Subject: MISC
>> From _Star Wars: Heir to the Empire_ by Timothy Zahn,
>> Bantam paperback edition, 1991, chapter 10, begining at the
>> top of page 112 and continuing to page 117.
> Well, your comments are right on. (Typically) it's
> developed about as well as a decent writer's first draft.
> But this is copyrighted material. Even with the credit, is
> it appropriate to reproduce so much of it here?
I'm no expert in copyright laws, but as far as I understand it, you *should* be able to reproduce so
long an excerpt in a list such as this, as you don't make money from it and, even if the posting is
distributed, it is not a paper to be submitted for publication or a dissertation. But I may be wrong, though.
>> What makes those books masterpieces? What elements exist in
>> those books that so many others fall short of? Is it the
>> timeliness of the subject, the character development, the
>> originality of the idea...?
> Withstanding the test of time is a good indicator. Time
> passage tends to strip away the faddish light which can make
> a particular book immediately successful and leave only the
> literary qualities for later readers to judge. I'm pleased
> to see "The Dreaming Jewels" make the grade. <sentimental
> sigh> Always did like Sturgeon. I'd have to add something
> of Roger Zelazny's, because of his Jungian tendencies. The
> man had a real way with archetypes.
Too bad that Star Wars is withstanding the test of time quite well, as, whatever its merits are, it is
*not* a masterpiece, in my opinion.
And anyway, Lela, how could you keep THE DREAMING JEWELS out of the list?
> I don't know that Ellison would appeal to today's youth.
> I'd suspect the reading level is too high for a group
> that's cut their teeth on STAR WARS and the current (as you
> say) minimalist style. Do you suppose the average reader
> has a working vocabulary of 300 words?
I admit I have cut my teeth on Andre Norton, Arthur Clarke, Poul Anderson and Isaac Asimov, but even
sticking to english only, MY vocabulary is greater than 300 words, probably closer to 3-4000. And at nearly 34,
I might not be a youth anymore.
But Ellison doesn't appeal me!
>>Then I have another question, but does anybody know *when*
>> were the planets called with those names (I suspect this is
>> one of those questions which cannot have an answer,
>> but...).
>> Umberto Rossi
> After Galileo, wasn't it? Nobody scientific noticed until
> then. I'm always vague about dates and times, but I do know
> the reason why. Until recently Western scientists fancied
> themselves as carrying on a classical tradition, so they
> named everything from Latin or Greek. Then everyone seems
> to have become irreverent, so you see quarks and (?) what do
> you call those particles with different spins? Silly names
> instead.
The five planets that can be seen with the naked eye, from Mercury to Saturn, have ben named this way
long before than Galileo, I believe. But I do not know how and when.
>>Lela, tesoro, it should. Can coach you, if you want. :)
>> Nicola
> Probably wouldn't help my accent much. <g> What's your
> mailcode? It doesn't come through on the posting.
Do you mean, my email address? [log in to unmask]
========================
Subject: Re: Science Fiction Art & Artists
>> Usually, I don't pay much attention to covers. Oh,
>> it may attract my attention, and I pick up the book
>> beginning to go through the cover leaves and the pages, but
>> I can't honestly say I remember many covers... Just a few
>> by Michael Whelan and by Boris Vallejo.
>> My mind is word-oriented, not figure-oriented, I'm
>> afraid.
> Nicola,
> Have you seen the cover for "The Iron Dragon's
> Daughter" by Michael Swanwick. Great stuff from Dorian
> Vallejo.
No, I don't think I have seen it. At least, I don't remember. I'm text-oriented, not cover-oriented.
:::lopsided smile:::
========================
Subject: Re: Science Fiction Art & Artists
> When I am choosing a book (and not looking for a title which
> has been recommended me, or a new book by an author whom
> previously pleased me), I grab books off the shelf at
> random. I read the first page. If the first page intrigues
> me, I might read the first three pages. If those pages
> intrigue me, I look at the organisation of the book. I like
> books with epilogues and prologues, divided into three
> parts, with lyrically-named chapters. I like a minimum of
> dialogue, and prose that seduces. If the book meets enough
> of those criteria to suit my mood for that particular day, I
> buy it.
This is about the way I choose a new, unknown book by an unknown (to me) author, Chas & list. I grab
it, I look at the summary in the back cover (or whatever it is called in english), then I read the first page
and leaf through it. If I like it, I buy it otherwise it stays on the shelf.
> This does suggest another topic for the list. What _most_
> makes you buy a book? The recommendation of a friend, a
> critic, the cover, or familiarity with the author? Or some
> other factor(s)?
Either how much I like what I read standing in front of the bookstore shelf or the familiarity of the
author. Unless I'm buying by mail, in which I'm shooting quite blindly... Unless I already know about the book
on the basis of previous experiences.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Star Wars novels - Part 2
>> There is a thing called willful suspension of disbelief,
>> and it might be time for you to excercise it. <Grabbing the
>> soapbox> Every once in a while, it's nice just to relax and
>> enjoy reading a book. When I'm at work, I have to think;
>> when I'm at home at the end of the day, I just want to kick
>> back. I have no desire to read critically or analyze the
>> flaws in the book. I'm only interested in how well the book
>> performs it's task of entertainment.
> You said something very important here. Maybe work is what
> separates the readers of this list. I usually have a boring
> job. There isn't much opportunity to think at all. I like
> to think. For me, to be entertained is to be able to
> exercise those intellectual muscles (which aren't worked
> otherwise). If I want to be immersed in stupidity, I don't
> have to open a book. Life guarantees that my quota of
> stupidity will always be met, and then exceeded.
> Does anyone think that there is any correlation?
No, Chas, I don't think that the correlation is very strong. Even when I worked the hardest, when I
want to read a book, I want a challenging book that makes me think. It can be a science fiction book or a
biology textbook, but I want to think. And I want the complexity and the stimulus to think in character and
plot development instead in the language quirks! Italian politicians have done wonderfully in killing any
appreciation I could have had for ornate language.
========================
Subject: Condemnation (was Star Wars Novels)
> 7 You condemn the author for plot inconsistencies and poor
> scene setting, yet the same accusations can be made against
> such authors as E E "Doc" Smith and others of the "he
> grabbed a handy blaster" school of SF. The same "space
> opera" authors are now held by some as "deities" (well
> almost) in the world of SF and their works regarded as
> "classic" _despite_ their faults.
And this is a sad thing, John. These books should have been let to die obscurely and peacefully...
> Lots ( and mean LOTS ) of people like them, just as lots of
> people like " The Young and the gormless" ( or whatever it
> is called :-) ). Remember that 90% crap rule ( Sturgeon's
> Law ? ), correct grammar _never_ made a bad book worthy just
> as incorrect grammar doesn't make a good product bad.
John, incorrect grammar surely helps in downgrading a book. And also quite a lot. I spent a lifetime
using italian, 8 years studying french, an 15 years honing english, and I'm trying hard to use correct grammar
and synthaxis for each. And I'm no writer.
Why should a writer be excused for not knowing what are fundamental skills of his/her trade? If I can't
be excused for not using grammar and synthaxis correctly, neither can a writer. It's a matter of respect for
each other and for oneself! Too ornate a style makes me throw a book against next wall, but incorrect use of
grammar and synthaxis makes me throw it in the waste-basket.
========================
Subject: Re: MISC
> I suppose it is only because I am a medievalist that I am
> appalled that anyone can think that "nobody scientific
> noticed until then". Nothing personal intended! All Galileo
> did was, by cheating (he used a telescope!), discover that
> Jupiter had moons.
Using a telescope to discover Jupiter's moon, Venus' phases and Saturn Rings was *NOT* cheating, Mr.
James! Galileo was simply the first or one of the firsts to use telescope for astronomical purpose.
Would you say that today's use of Computerized Axial Tomography or Nuclear Magnetic Resonance for
research and diagnosis is cheating, just because they weren't available up to 20-30 years ago?
========================
Subject: Re: Condemnation (was Star Wars Novels)
>> Now, I am not trying to start a flame war here, I do not
>> feel qualified to enter into a debate on the relative
>> merits of this type of work. My point is that, I don't
>> think _anyone_, on this list, or in general, should be the
>> arbiter of either taste or quality.
> While I agree that it would be futile to try to promote
> oneself as an arbiter of taste, I do think that some of us
> can claim to be arbiters of quality. My second Master's
> degree is in English, and I have published several articles
> in refereed scholarly journals and in books. I think that
> these qualifications enable me to speak more authoritatively
> about literature, on this list and in general, than readers
> who boast that they do not read critically and who have not
> matched my achievements. In the same way, I defer to others
> who have studied and published in other fields, when I find
> myself in conversation with them.
Oh, well, Fiona, I'm just a reader, and my studies have been in everything BUT literature and literary
theory, but *I* am the final arbiter of my tastes and ideas, whether right or wrong these ideas are, and
educated or non-educated I am.
Sure, I should defer to experts with master's degrees and PhDs and so on, but *my* qualification is
that I have always been an avid reader (in this case of SF/fantasy/horror), so I think I'm entitled to an
opinion on what I read, just because I've read it and thought about it, and to state that opinion. Sometimes I
got kicked, sometimes praised for these ideas, sometimes I changed them, sometimes I didn't.
And, wrong or right that such an attitude is, it's up to me to decide how much I'm impressed by
somebody's degrees and publications. There is also something called "quality" of a publication, and I've read
some microbiology papers published in respected journals that should have been laughed at during the rejection
process. Experts may be proven wrong and laypeople may be proven right, sometimes.
Oh, this is not a personal attack, btw. :)
========================
Subject: The Star Wars' wars
> I had joined the SF Lit list because supposedly it existed
> for the discussion of matters science fictional, including,
> but not restricted to, the criticism of SF prose. In fact,
> I had assumed that this list would be inhabited primarily by
> teachers, critics, authors, scholars, librarians, and
> researchers who were either actively involved in the life of
> the SF discipline or aspired to be so. I am not at all
> convinced that this is the case, and Mr. Prendergast's post
> has nearly eliminated my last shred of doubt in this matter.
Rick, common readers outnumber all the other categories you quoted. On a statistical basis, you should
have expected that many of them subscribed to the list...
> What I mean by this is that all too much (for my tastes
> anyway) of the talk on this list is, I'm afraid, trivial,
> self-evident, uninformed, irrelevant, anti-intellectual, or
> just plain nasty and mean-spirited (and I think all those
> adjectives apply to Mr. Prendergast's comments). It is for
> this reason that I have hesitated for over two weeks to post
> some work I have been doing on a taxonomy of SF themes; it
> is also why I have considered at least taking a long break
> from this list -- I simply can't afford to read a hundred
> messages a day when only 15-20 possess much substance.
> This is not, I hope, itself a plea for censorship; I simply
> wonder if we might not review the mandate of this list and
> on that basis empower Ms. Stumbaugh to greater vigilence in
> her task of sifting and winnowing.
Unfortunately, you're right here. Much of the talk here is "trivial, self-evident, uninformed,
irrelevant, anti-intellectual, or just plain nasty and mean-spirited". I hope I haven't been anti-intellectual,
nasty and mean-spirited in my postings, and I am guilty for having been trivial, self-evident, uninformed,
irrelevant.
But: #1) I don't think it is Ms Stumbaugh's job to sift and winnow in our place. It's OUR job. Ms.
Kelleghan's, Mr. Rossi's, Ms. Buis, Mr. Resnick, yours, mine. Therefore, I so move that Ms Stumbaugh is NOT
empowered to greater vigilance.
#2) As I suspect Ms. Stumbaugh is *not* paid exclusively to moderate this list, I'm inclined to think
she's doing a great job. (I'm also partial to the current way she's doing it: I never had a posting killed!
<G>)
#3) I'm no specialist, and I would be saddened if I can't post on this list just because the moderator
thinks my posting fall short of his/her/its standards.
By the way, when will you post your ideas on the possible fascistic elements in Clarke's "Childhood's
End"? I'm surely interested in hearing them.
========================
Subject: the names of the planets
> And here I must confess to some lack of knowledge: Saturn,
> the sixth planet, was the first one (not visible to the
> naked eye) discovered, and I believe it was Christiaan
> Huygens around 1660 who first observed it.
Rick, I beg your pardon, but you've lost me. Saturn is one of the planets visible with the naked eye,
and one that was known since antiquity. On this light, your sentence here is nonsensical.
========================
Subject: Re: Star Wars novels - Part 2
> go figure - "de gustibus non est disputandum" (lest nicola &
> umberto think i'm totally without refinement...)
I don't know about Umberto, but I never said that! :) (Probably, Umberto didn't either.)
Nicola
|