the job, ably assisted by the chief suspect who happens to be the victim's long-lost brother. Bah!
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Titus G
Even worse, is the murder. Reacher boasts his combat skills are
the best the military could produce given that his duty as an MP
confronting trained killers such as Marines meant he had to be
better trained and able so why did he decide to inflict maximum
damage and kill the prisoner in the jail when he would have had
the skills to disable him as he already had with two others?
Judge, jury, executioner. Staring into the abyss. Moral equal of
those he kills.
I am not averse to violence in other reading so perhaps it is
mainly the plot and writing style that annoys me. Reacher's
predilection for imposing his justice is the opposite of what I
expect an action mystery to be which is usually the
investigation of such uncivilised behaviour. Tsk, tsk.
That sounds like a cartoon parody of a Quentin Tarantino movie
writen by a fourteen year old doing LSD.
It's actually a pretty good description of the book and title character. Titus left out the Bad Guy's fiendish plot, which no-one managed to figure out until the end, even though it was blindingly obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature. It involved the Bad Guys getting loads of US dollar bills and re-printing them into $100 bills.

And they would have got away with it too, if it weren't for that pesky, super-macho, he-man, virile stud, hyper-intelligent super soldier.

-Moriarty
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-10-30 15:49:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:32:16 AM UTC+11, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by Moriarty
I file Jack Reacher under the "Unreadable crap filled with
stupid plotholes, implausible coincidences and vacuous
teenage boy wish fulfillment sex fantasies, whose success
demonstrates that the reading public has no taste or
discernment" genre.
I read the first one and felt dumber for having done so.
-Moriarty
THE FIRST ONE. (I am also dumber than when I read it in 2012
but not so dumb as to read another, yet.)
Full stops. Everywhere. Too many full stops. Short sentences.
Too many short sentences. Not enough verbs. Too many short
sentences without verbs. Unbelievable co-incidences. Too many
unbelievable co-incidences. Unbelievable scenarios. Strange
people.
I'd mercifully forgotten. The Full. Stops. Thanks for.
Reminding. Me.
No one should write the way William Shatner talks.
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
That sounds like a cartoon parody of a Quentin Tarantino movie
writen by a fourteen year old doing LSD.
It's actually a pretty good description of the book and title
character.
I was assuming that. My point remains.
Titus left out the Bad Guy's fiendish plot, which
no-one managed to figure out until the end, even though it was
blindingly obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.
It involved the Bad Guys getting loads of US dollar bills and
re-printing them into $100 bills.
Well, if your good guy is going to be a drooling idiot, and all of
his supporting characters even bigger drooling idiots, your bad buy
has to be the biggest drooling idiot of all. To maintain
plausibility, you know. (That, and hope your readers strongly
identify with the protagonist, which is to say, are also drooling
idiots.)
And they would have got away with it too, if it weren't for that
pesky, super-macho, he-man, virile stud, hyper-intelligent super
soldier.
Sadly, that accurately describes at least 75% of all spy thriller
fiction, in any medium. It's the James Bond formula. No bad guy
conpiracy can survive having Bond's enormous penis (and ego) waved
at them.
--
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.
Titus G
2018-11-01 01:57:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:32:16 AM UTC+11, Jibini Kula
snip
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
That sounds like a cartoon parody of a Quentin Tarantino movie
writen by a fourteen year old doing LSD.
It's actually a pretty good description of the book and title
character.
Thank you.
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
I was assuming that. My point remains.
Thank you.
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Titus left out the Bad Guy's fiendish plot,
What I posted were my thoughts in 2012 when I only wrote about the first
quarter of the book to avoid spoilers. I am pleased to have forgotten
the rest of the book.
snip
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Sadly, that accurately describes at least 75% of all spy thriller
fiction, in any medium. It's the James Bond formula. No bad guy
conpiracy can survive having Bond's enormous penis (and ego) waved at
them.
Yes. And that is why I enjoy Le Carre.
D B Davis
2018-11-02 15:30:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:32:16 AM UTC+11, Jibini Kula
snip
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
That sounds like a cartoon parody of a Quentin Tarantino movie
writen by a fourteen year old doing LSD.
It's actually a pretty good description of the book and title
character.
Thank you.
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
I was assuming that. My point remains.
Thank you.
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Titus left out the Bad Guy's fiendish plot,
What I posted were my thoughts in 2012 when I only wrote about the first
quarter of the book to avoid spoilers. I am pleased to have forgotten
the rest of the book.
snip
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Sadly, that accurately describes at least 75% of all spy thriller
fiction, in any medium. It's the James Bond formula. No bad guy
conpiracy can survive having Bond's enormous penis (and ego) waved at
them.
Yes. And that is why I enjoy Le Carre.
Some of le Carré's novels have been read by me and some of the movies
have been watched. In my experience, Rupert Davies [1] best captures
George Smiley's literary /appearance/. Smiley's upper crust psycho-ho
spouse [2] describes Smiley this way: "breathtakingly ordinary": "Short,
fat, and of a quiet disposition, he appeared to spend a lot of money on
really bad clothes, which hung about his squat frame like skin on a
shrunken toad." Spymaster Smiley's also balding and wears glasses.
Unfortunately, Davies' screen time is rather limited, which leaves
Alec Guinness to best capture Smiley's literary /mannerisms/, by
default. The Gary Oldman movie is simply far too short and hurried to
give Smiley's idiosyncrasies the screen time they deserve.

Although none of the Flemings have been read by me it is said that only
Timothy Dalton comes close to capturing Fleming's literary Bond.

A fan of the literary character, often seen re-reading and
referring to the novels on set, Dalton determined to approach
the role and play truer to the original character described
by Fleming. His 007, therefore, came across as a reluctant
agent who did not always enjoy the assignments he was given,
something seen on screen before, albeit obliquely, only in
George Lazenby's On Her Majesty's Secret Service. In The
Living Daylights, for example, Bond tells a critical
colleague, Saunders, "Stuff my orders! ... Tell M what you
want. If he fires me, I'll thank him for it." In Licence to
Kill, he resigns from the Secret Intelligence Service in
order to pursue his own agenda of revenge.

Unlike Moore, who always seems to be in command,
Dalton's Bond sometimes looks like a candidate for
the psychiatrist's couch – a burned-out killer who
may have just enough energy left for one final
mission. That was Fleming's Bond – a man who drank
to diminish the poison in his system, the poison
of a violent world with impossible demands.... his
is the suffering Bond.

— Steven Jay Rubin writes in
The Complete James Bond Movie Encyclopaedia (1995).

_Firefox_ (Thomas) is more of a military caper than a spy thriller.
One of the first things that USAF Major Gant does in the novel is puke
because Gant gets a bad case of nerves before he steals the Firefox
fighter from a Russian airbase. Once Gant settles into the pilot's seat
of the Firefox he's back in his element and back in command as one of
the best pilots in the world. _Firefox_'s Hollywood treatment remains
unviewed by me so it's unknown how accurately ?Clint Eastwood? portrays
the literary character.

Note.

1. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0203959/
2. Loading Image...



Thank you,
--
Don
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-11-02 15:56:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
Although none of the Flemings have been read by me it is said
that only Timothy Dalton comes close to capturing Fleming's
literary Bond.
Pre Daniel Craig, perhaps, but Craig's Bond by far best captures
Flemming's "barbarian with a thin veneer of civilization." (And his
Casino Royale is the closest to the book it's vaguely inspired by of
all the Bond movies. Followed, of course, by a movie that is
*literally* "based on the title of a story we haven't read.")
--
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.
Scott Lurndal
2018-10-30 12:55:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Moriarty
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by Lynn McGuire
Which genre do the Jack Reacher books fit in ?
Redemptive violence children's fantasy for those intelligent youngsters
who realise that Superman flying is impossible magic but an all in one
infallible judge, jury and executioner impervious to Climate Change and
probably EMP "events" as well, (a frequent occurrence in Texas where
even the cows should learn how to swim), is really how the world works.
I file Jack Reacher under the "Unreadable crap filled with stupid plotholes, implausible coincidences and vacuous teenage boy wish fulfillment sex fantasies, whose success demonstrates that the reading public has no taste or discernment" genre.
Add a dash of lovecraft and you get Repairman Jack?
Joe Bernstein
2018-10-28 22:45:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
There's 300k books being published
each year by self-and-small publishers
You do really mean 300,000, right? (And I assume you also mean
spec-fic.)

This certainly wasn't true in the mid-1990s when I was able to follow
what was going on in those areas. For how many years has the number
of new books - in English, say - surpassed 100,000? When did the
exponential increase start, and is it still continuing, or has it
plateaued, or at least gone non-exponential?

Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein <***@gmail.com>
Ahasuerus
2018-10-29 01:17:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
There's 300k books being published
each year by self-and-small publishers
You do really mean 300,000, right? (And I assume you also mean
spec-fic.) [snip]
Every month Amazon adds up to 30,000+ new SF books to its catalog. It
includes short chapbooks, picture books, non-English books, reprints,
books without ISBNs, some comics/manga and so on. Still, it's an
impressive number.
David Johnston
2018-10-27 01:01:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
Outside of genre books (urban fantasy, apocalyptic fantasy, AltHist) and
long running series (Honorverse, Liadenverse) are there
really that many _good_ SF books being published?
Once you eliminate all the subgenres there was never all that much SF in
the first place.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2018-10-27 00:14:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
I am really enjoying the indie authors on Amazon. About half of the
books that I read now are self published. Specifically, I am reading
_The Singularity Trap_ by Dennis Taylor and enjoying the hound out of
it. I loved his Bobiverse books and the inter-dimensional book.
https://www.amazon.com/Singularity-Trap-Dennis-Taylor/dp/1680680889/
Possibly. The indie boom to some extent bypasses the gatekeepers to
publish what people want to read more than what they should want to read.
Sort of like the pulp era on steroids.

I know it's a rare occurance now that I don't have several books in series
I am following in my Kindle TBR pile.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Ahasuerus
2018-10-28 01:24:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
I am really enjoying the indie authors on Amazon. About half of the
books that I read now are self published. Specifically, I am reading
_The Singularity Trap_ by Dennis Taylor and enjoying the hound out of
it. I loved his Bobiverse books and the inter-dimensional book.
https://www.amazon.com/Singularity-Trap-Dennis-Taylor/dp/1680680889/
Possibly. The indie boom to some extent bypasses the gatekeepers to
publish what people want to read more than what they should want to read.
Sort of like the pulp era on steroids. [snip]
The indie boom is certainly a part of it, but there are other ways to
"bypass the gatekeepers" in the internet age. For example, amateur Web-
hosted translations of East Asian Web novels became popular a few years
ago. They were mostly subpar; some were literally machine-translated
gibberish. However, their popularity paved the way for a whole mini-
industry translating and publishing licensed Japanese light novels:
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?50401 ,
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?4323 ,
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?60910 , and so on. (The ISFDB
is typically behind because they are so prolific.)

I am actually impressed by the quality of their translations. Some are
better than others, of course, but, given how fast they are being
churned out, I would have expected the end product to be a lot worse.
Joe Bernstein
2018-10-28 22:38:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ahasuerus
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ?
I am really enjoying the indie authors on Amazon. About half of the
books that I read now are self published.
Possibly. The indie boom to some extent bypasses the gatekeepers to
publish what people want to read more than what they should want to
read. Sort of like the pulp era on steroids. [snip]
The indie boom is certainly a part of it, but there are other ways to
"bypass the gatekeepers" in the internet age. For example, amateur
Web- hosted translations of East Asian Web novels became popular a few
years ago. They were mostly subpar; some were literally
machine-translated gibberish. However, their popularity paved the way
for a whole mini- industry translating and publishing licensed
Um?

I'm pretty sure "East Asian Web novels" > and not ~ "Japanese light
novels". (That is, set A is bigger than set B, but set B still has
things in it that aren't in set A. Most Japanese light novels known
to me weren't originally Web novels, but I don't pretend to be an
expert on the category.) I think you're sort of comparing apples and
oranges here, but not entirely.

There may be Korean web novels that have been Englished, but by far
the most obvious candidates - those that underlie K-dramas successful
with English-speakers - pretty much uniformly haven't been. I know
of two Korean *manhwa* underlying successful dramas that've been
translated, out of dozens, both legally (<Full House>, not
speculative; <Bride of the Water God>, speculative but to me
impenetrable) but neither of those was a web-comic (and several
dramas I've watched, lots more I haven't, are based on web-comics);
perhaps *a* Korean web-comic has been Englished, or maybe even ten,
but I haven't heard of it.

I know an amateur project was translating the novels that underlie
<Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon> but am out of date on their progress,
survival, etc. A drama I noticed both because it's minimally spec-
ficnal (time travel backwards, apparently with nothing else at all
speculative), and because the singer "IU" to whom I pay attention
played the traveller, turned out to be based on a bestselling Chinese
novel; none of that author's work has been professionally or even
legally Englished, but a couple of amateur projects have taken stabs
at that novel, and petered out. The author has lived in the US since
2005, but even so. Of course neither of these authors wrote *Web*
novels, and I haven't had any occasion to notice Chinese Web novels;
maybe things are better there, though based on what I see from Korea,
and to a lesser extent from Japan, I'd be pretty shocked if that were
the case.

I haven't investigated the existence, let alone the translation, of
Web fiction from Vietnam, Mongolia, the Philippines, or other
possible candidates for "East Asian".

Don't get me wrong. Each decade I've lived in has been, compared to
every period before it, the golden age of translation into English,
and one of the most frequent occasions for me to experience gratitude
is discovering something translated that didn't used to be. I'm
certainly not accusing translators of falling down on the job, though
I suspect they *are* acting as gatekeepers, and this is part of why
Web novels remain (AFAIK) untranslated. But Japanese light novels
would normally be gatekept, so maybe that's less true than it used to
be, and Web novels will follow soon; this is the sense in which your
remarks are less apple-orangey than I originally thought.

I expect, as part of my voluminous log posting at some date in the
future, to devote one or two posts to Korean pulp spec-fic. Almost
none of it *is* translated - but a few people are posting online that
they've started work on a few of the most famous.examples.

Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein <***@gmail.com>
Ahasuerus
2018-10-29 02:17:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by Ahasuerus
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ?
I am really enjoying the indie authors on Amazon. About half of the
books that I read now are self published.
Possibly. The indie boom to some extent bypasses the gatekeepers to
publish what people want to read more than what they should want to
read. Sort of like the pulp era on steroids. [snip]
The indie boom is certainly a part of it, but there are other ways to
"bypass the gatekeepers" in the internet age. For example, amateur
Web- hosted translations of East Asian Web novels became popular a few
years ago. They were mostly subpar; some were literally
machine-translated gibberish. However, their popularity paved the way
for a whole mini- industry translating and publishing licensed
Um?
I'm pretty sure "East Asian Web novels" > and not ~ "Japanese light
novels". (That is, set A is bigger than set B, but set B still has
things in it that aren't in set A. Most Japanese light novels known
to me weren't originally Web novels, but I don't pretend to be an
expert on the category.) I think you're sort of comparing apples and
oranges here, but not entirely. [snip]
The translated East Asian Web novels that I referred to earlier included
Chinese, Japanese and Korean Web novels. Some other (Thai, Filipino,
Vietnamese, Malaysian, Indonesian, Khmer) Web novels are also available
in English, but I am not familiar with them -- see
https://www.novelupdates.com/series-finder/ for a handy interface which
lets you find Web novels translated from different languages.

The recent increase in the number of Japanese light novels being
officially translated in the US doesn't seem to have affected Chinese
and Korean works, at least not appreciably. I don't know why that is,
but it shouldn't alter my point, which is as follows.

Numerous Japanese light novels have been translated over the years,
but the recent explosion is on a whole different level. Heck, J-Novel
Club (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?60910) pretty much
sticks to "isekai" stories (portal fantasies) exclusively and they
publish dozens of books a year. Not only does this explosion follow the
rise of fan-translated Web novels (and, to some extent, fan-translated
light novels), but the new players pay close attention to what the fans
want. For example, Seven Seas (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/publisher.cgi?4323)
runs regular surveys to determine which series their customers want to
see licensed. Naturally, surveys would be pointless if fans weren't
familiar with unlicensed, fan-translated versions of the properties in
question.

I would guess that by now the majority of megapopular WNs/LNs have been
licensed in the US. Mushoku Tensei was the last fan favorite to get an
official translation earlier this year. Of course, there will always be
new works which will remain unlicensed for a certain period of time after
becoming popular, e.g. _I Was a Sword When I Reincarnated_.
Joe Bernstein
2018-10-29 19:49:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[Booms and gatekeepers]
Post by Ahasuerus
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by Ahasuerus
The indie boom is certainly a part of it, but there are other ways
to "bypass the gatekeepers" in the internet age. For example,
amateur Web- hosted translations of East Asian Web novels became
popular a few years ago. They were mostly subpar; some were
literally machine-translated gibberish. However, their popularity
paved the way for a whole mini- industry translating and publishing
Um?
I'm pretty sure "East Asian Web novels" > and not ~ "Japanese light
novels". (That is, set A is bigger than set B, but set B still has
things in it that aren't in set A. Most Japanese light novels known
to me weren't originally Web novels, but I don't pretend to be an
expert on the category.) I think you're sort of comparing apples and
oranges here, but not entirely. [snip]
[Not entirely because a boom in licensed translations of Japanese
light novels, which had in the past been gatekept, might portend a
forthcoming boom in licensed translations of East Asian Web novels,
which are still being gatekept, sez me.]
Post by Ahasuerus
The translated East Asian Web novels that I referred to earlier
included Chinese, Japanese and Korean Web novels. Some other (Thai,
Filipino, Vietnamese, Malaysian, Indonesian, Khmer) Web novels are
also available in English, but I am not familiar with them -- see
https://www.novelupdates.com/series-finder/ for a handy interface
which lets you find Web novels translated from different languages.
Thanks! That gave me a couple of hours' fun playing with numbers.

I got numbers of translations offered by language, in the sub-
categories "Light novel" and "Web novel", and all of that over again
with the additional requirement of "Completed". All of this, of
course, relies on competent tagging by the site; I did find one thing
with a Japanese title, but Korean character names, as I paged through
the Korean list, but that's as much quality control as I attempted.

Anyway. The site lists 2003 Japanese projects, 1823 Chinese, 208
Korean, 36 Filipino, 18 Indonesian, 15 Thai, 5 Malaysian,
3 Vietnamese, and 1 Khmer. The entire tail added together doesn't
equal Korean; the entire tail plus Korean doesn't equal Chinese; but
everything else does surpass Japanese, which I hadn't expected *at
all*, especially given all those romanised-Japanese genre names the
site uses.

So that's 49% Japanese, 44% Chinese, 5% Korean, and somewhat less
than 2% everything else. This doesn't quite line up with these
languages' respective prominence online.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_used_on_the_Internet>

For projects tagged as completed, it's 53% Japanese, 41% Chinese, 3%
Korean, 2% Filipino, and 1% everything else. I read completion as
representing two opposed things: a higher proportion completed means
the fans are more dedicated to translating, but a lower proportion
means the fans are more continuously dedicated (since they're still
starting new projects). Over a third of Filipino projects are
completed, exactly a third of Vietnamese, followed by Malaysian,
Japanese, Indonesian, Chinese, Korean last at 11.5%. There are no
completed projects in Khmer or Thai.

The only Khmer project is tagged as a "light novel". Otherwise, each
language has projects tagged neither as "light novel" nor as "Web
novel". It's mathematically possible that most Japanese projects
have one of these labels, but I'm pretty sure there's a lot of
overlap (suggesting a basis for your apparent belief that the "light"
and "Web" novel categories are linked) in which case many other
projects would have neither. Nearly 90% of Chinese projects are
tagged as "Web novels". 62% of Korean projects are so tagged, but
only a minority of the non-Khmer little languages. Japanese has lots
of "light novels", Chinese a few, Khmer and Indonesian one; the other
languages list none.

Back to my remarks that you snipped: I didn't recognise a single
Korean project listed as underlying a drama. It's been roughly a
year since I finished reading tons of drama summaries at various
websites, so I've had time to forget plenty, but I didn't expect this.
There were a few which could conceivably relate to dramas known to me,
but in some of those cases, I know the drama to have been based on a
comic, not a novel, so it looks like these projects represent at best
siblings rather than parents of the dramas.

Anent recent remarks of mine elsethread, the *overwhelming* majority
of the Korean works listed appear to be speculative. This suggests
one of two things: a) Yes, Korean publishing is heavily gatekept, so
writers of spec-fic go online to do it; or b) Koreans who write
online are more interested in spec-fic than other Koreans. The fact
that many of the titles and descriptions I saw refer to gaming-
specific concepts strongly suggests b); I didn't think of it just to
contrarianly avoid a), which is after all an extension of what I said
elsethread.
Post by Ahasuerus
The recent increase in the number of Japanese light novels being
officially translated in the US doesn't seem to have affected Chinese
and Korean works, at least not appreciably. I don't know why that is,
I'm not sure the category "light novel" exists in South Korea (and
am reasonably sure it doesn't exist in North Korea). I've never
encountered the concept in a Korean connection.

Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein <***@gmail.com>
Ahasuerus
2018-10-29 23:18:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, October 29, 2018 at 3:49:20 PM UTC-4, Joe Bernstein wrote:
[snip-snip]
your apparent belief that the "light" and "Web" novel categories are
linked
Here is what the ideal sequence of events looked like in the early-mid
2010s:

1. An Aspiring Light Novel Author (ALNA for short) decides to write a
novel.
2. In the past he may have entered a publisher-sponsored competition
whose winner was going to be published. In the 2010s he is more likely
to post his work on a Japanese Web Novel (WN) Web site like "Shosetsuka
ni Naro" ("Let's Become a Novelist" --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh%C5%8Dsetsuka_ni_Nar%C5%8D)
3. ALNA's work becomes popular among the site's users and rises to the
top of the charts.
4. A Japanese LN publisher notices ALNA's work and offers ALNA a
contract to publish the text as a light novel (LN).
5. The publisher's editors help ALNA clean up and improve the text. The
amount of rewriting varies drastically depending on the property.
Sometimes a particular character becomes popular with the fans, so the
LN version beefs up her presence. Side stories are frequently thrown in.
Illustrations are almost invariably added. Etc.
6. The LN version is published and becomes a commercial success. More
volumes come out in Japan.
7. Either the WN version or the LN version is noticed by amateur
translators or translator groups. One or more translated versions of the
WN (and/or the LN if it's already been published) are posted on the
translator's/translators' Web site.
8. Aggregator sites like the previously linked novelupdates.com link to
the translated version(s).
9. The translated version becomes popular.
10. An English language publisher contacts the author and/or his
Japanese publisher and licences the LN version.
11. A professionally translated version of the LN comes out in English.

Of course, things don't always work out the way they would in an ideal
world. Sometimes certain steps are skipped or happen out of order.
Other times things peter out half way through the process because the
series fails to take off. Life happens.
rrhersh@acme.com
2018-10-31 14:35:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
I am really enjoying the indie authors on Amazon. About half of the
books that I read now are self published. Specifically, I am reading
_The Singularity Trap_ by Dennis Taylor and enjoying the hound out of
it. I loved his Bobiverse books and the inter-dimensional book.
https://www.amazon.com/Singularity-Trap-Dennis-Taylor/dp/1680680889/
Possibly. The indie boom to some extent bypasses the gatekeepers to
publish what people want to read more than what they should want to read.
Sort of like the pulp era on steroids.
The indie boom and pulps: This is very much on point. If you look at the history of the novel, in the 18th century it was low-prestige light entertainment for persons who were literate and could afford to buy or rent books. The novel spread in both directions on the prestige ladder. In the 19th century you see self-consciously literary novels, while at the same time as technology made cheaper books possible you saw the dime novel of even lower prestige than those 18th century gothic romances.

This low end flourished in the early 20th century in pulp magazines. The latter half of the century was the era of the mass market paperback, which was embraced at the higher end of the prestige range as a supplement to traditional hardbacks, and at the lower end as a replacement for pulp magazines. As a result there was not a discrete division between high and low prestige fiction. Some useful distinctions include books marketed by publisher rather than author (e.g. Harlequin Romances and, to a lesser extent, Ace Doubles); and books published exclusively in mass market paperback versus books initially published in hardback.

With the indie revolution of about ten years ago, traditional publishers of the low end of the prestige range became redundant. Their value added to both authors and readers had been production of the physical book and access to the distribution system. Both suddenly became irrelevant. In theory they also added value through the editorial process, but at this end of the prestige range they hadn't added all that much value.

So what we see with indie authors is a combination: (1) Authors who made their reputations in the old days and have gone indie, either because they were midlist authors who were dropped by their publisher or simply because they can make more money this way; and (2) Pure indie authors scrambling to make their names with readers.

It turns out that there is a small body of readers whose primary leisure activity is reading genre fiction in vast quantities. Capture a slice of this market and you can do well. But this market is very price sensitive, so you can't charge much. And it isn't really all that large a market in absolute terms, and there is a lot of competition for it. So to make a living off of it an author needs not only to capture that slice of market share, but then to keep a steady stream of product coming out of the pipeline. Look at any successful indie author and calculate how many novels they are putting out per year.

From the reader's perspective, the obvious problem of indie books is that you are paying for the privilege of reading the slush pile. The thing is, this was never major value added at the low end of the prestige range. Kilgore Trout's fiction being used as filler for pornographic magazines is a comic exaggeration, but not entirely baseless. There is, and always has been, a substantial market for essentially unedited fiction. For these readers, we are indeed in a Golden Age.

My take on the publishing industry is that it has lost this piece of the pie, and it isn't going to get it back. Traditional publishing has nothing to offer either the writers or the readers. But higher up the ladder, the various editing functions matter more. Among the indie crowd they spit when they say "gatekeeper." As a reader, I want my gatekeepers.

Also worth noting is that the indie revolution is mostly confined to commercial fiction. It has made only minor inroads into nonfiction, and there it is mostly stuff like self-help and memoirs, which are the most fiction-like of nonfiction books. You want a history of the Thirty Years War? Look to traditional publishers

So the upshot is that while traditional publishing has lost a big chunk of the pie, I think that phase is done, and the lines between indie and traditional publishing have stabilized.

For myself, I am at a stage of life where I am more limited by time than money. Ten dollars for a good book is cheap. One dollar for a bad one is overpriced. So, for that matter, is free. And I while I understand the appeal of the sort of book that seeks to grab you on the first page, I also note the many books important in my life that do no such thing. No one, after all, would say that "A Long-Expected Party" grabs you and sucks you in.

Richard R. Hershberger
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2018-10-31 15:05:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@acme.com
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
I am really enjoying the indie authors on Amazon. About half of the
books that I read now are self published. Specifically, I am reading
_The Singularity Trap_ by Dennis Taylor and enjoying the hound out of
it. I loved his Bobiverse books and the inter-dimensional book.
https://www.amazon.com/Singularity-Trap-Dennis-Taylor/dp/1680680889/
Possibly. The indie boom to some extent bypasses the gatekeepers to
publish what people want to read more than what they should want to read.
Sort of like the pulp era on steroids.
The indie boom and pulps: This is very much on point. If you look at the history of the novel, in the 18th century it was low-prestige light entertainment for persons who were literate and could afford to buy or rent books. The novel spread in both directions on the prestige ladder. In the 19th century you see self-consciously literary novels, while at the same time as technology made cheaper books possible you saw the dime novel of even lower prestige than those 18th century gothic romances.
This low end flourished in the early 20th century in pulp magazines. The latter half of the century was the era of the mass market paperback, which was embraced at the higher end of the prestige range as a supplement to traditional hardbacks, and at the lower end as a replacement for pulp magazines. As a result there was not a discrete division between high and low prestige fiction. Some useful distinctions include books marketed by publisher rather than author (e.g. Harlequin Romances and, to a lesser extent, Ace Doubles); and books published exclusively in mass market paperback versus books initially published in hardback.
Then the consolidation of the distributors in the 90s killed most of
the midlist.
Post by ***@acme.com
With the indie revolution of about ten years ago, traditional publishers of the low end of the prestige range became redundant.
Hardly so. It became possible for those not trad published to GET
published, and for trad authors who had stuff not accepted to also get
it published, but it didn't in any way make them redundant. Dear lord no.
Post by ***@acme.com
Their value added to both authors and readers had been production of the physical book and access to the distribution system. Both suddenly became irrelevant.
You haven't had books published by both methods, I see. Because the
distribution system and its attendant publicity, and the manufacture of
that book and placement on shelves, is STILL publicity that you could
not buy for twenty thousand dollars. Most indy authors sell next to
nothing. Sure, there's a bunch who make a lot of money, but the
percentage of indy authors making a living at it is no better than, and
I suspect is less than, the percentage of trad authors in that category.

And the demographics will be different. The typical successful indy
author has had the time, skill and/or money to devote to promoting
themselves widely and regularly. They are either good at such work or
know, and can afford to hire, people who are good at it.

The typical trad author doesn't have to do nearly so much of that,
because that has traditionally been the publisher's job. They've started
pushing for more of that work in the last few decades, but again -- as I
point out above -- just the FACT of being published by a large trad
publisher is in and of itself publicity and sales promo that most of us
couldn't afford to buy.
Post by ***@acme.com
In theory they also added value through the editorial process, but at this end of the prestige range they hadn't added all that much value.
And HERE I think you demonstrate that you never read slush, because
that's what indy publishing often is: the slush pile made manifest. On
the low end, you see what you get when someone doesn't get an editor at
all, and isn't good at editing themselves -- very, very, very bad
indeed. On the trad side you NEVER saw anything nearly as bad as the
worst you get in indy, because even the worst trad publishers still had
SOME cutoffs -- they still were sending back 9/10ths of everything
submitted, and usually for very good reason,
Post by ***@acme.com
From the reader's perspective, the obvious problem of indie books is that you are paying for the privilege of reading the slush pile. The thing is, this was never major value added at the low end of the prestige range.
Again, have you ever actually READ the slush pile? The worst stuff sold
by a modern trad publisher is LIGHTYEARS above it.
Post by ***@acme.com
So the upshot is that while traditional publishing has lost a big chunk of the pie, I think that phase is done, and the lines between indie and traditional publishing have stabilized.
To that extent you may be right, although I think what will happen
instead is that a new incarnation of trad or very trad-like publishers
will emerge to provide the gatekeeping that even people on the low end
want -- they'll at least want things spelled in a coherent fashion and
events that make sense in sequence if not in the real world in their pulp.
Post by ***@acme.com
For myself, I am at a stage of life where I am more limited by time than money. Ten dollars for a good book is cheap. One dollar for a bad one is overpriced. So, for that matter, is free. And I while I understand the appeal of the sort of book that seeks to grab you on the first page, I also note the many books important in my life that do no such thing. No one, after all, would say that "A Long-Expected Party" grabs you and sucks you in.
Not true there either.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
rrhersh@acme.com
2018-10-31 20:09:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by ***@acme.com
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Lynn McGuire
Are we living in another golden age of SF/F ? I may have asked this
question before but I have slept since then. The amount of SF/F books
out there now is simply amazing.
I am really enjoying the indie authors on Amazon. About half of the
books that I read now are self published. Specifically, I am reading
_The Singularity Trap_ by Dennis Taylor and enjoying the hound out of
it. I loved his Bobiverse books and the inter-dimensional book.
https://www.amazon.com/Singularity-Trap-Dennis-Taylor/dp/1680680889/
Possibly. The indie boom to some extent bypasses the gatekeepers to
publish what people want to read more than what they should want to read.
Sort of like the pulp era on steroids.
The indie boom and pulps: This is very much on point. If you look at the history of the novel, in the 18th century it was low-prestige light entertainment for persons who were literate and could afford to buy or rent books. The novel spread in both directions on the prestige ladder. In the 19th century you see self-consciously literary novels, while at the same time as technology made cheaper books possible you saw the dime novel of even lower prestige than those 18th century gothic romances.
This low end flourished in the early 20th century in pulp magazines. The latter half of the century was the era of the mass market paperback, which was embraced at the higher end of the prestige range as a supplement to traditional hardbacks, and at the lower end as a replacement for pulp magazines. As a result there was not a discrete division between high and low prestige fiction. Some useful distinctions include books marketed by publisher rather than author (e.g. Harlequin Romances and, to a lesser extent, Ace Doubles); and books published exclusively in mass market paperback versus books initially published in hardback.
Then the consolidation of the distributors in the 90s killed most of
the midlist.
Post by ***@acme.com
With the indie revolution of about ten years ago, traditional publishers of the low end of the prestige range became redundant.
Hardly so. It became possible for those not trad published to GET
published, and for trad authors who had stuff not accepted to also get
it published, but it didn't in any way make them redundant. Dear lord no.
Post by ***@acme.com
Their value added to both authors and readers had been production of the physical book and access to the distribution system. Both suddenly became irrelevant.
You haven't had books published by both methods, I see. Because the
distribution system and its attendant publicity, and the manufacture of
that book and placement on shelves, is STILL publicity that you could
not buy for twenty thousand dollars. Most indy authors sell next to
nothing. Sure, there's a bunch who make a lot of money, but the
percentage of indy authors making a living at it is no better than, and
I suspect is less than, the percentage of trad authors in that category.
And the demographics will be different. The typical successful indy
author has had the time, skill and/or money to devote to promoting
themselves widely and regularly. They are either good at such work or
know, and can afford to hire, people who are good at it.
The typical trad author doesn't have to do nearly so much of that,
because that has traditionally been the publisher's job. They've started
pushing for more of that work in the last few decades, but again -- as I
point out above -- just the FACT of being published by a large trad
publisher is in and of itself publicity and sales promo that most of us
couldn't afford to buy.
Post by ***@acme.com
In theory they also added value through the editorial process, but at this end of the prestige range they hadn't added all that much value.
And HERE I think you demonstrate that you never read slush, because
that's what indy publishing often is: the slush pile made manifest. On
the low end, you see what you get when someone doesn't get an editor at
all, and isn't good at editing themselves -- very, very, very bad
indeed. On the trad side you NEVER saw anything nearly as bad as the
worst you get in indy, because even the worst trad publishers still had
SOME cutoffs -- they still were sending back 9/10ths of everything
submitted, and usually for very good reason,
Post by ***@acme.com
From the reader's perspective, the obvious problem of indie books is that you are paying for the privilege of reading the slush pile. The thing is, this was never major value added at the low end of the prestige range.
Again, have you ever actually READ the slush pile? The worst stuff sold
by a modern trad publisher is LIGHTYEARS above it.
Post by ***@acme.com
So the upshot is that while traditional publishing has lost a big chunk of the pie, I think that phase is done, and the lines between indie and traditional publishing have stabilized.
To that extent you may be right, although I think what will happen
instead is that a new incarnation of trad or very trad-like publishers
will emerge to provide the gatekeeping that even people on the low end
want -- they'll at least want things spelled in a coherent fashion and
events that make sense in sequence if not in the real world in their pulp.
Post by ***@acme.com
For myself, I am at a stage of life where I am more limited by time than money. Ten dollars for a good book is cheap. One dollar for a bad one is overpriced. So, for that matter, is free. And I while I understand the appeal of the sort of book that seeks to grab you on the first page, I also note the many books important in my life that do no such thing. No one, after all, would say that "A Long-Expected Party" grabs you and sucks you in.
Not true there either.
I think our disagreement is more about where on the spectrum we are talking about. When I talk about the low end, I mean Harlequin romances and the like. If a writer is capable of producing that level of work in bulk, then self-publishing is a good option. If a reader wants to read that level of work in bulk, then there are lots of cheap self-published books available. Really my point about self-publishing is that, apart from midlist authors migrating there, bulk fiction is as good as it gets. I don't mean to suggest that it is as bad as it gets. This leaves the reader with the problem of sifting through the slush. Mechanisms, however imperfect, such as Goodreads have developed to help with this. I suspect that readers also do a lot of skimming of Kindle Unlimited books, where once you have subscribed the marginal cost of any given book is zero. So download a bunch, start first chapters, and cut bait quickly. At least that is what I would try, were I interested in bulk fiction.
David DeLaney
2018-11-01 17:11:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by ***@acme.com
From the reader's perspective, the obvious problem of indie books is that
you are paying for the privilege of reading the slush pile. The thing is,
this was never major value added at the low end of the prestige range.
Again, have you ever actually READ the slush pile? The worst stuff sold
by a modern trad publisher is LIGHTYEARS above it.
The traditional ObReference here is to the Slushkiller post over at the Making
Light blog, which Google helpfully pulls up as its first answer,
< http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/004641.html > .

Dave, the comments there are also usually quite readable and good to dance to
--
\/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>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Moriarty
2018-10-31 20:59:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 1:35:55 AM UTC+11, ***@acme.com wrote:

<snip>
Post by ***@acme.com
But higher up the ladder, the various editing functions matter more.
Among the indie crowd they spit when they say "gatekeeper." As a reader,
I want my gatekeepers.
Got to agree with this bit. There is a set of books that have not been properly edited, either because the author is going indie or because the author is in a position to demand "I'M FAMOUS AND IMPORTANT. NO EDITING!".

There is another set of books that are readable.

In my experience, the intersection of the two sets is small and not worth my time to explore.

I HAVE read indie books that were great(*), but only after enough other people had read them and spread the word.

(*)Andy Weir's "The Martian" and Catherynne M. Valente's "The Girl Who Circumnavigated Fairyland in a Ship of Her Own Making" both started life as serials on the authors' websites, a chapter at a time.

-Moriarty
Joe Bernstein
2018-11-01 17:24:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@acme.com
The indie boom and pulps: This is very much on point. If you look at
the history of the novel, in the 18th century it was low-prestige
light entertainment for persons who were literate and could afford to
buy or rent books.
I'm not sure, but I *think* as regards the UK, at least, that's not
altogether true. There was too much debate about how people should
live for any single arbiter of prestige to be effective, so although
there certainly were disputes between advocates of the novel and
advocates of sermons as late as Austen's time, I think you'd have to
go back to Defoe to get fiction as clearly "low prestige". Ann
Radcliffe's books are markedly literarily inferior to Frances
Burney's or Austen's, but they were sold in the same market, and when
after her death (admittedly, this is 1826) her unpublished work
appeared, it was in a fancy hardcover with all the imprimaturs of
respectability.

In France, there's the additional issue of censorship. If the King's
mistress reads your book (heck, if she *writes* your book), but it's
banned, is it high prestige or low prestige?

I don't know even that much about fiction in other places at that
time, with the somewhat irrelevant exception of America.
Post by ***@acme.com
This low end flourished in the early 20th century in pulp magazines.
The latter half of the century was the era of the mass market
paperback, which was embraced at the higher end of the prestige range
as a supplement to traditional hardbacks, and at the lower end as a
replacement for pulp magazines. As a result there was not a discrete
division between high and low prestige fiction. Some useful
distinctions include books marketed by publisher rather than author
(e.g. Harlequin Romances and, to a lesser extent, Ace Doubles); and
books published exclusively in mass market paperback versus books
initially published in hardback.
With the indie revolution of about ten years ago, traditional
publishers of the low end of the prestige range became redundant.
Their value added to both authors and readers had been production of
the physical book and access to the distribution system. Both
suddenly became irrelevant. In theory they also added value through
the editorial process, but at this end of the prestige range they
hadn't added all that much value.
I think you're confusing at least three categories which in fact
differ significantly:

a) mass market originals (the Ace Doubles were a down-market version
of these)
b) category fiction (your example of Harlequins)
c) sharecrops (an example you didn't give is "Sweet Valley High";
more on-topically, "The Destroyer")

I also think you miss something important about b) and c), which in
turn points to what value the publishers you think of as low-end in
fact added.

Elsethread I got away with comparing the marriage market to the job
and housing markets, so I'll try that again here with respect to the
writing market. Look low in the job and housing markets, and one
thing that stands out is the extent to which people in them are
subjected to *discipline*. Uniforms, regulated bathroom and smoking
breaks, draconian punishments for tardiness; rules against visitors,
rules about bedtimes, rules about drugs or alcohol. You might think
writing would be different because discipline is mostly about
restraining the physical self, which is irrelevant in writing, but in
fact discipline is pervasive in the lower reaches of traditional
publishing. I don't have time to research this as fully as I'd like,
but it turns out I remembered correctly that in the 1980s as
Harlequin climbed the romance charts it had detailed rules for its
authors:

<https://pictorial.jezebel.com/how-harlequin-became-the-most-famous-name-in-romance-1692048963>

(I couldn't find anything similar from Mills & Boon's early years as
a romance publisher, before Harlequin bought it in 1971.)

As for "Sweet Valley High" (which I know about from much more recent
reading of another series credited to the same notional author,
Francine Pascal, this one spec-ficnal - "Fearless"), the ghostwriters,
who never got any kind of credit (in contrast to another ghostwritten
series of the time, "Animorphs"), wrote to outlines:

<https://www.npr.org/2013/03/07/173722518/lifting-the-veil-the-secret-lives-of-ghostwriters>

And if I had time and memory enough, I could go on. I can't remember
the series title of the military fiction I used to see used copies of
at less classy used bookstores - it isn't Gold Arrow, evidently - but
I'd bet that, and "The Destroyer", and yadda yadda ("Nancy Drew",
"Ellery Queen", um, "Perry Rhodan") all disciplined their writers.

And what that discipline was about was uniformity, which in turn gets
Post by ***@acme.com
It turns out that there is a small body of readers whose primary
leisure activity is reading genre fiction in vast quantities.
The
thing is, this was never major value added at the low end of the
prestige range. Kilgore Trout's fiction being used as filler for
pornographic magazines is a comic exaggeration, but not entirely
baseless. There is, and always has been, a substantial market for
essentially unedited fiction.
What market is that? It certainly is *not* the market for Harlequins,
or for "Sweet Valley High"; those markets weren't at all unedited,
though much of the editing was before, rather than after, the
writing, in the form of instructions to the writers. And if you
look into it, you'll find that the writers usually weren't obvious
slush pile candidates; they haven't all become famous Real Writers,
but they aren't crackpots, they're usually people who could write
well in school and so forth.

What commercial bulk fiction, category fiction, whether with the
relative respectability of named authors (Harlequin) or not ("Sweet
Valley High") - what all this offered was more *predictability*
than you could get in genre fiction, let alone literary fiction.
Predictability is a major value-add for the kinds of readers of
commercial fiction who buy in bulk, and it does *not* come naturally.

Truly unedited fiction in my youth was self-published, just as it is
today. And while you could get some respect if you really published
yourself - I probably knew about Jack Chalker in the 1980s, and
Charles de Lint was just getting started - and could get some indie
cred if you did so in a zine, most self-publishing I *thought of* as
self-publishing in those days was through vanity presses, and was
dismissed with contempt. Vanity publications weren't cheap, and
I can't imagine someone buying them in bulk.

Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein <***@gmail.com>
f***@gmail.com
2018-10-29 07:53:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hi all

What constitutes a Golden / Silver / Bronze / Lead/ Age of SF or SF/F?

Is it merely the quantity of what of what is being published (in which case simple demographics are going to drive us into an Eternal Golden Age) or does it have to do with quality? Does the variety of what is available matter?

I am a big fan of some of the Golden / Silver Age SF writers (the usual suspects if you must know, Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein (although he can be painful at times), P.K. Dick, Ursula La Guin (again sometimes painful). I am sure I haven't been exposed to all of the 'good' Golden Age writers, or even to all that my favorites had to offer (I grew up when my home country had a REAL censorship board, who took their job VERY SERIOUSLY).

These authors all had awesome stories and concepts to introduce us to and the question of the quality the modern stuff comes down to whether or not the new ideas are quite so awe-inspiring. I think people on this group call what I am trying to describe as "Sense of Wonder".

In my readings in the last couple of years I've encountered:

Neal ASher (Polity, Owner, Prador series), and been impressed to highly impressed. Androids, human to machine downloads (machine to human downloads), FREAKING dangerous tech (Jain, the Polity AIs, the Armed Polity AIs, the insane Polity Armed AIs, simple Polity infantry are hideously dangerous) and a little philosophy on what being human (or an AI created in humanity's image) means. And big explosions... some very big explosions.

Chris Wooding's "Tale of Ketty Jay" might not be the height of hard SF physics but are fun, in a Mental Candy Floss sort of way. What Wooding's characters and setting might lack in Sci-Fi-hardness he more than makes up for with mood and personality.

These two authors definitely give me SoW moments (and sometimes even minutes - conclusion of Prador Moon hmm fun). Are they equals of the original Golden Age authors? I don't know. Will Time tell? I don't know.

Are there other authors out there that will give that SoW? Is the new SoW good enough to stand up with the original Golden Age stuff?

Anyway, too many unanswered questions on my part. Sorry.

Regards
Frank
Ahasuerus
2018-10-29 13:21:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
What constitutes a Golden / Silver / Bronze / Lead/ Age of SF or SF/F?
[snip-snip]

From one of my old posts:

The Golden Age started at some point between the fall of 1937
(_Galactic Patrol_ appears, Campbell takes over) and the summer
of 1939 (Campbell publishes van Vogt and Heinlein.)

There is some disagreement as to when the Golden Age ended -- see
http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/golden_age_of_sf (which,
apparently, hasn't been updated since 1992). Personally, I find it
useful to distinguish between the following three periods within
the Golden Age:

1. 1938-1942, a time of great excitement as Campbell raises the
bar, discovers new talented authors and introduces new concepts
like RAH's Future History and the _Unknown_ brand of fantasy.

2. 1942-1946, a relative trough as many authors become inactive
due to the war. _Unknown_, _Future_, _Captain Future_ and a number
of other magazines go under. Other magazines like _Startling
Stories_ and _Fantastic Adventures_ are forced to cut back. Campbell
manages to keep _Astounding_ going, in part by recruiting new (at
least to _Astounding_) authors.

3. 1946-1950, a post-war revival with _Startling_ and _Thrilling
Wonder_ becoming much more serious places (sorry, Seargent Saturn
-- http://fancyclopedia.wikidot.com/sergeant-saturn -- , but you had
to go) and giving _Astounding_ a run for its money. Heinlein tries
to conquer non-pulp markets, but even the stuff that appears in the
pulps is of increasingly higher quality.

1950 was a watershed year: _Galaxy_ and _F&SF_ opened things up
while Campbell launched the Dianetics crusade, the first of what
turned out to be his many forays into pseudoscience. And thus the
Silver Age was born…
D B Davis
2018-10-29 15:13:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ahasuerus
Post by f***@gmail.com
What constitutes a Golden / Silver / Bronze / Lead/ Age of SF or SF/F?
[snip-snip]
The Golden Age started at some point between the fall of 1937
(_Galactic Patrol_ appears, Campbell takes over) and the summer
of 1939 (Campbell publishes van Vogt and Heinlein.)
There is some disagreement as to when the Golden Age ended -- see
http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/golden_age_of_sf (which,
apparently, hasn't been updated since 1992). Personally, I find it
useful to distinguish between the following three periods within
1. 1938-1942, a time of great excitement as Campbell raises the
bar, discovers new talented authors and introduces new concepts
like RAH's Future History and the _Unknown_ brand of fantasy.
2. 1942-1946, a relative trough as many authors become inactive
due to the war. _Unknown_, _Future_, _Captain Future_ and a number
of other magazines go under. Other magazines like _Startling
Stories_ and _Fantastic Adventures_ are forced to cut back. Campbell
manages to keep _Astounding_ going, in part by recruiting new (at
least to _Astounding_) authors.
3. 1946-1950, a post-war revival with _Startling_ and _Thrilling
Wonder_ becoming much more serious places (sorry, Seargent Saturn
-- http://fancyclopedia.wikidot.com/sergeant-saturn -- , but you had
to go) and giving _Astounding_ a run for its money. Heinlein tries
to conquer non-pulp markets, but even the stuff that appears in the
pulps is of increasingly higher quality.
1950 was a watershed year: _Galaxy_ and _F&SF_ opened things up
while Campbell launched the Dianetics crusade, the first of what
turned out to be his many forays into pseudoscience. And thus the
Silver Age was born…
_The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction_ (James and Mendlesohn)
essentially agrees with you. They go on to add the following little
tidbit, which someone smarter than me needs to interpret:

Alexei and Cory Panshin have argued that the driving impulse
of Golden Age sf was a 'quest for transcendence'.


This thread naturally caused me to wonder where _Perry Rhodan_ fits into
_The Cambridge Companion_'s scheme of things? Apparently it does not.
_The Cambridge Companion_ actually neglects to mention the most
successful science fiction book series ever written?!?
How parochial. Maybe _The Cambridge Companion_ ought to qualify the
"Science Fiction" part of its title and use "/British and American/
Science Fiction" instead?



Thank you,
--
Don
Ahasuerus
2018-10-29 15:53:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
Post by Ahasuerus
Post by f***@gmail.com
What constitutes a Golden / Silver / Bronze / Lead/ Age of SF or SF/F?
[snip-snip]
The Golden Age started at some point between the fall of 1937
(_Galactic Patrol_ appears, Campbell takes over) and the summer
of 1939 (Campbell publishes van Vogt and Heinlein.)
There is some disagreement as to when the Golden Age ended -- see
http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/golden_age_of_sf (which,
apparently, hasn't been updated since 1992). Personally, I find it
useful to distinguish between the following three periods within
1. 1938-1942, a time of great excitement as Campbell raises the
bar, discovers new talented authors and introduces new concepts
like RAH's Future History and the _Unknown_ brand of fantasy.
2. 1942-1946, a relative trough as many authors become inactive
due to the war. _Unknown_, _Future_, _Captain Future_ and a number
of other magazines go under. Other magazines like _Startling
Stories_ and _Fantastic Adventures_ are forced to cut back. Campbell
manages to keep _Astounding_ going, in part by recruiting new (at
least to _Astounding_) authors.
3. 1946-1950, a post-war revival with _Startling_ and _Thrilling
Wonder_ becoming much more serious places (sorry, Seargent Saturn
-- http://fancyclopedia.wikidot.com/sergeant-saturn -- , but you had
to go) and giving _Astounding_ a run for its money. Heinlein tries
to conquer non-pulp markets, but even the stuff that appears in the
pulps is of increasingly higher quality.
1950 was a watershed year: _Galaxy_ and _F&SF_ opened things up
while Campbell launched the Dianetics crusade, the first of what
turned out to be his many forays into pseudoscience. And thus the
Silver Age was born…
_The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction_ (James and Mendlesohn)
essentially agrees with you. They go on to add the following little
Alexei and Cory Panshin have argued that the driving impulse
of Golden Age sf was a 'quest for transcendence'.
[snip]

It would be difficult to summarize the Panshins' Hugo-winning magnum
opus _The World Beyond the Hill: Science Fiction and the Quest for
Transcendence_ (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?102340) in a
Usenet post.

As far as their take on the Golden Age goes, they see it as the final
phase of a much longer era. To quote Alexei:

"Transcendence -- that which lies beyond current human knowledge --
is primary. Science fiction -- stories which looked for transcendence
in science beyond the science that we currently know -- was only one
phase of this quest.

Our thinking here follows the mythic scholar Joseph Campbell. His
definition of myth was a metaphor that's transparent to transcendence.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, science-beyond-science was
able to serve as that kind of metaphor. For a time, it seemed that you
could look through "science" and catch a glimpse of infinite
possibility on the other side.

But when rockets and atomic bombs came along in World War II,
suddenly "science" no longer looked quite so exalted. More like a
present actuality with the same compromised nature as everything else
around us. There had to be something more than science that would
provide us with a route to the transcendent.

It was at that point that SF in the larger sense began to look past
the metaphor of unknown science to a new metaphor -- higher states of
human consciousness -- as our route to the transcendent. That's when
you started to get stories of mutant human beings armed with psi powers
standing in the ruins left by atomic war and wondering which way to go."
(https://www.sfsite.com/08a/ap325.htm)
D B Davis
2018-11-02 15:30:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by D B Davis
Post by Ahasuerus
Post by f***@gmail.com
What constitutes a Golden / Silver / Bronze / Lead/ Age of SF or SF/F?
[snip-snip]
The Golden Age started at some point between the fall of 1937
(_Galactic Patrol_ appears, Campbell takes over) and the summer
of 1939 (Campbell publishes van Vogt and Heinlein.)
There is some disagreement as to when the Golden Age ended -- see
http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/golden_age_of_sf (which,
apparently, hasn't been updated since 1992). Personally, I find it
useful to distinguish between the following three periods within
1. 1938-1942, a time of great excitement as Campbell raises the
bar, discovers new talented authors and introduces new concepts
like RAH's Future History and the _Unknown_ brand of fantasy.
2. 1942-1946, a relative trough as many authors become inactive
due to the war. _Unknown_, _Future_, _Captain Future_ and a number
of other magazines go under. Other magazines like _Startling
Stories_ and _Fantastic Adventures_ are forced to cut back. Campbell
manages to keep _Astounding_ going, in part by recruiting new (at
least to _Astounding_) authors.
3. 1946-1950, a post-war revival with _Startling_ and _Thrilling
Wonder_ becoming much more serious places (sorry, Seargent Saturn
-- http://fancyclopedia.wikidot.com/sergeant-saturn -- , but you had
to go) and giving _Astounding_ a run for its money. Heinlein tries
to conquer non-pulp markets, but even the stuff that appears in the
pulps is of increasingly higher quality.
1950 was a watershed year: _Galaxy_ and _F&SF_ opened things up
while Campbell launched the Dianetics crusade, the first of what
turned out to be his many forays into pseudoscience. And thus the
Silver Age was born…
_The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction_ (James and Mendlesohn)
essentially agrees with you. They go on to add the following little
Alexei and Cory Panshin have argued that the driving impulse
of Golden Age sf was a 'quest for transcendence'.
[snip]
It would be difficult to summarize the Panshins' Hugo-winning magnum
opus _The World Beyond the Hill: Science Fiction and the Quest for
Transcendence_ (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?102340) in a
Usenet post.
As far as their take on the Golden Age goes, they see it as the final
"Transcendence -- that which lies beyond current human knowledge --
is primary. Science fiction -- stories which looked for transcendence
in science beyond the science that we currently know -- was only one
phase of this quest.
Our thinking here follows the mythic scholar Joseph Campbell. His
definition of myth was a metaphor that's transparent to transcendence.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, science-beyond-science was
able to serve as that kind of metaphor. For a time, it seemed that you
could look through "science" and catch a glimpse of infinite
possibility on the other side.
But when rockets and atomic bombs came along in World War II,
suddenly "science" no longer looked quite so exalted. More like a
present actuality with the same compromised nature as everything else
around us. There had to be something more than science that would
provide us with a route to the transcendent.
It was at that point that SF in the larger sense began to look past
the metaphor of unknown science to a new metaphor -- higher states of
human consciousness -- as our route to the transcendent. That's when
you started to get stories of mutant human beings armed with psi powers
standing in the ruins left by atomic war and wondering which way to go."
(https://www.sfsite.com/08a/ap325.htm)
Allow me to share something gleaned during my research into myths for
this thread. It comes from _Man and His Symbols_ (Jung).

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a
surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if
they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds,
but in an amazingly stupid way.

Apparently Jung's talking about some of his patients. So, there's a
surprising number of people in Jung's world who never use their minds,
if they can avoid it.
Intentional mindlessness is the antithesis of my own behavior. Be
that as it may, Jung's observation explains some of the crazy people who
do crazy things in this world.

Jung spends a fair amount of time talking about various myth narratives.
But he never really gets down to the definition of myth.
Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers offer some working definitions of
myth. [1] "Myths are the stories of our search through the ages for
truth, for meaning, for significance. ... Myths are clues to the
spiritual potentialities of the human life." _Propaganda_ (Ellul) says
this about the myth:

Through the myth it creates, propaganda imposes a complete range
of intuitive knowledge, susceptible of only one interpretation,
unique and one-sided, and precluding any divergence.
Not only does propaganda seek to invade the whole man, to
lead him to adopt a mystical attitude and reach him through all
possible psychological channels, but, more, it speaks to all
men.

Myths are essential to propaganda. Myths create true believers.
While rumor provides a vector to manipulate true believers. (A method
used by the OSS [2]). It pays to remember Mark Twain's advice:

“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's
what you know for sure that just ain't so.”

Note.

1. http://www.mythsdreamssymbols.com/functionsofmyth.html
2. _The Propaganda Warriors: America's Crusade Against Nazi Germany_
(Laurie)



Thank you,
--
Don
Kevrob
2018-11-03 06:45:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
Myths are essential to propaganda. Myths create true believers.
While rumor provides a vector to manipulate true believers. (A method
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's
what you know for sure that just ain't so.”
Case in point: that isn't from Twain. It's Josh Billings.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/05/30/better-know/

Kevin R

p***@hotmail.com
2018-10-30 20:46:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ahasuerus
Post by f***@gmail.com
What constitutes a Golden / Silver / Bronze / Lead/ Age of SF or SF/F?
[snip-snip]
The Golden Age started at some point between the fall of 1937
(_Galactic Patrol_ appears, Campbell takes over) and the summer
of 1939 (Campbell publishes van Vogt and Heinlein.)
Some have designated the July 1939 issue of _Astounding_, containing
A. E. van Vogt's _Black Destroyer_, as the start of the golden age.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
David Goldfarb
2018-10-30 05:30:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
Are there other authors out there that will give that SoW? Is the new
SoW good enough to stand up with the original Golden Age stuff?
It's been said, "The Golden Age of Science Fiction is twelve."
The new stuff probably won't have the same sense of wonder for
*you*, because you're not the same kind of person you were.
But that doesn't mean it's not out there.

(A fan named Peter Graham, if you want to know.)
--
David Goldfarb |"Understanding is a three-edged sword."
***@gmail.com |
***@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Babylon 5, "Deathwalker"
f***@gmail.com
2018-10-30 06:23:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Goldfarb
(A fan named Peter Graham, if you want to know.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Graham

Which Peter Graham is the fan?

Regards
Frank
Ahasuerus
2018-10-30 14:35:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
Post by David Goldfarb
(A fan named Peter Graham, if you want to know.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Graham
Which Peter Graham is the fan?
http://fancyclopedia.wikidot.com/peter-graham
Loading...