Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #439287 > unrolled thread

How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction?

Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written

Contents

  How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? lal_truckee <lal_truckee@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-01 09:56 -0700
    Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2016-05-01 13:27 -0400
      Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? lal_truckee <lal_truckee@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-01 11:05 -0700
        Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 06:41 -0700
          Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2016-05-04 13:03 -0400
            Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 06:19 -0700
    Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> - 2016-05-01 18:26 +0000
      Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? lal_truckee <lal_truckee@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-01 13:42 -0700
        Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-05-01 18:44 -0500
          Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> - 2016-05-02 01:45 +0000
    Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-01 22:06 -0700
      Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Don Kuenz <garbage@crcomp.net> - 2016-05-02 16:55 +0000
        Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 10:07 -0700
          Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-03 10:13 -0700
            Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-05-07 16:05 +0000
              Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-05-07 10:33 -0700
    Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 08:26 -0700
      Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2016-05-02 12:41 -0400
    Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Shawn Wilson <ikonoqlast@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 11:28 -0700
    Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2016-05-03 21:12 -0600
    Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2016-05-05 16:34 -0500
      Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> - 2016-05-05 15:20 -0700
        Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2016-05-05 17:39 -0500
          Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2016-05-05 17:46 -0500
            Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2016-05-05 16:00 -0700
              Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2016-05-05 18:12 -0500
              Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2016-05-06 10:19 +0800
                Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2016-05-05 20:10 -0700
                  Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2016-05-06 01:56 -0400
                  Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) - 2016-05-06 05:51 +0000
                    Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-06 13:47 -0700
                      Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) - 2016-05-07 01:08 +0000
                        Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-06 19:25 -0700
                    Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2016-05-06 20:43 -0700
                Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Juho Julkunen <giaotanj@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-06 16:00 +0300
          Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2016-05-06 13:06 -0400
            Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2016-05-06 13:03 -0500
          Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Don Kuenz <garbage@crcomp.net> - 2016-05-06 22:51 +0000
        Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Moriarty <blues95@ivillage.com> - 2016-05-05 16:24 -0700
          Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2016-05-05 21:10 -0600
            Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2016-05-06 13:05 -0500
          Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2016-05-06 16:58 -0400
        Re: How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction? Ahasuerus <ahasuerus@email.com> - 2016-05-05 17:00 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#439287 — How Well-Read Are You in Science Fiction?

Lists of lists of lists over at SF Signal:
<http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2016/04/how-well-read-are-you-in-science-fiction/>

specifically I indicate James Wallace Harris' list 
<http://classics.jameswallaceharris.com/ByRank.php>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#439292

On Sun, 1 May 2016 09:56:50 -0700, lal_truckee
<lal_truckee@yahoo.com> wrote
in<news:ng5ca4$497$1@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:

> Lists of lists of lists over at SF Signal:
> <http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2016/04/how-well-read-are-you-in-science-fiction/>

> specifically I indicate James Wallace Harris' list 
> <http://classics.jameswallaceharris.com/ByRank.php>

I don’t remember anything about some of them, but I’ve read
about three-quarters of this list; most of the ones that
I’m missing are old (e.g., Shelley, Wells, Stapledon).
I’ve seen much worse lists.

Brian
-- 
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties.  The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#439294

On 5/1/16 10:27 AM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> I’ve seen much worse lists.

That's what I thought, and why I posted the link so we all can play in 
this particular sandbox.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#439540

I suppose one of us who's down around 79 should speak up.  [I've read the sf of Poe, Wells, Weinbaum, and Kornbluth, so I'm claiming the story equivalents of those specific books.]

As an advocate for the heart of science fiction being in its shorter works I'm glad to see a score of straight-up anthologies or collections on the list, as well as about an equal number of "novels" that are either fix-ups or expansion of shorter works.  It might be interesting to see what the most notable story is that escaes this net...

-- 
-Jack

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#439555

On Wed, 4 May 2016 06:41:44 -0700 (PDT), Jack Bohn
<jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:079d8b2e-077f-49f2-aa47-15a284772e21@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> As an advocate for the heart of science fiction being in
> its shorter works I'm glad to see a score of straight-up
> anthologies or collections on the list, as well as about
> an equal number of "novels" that are either fix-ups or
> expansion of shorter works.  It might be interesting to
> see what the most notable story is that escaes this
> net... 

I prefer works of at least substantial novella length, a
preference that has increased over the years, but there
have always been a few short stories that stood out; almost
none of them made it onto that list.  An exception, one
that’s way up on my shortlist, is Sturgeon’s ‘A Saucer of
Loneliness’, which is in _E Pluribus Unicorn_.  Another
exception, not quite so high on my list, is ‘A Way of
Thinking’, also in that collection.

‘Call Him Lord’ (Dickson), ‘Kyrie’ and ‘The Visitor’
(Anderson), ‘The Man Who Loved the Faioli’ (Zelazny), ‘Come
Lady Death’ (Beagle), ‘A Planet Named Shayol’ (Cordwainer
Smith), ‘Old Hundredth’ (Aldiss), ‘--All You Zombies--’ and
‘The Man Who Traveled in Elephants’ (Heinlein), ‘Child of
All Ages’ (Plauger), perhaps ‘Time Considered as a Helix of
Semi-Precious Stones’ (Delany) -- none of these seems to be
there.

Brian
-- 
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties.  The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#439613

I took The Science Fiction Hall of Fame to be the whole series.  Volume I and II A and B were kinda/sorta proto-Retro Nebulas, but eventually a Volume III came out with the Nebula winners of the early years.  (Apparently a Volume IV came out with more winners.)  There one can find Dickson's "Call Him Lord" and Delany's "Time Considered as...".

When I was entering the parameters "everybody knows," and "not anthologized where someone would look for a 'core text'," my brain shot back with "'To Serve Man', I betcha!"  Which led my thoughts to that other small fry, Fredric Brown's "The Answer" and on like that.

-- 
-Jack

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#439298

On 2016-05-01, lal_truckee <lal_truckee@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lists of lists of lists over at SF Signal:
><http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2016/04/how-well-read-are-you-in-science-fiction/>
>
> specifically I indicate James Wallace Harris' list 
><http://classics.jameswallaceharris.com/ByRank.php>

That (to me) is an excellent list; it's much better than the typical
list I see.  It's science fiction only (not fantasy), it has a very
strong bias for older works (and seems to be old itself - nothing in
the past 23 years), and emphasizes British works a bit much.  But it
still does a very nice job overall.

Most of my personal top books are somewhere in the list.  _Cyteen_ is
the only one missing that I would argue strongly for.  _The Dragon
Never Sleeps_ is the other book older than 1990 in my top 10 that is
missing, but I regard that as an idiosyncratic choice; it won't hit
others the way it hit me.  I was surprised to see a bunch of other
personal top 200 favorites that I normally don't see in lists like
this (e.g. _Dying Inside_, _Ubik_, _A Mirror for Observers_,
_Pavane_,_Bug Jack Barron_, _Under Pressure_)

In the top 100, I've read all but _The World Below_(53) and 
_The Hampdenshire Wonder_(84), and possibly the particular collection of HG
Wells short stories (71).  I've read most of the books ranked 101-193, but 
some of them seem a bit random (while others are excellent and in my 
top 10).  Is it really worthwhile reading _Final Blackout_(170) 
by L. Ron Hubbard?

Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#439312

On 5/1/16 11:26 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2016-05-01, lal_truckee <lal_truckee@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Lists of lists of lists over at SF Signal:
>> <http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2016/04/how-well-read-are-you-in-science-fiction/>
>>
>> specifically I indicate James Wallace Harris' list
>> <http://classics.jameswallaceharris.com/ByRank.php>
>
> That (to me) is an excellent list; it's much better than the typical
> list I see.  It's science fiction only (not fantasy), it has a very
> strong bias for older works (and seems to be old itself - nothing in
> the past 23 years), and emphasizes British works a bit much.  But it
> still does a very nice job overall.
>
> Most of my personal top books are somewhere in the list.  _Cyteen_ is
> the only one missing that I would argue strongly for.  _The Dragon
> Never Sleeps_ is the other book older than 1990 in my top 10 that is
> missing, but I regard that as an idiosyncratic choice; it won't hit
> others the way it hit me.  I was surprised to see a bunch of other
> personal top 200 favorites that I normally don't see in lists like
> this (e.g. _Dying Inside_, _Ubik_, _A Mirror for Observers_,
> _Pavane_,_Bug Jack Barron_, _Under Pressure_)
>
> In the top 100, I've read all but _The World Below_(53) and
> _The Hampdenshire Wonder_(84), and possibly the particular collection of HG
> Wells short stories (71).  I've read most of the books ranked 101-193, but
> some of them seem a bit random (while others are excellent and in my
> top 10).  Is it really worthwhile reading _Final Blackout_(170)
> by L. Ron Hubbard?

I'm a bit off the pace - 21 of first 25, 71 of 100, but only 45 of the 
second hundred.

I'm also gratified you mentioned _Under Pressure_, long a favorite of 
mine but seldom mentioned even when discussing Herbert. I must have read 
it shortly after publication in 1956 - for some reason it stuck in my 
golden age memory.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#439353

On 2016-05-01, lal_truckee <lal_truckee@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 5/1/16 11:26 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> On 2016-05-01, lal_truckee <lal_truckee@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> specifically I indicate James Wallace Harris' list
>>> <http://classics.jameswallaceharris.com/ByRank.php>
>>
>> That (to me) is an excellent list; it's much better than the typical
>> list I see.  It's science fiction only (not fantasy), it has a very
>> strong bias for older works (and seems to be old itself - nothing in
>> the past 23 years), and emphasizes British works a bit much.  But it
>> still does a very nice job overall.

Agreed. Reading it, and I'm only down to about 40, has put me in my happy
place. Why, it might even cheer Terry up!

>> In the top 100, I've read all but _The World Below_(53) and
>> _The Hampdenshire Wonder_(84), and possibly the particular collection of HG
>> Wells short stories (71).  I've read most of the books ranked 101-193, but
>> some of them seem a bit random (while others are excellent and in my
>> top 10).  Is it really worthwhile reading _Final Blackout_(170)
>> by L. Ron Hubbard?

Maybe.

I have missed a few; topmost was _The Disposses[s]ed_, which I own but have
never gotten to yet.

... I am VERY glad to see that _Flowers for Algernon_ ranks so far below
_More Than Human_, _City_, _Ringworld_, _Childhood's End_, and _The Stars My
Destination_, for personal-taste reasons. This guy is obviously well-read
(extremely so) in the field, so hasn't fallen prey to the 'the few SF classics
that 'literature' has embraced are obviously the Very Best Ones Evar' fallacy.

Dave, wait, Cordwainer Smith is -80-? HERESYYYY

ps: I see what you mean about British-tilted...

pps: I find it amusing that the best work of Kornbluth is the _The Best of C.M.
Kornbluth_ collection.

ppps: Ah, Ray Cummings, my old friend. This was a library book for me.

p^4s: E.E. Smith gets one entry for the Lensman series and another for a single
book out of it? o_0
-- 
\/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>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/	-net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#439379

On 2016-05-01, David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 2016-05-01, lal_truckee <lal_truckee@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 5/1/16 11:26 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>> On 2016-05-01, lal_truckee <lal_truckee@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> specifically I indicate James Wallace Harris' list
>>>> <http://classics.jameswallaceharris.com/ByRank.php>
>>>
>>> That (to me) is an excellent list; it's much better than the typical
>>> list I see.  It's science fiction only (not fantasy), it has a very
>>> strong bias for older works (and seems to be old itself - nothing in
>>> the past 23 years), and emphasizes British works a bit much.  But it
>>> still does a very nice job overall.
>
> Agreed. Reading it, and I'm only down to about 40, has put me in my happy
> place. Why, it might even cheer Terry up!
> ...
> ... I am VERY glad to see that _Flowers for Algernon_ ranks so far below
> _More Than Human_, _City_, _Ringworld_, _Childhood's End_, and _The Stars My
> Destination_, for personal-taste reasons. This guy is obviously well-read
> (extremely so) in the field, so hasn't fallen prey to the 'the few SF classics
> that 'literature' has embraced are obviously the Very Best Ones Evar' fallacy.

My reading of the list is that it's a compilation list - he's combined
a large number of other people's lists of classic science fiction and
sorted the books by the number of lists each occurs on.  (Thus a very strong
bias for older works since some of his lists are undoubtedly older.)

> Dave, wait, Cordwainer Smith is -80-? HERESYYYY
>
> ps: I see what you mean about British-tilted...
>
> pps: I find it amusing that the best work of Kornbluth is the _The Best of C.M.
> Kornbluth_ collection.

Actually, Kornbluth also made number 12 for _The Space Merchants_
(with Pohl). I happened to re-read it (and _Gladiator at Law_) just
last week.  It definitely deserves its place as a classic, and it
pretty definitely couldn't get published today (its then trail-blazing
themes are now much too trite.)

Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#439414

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 10:56:54 AM UTC-6, lal_truckee wrote:
 
> specifically I indicate James Wallace Harris' list 
> <http://classics.jameswallaceharris.com/ByRank.php>

I'm not sure which of those books I haven't read - I think there were a _few_ - but it definitely looked to me like a list of great science fiction works.

The ones I think I haven't read:

34 Dying Inside
40 Camp Concentration
45 The Book of the New Sun
50 Downbelow Station
51 Neuromancer

53 The World Below
59 The Sirens of Titan - started it, didn't finish
61 Slaughterhouse Five
63 Dhalgren - started it, didn't finish
64 Deathbird Stories

68 Hyperion
77 Rite of Passage
84 The Hampdenshire Wonder
90 Roadside Picnic
94 Ender's Game

100 Player Piano
103 The Big Time
107 Pavane
108 Bug Jack Barron
110 334

111 The Embedding115 The Science Fiction of Edgar Allen Poe
116 Engine Summer
117 War with the Newts
126 The Fifth Head of Cerberus
127 The Wind's Twelve Quarters

130 Dreamsnake
131 Ridley Walker
132 The Snow Queen
133 The Fall of Hyperion
135 Doomsday Book

141 Deluge
147 The Death of Grass
155 On the Wings of Song
157 The Battle of Dorking
164 Herland

165 Back to Methuselah
166 The Weigher of Souls
167 To-Morrow's Yesterday
180 The Witches of Karres
181 The Dream Master

183 Behold The Man
186 The Listeners
188 Casey Agonistes
189 The Science Fiction of Jack London
191 Woman on the Edge of Time

193 Islands in the Net

Besides those 46, of the 193 works listed, there may be the odd few I also had 
not read but missed, but I do think I had read nearly all of these.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#439446

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 10:56:54 AM UTC-6, lal_truckee wrote:
>
>> specifically I indicate James Wallace Harris' list
>> <http://classics.jameswallaceharris.com/ByRank.php>
>
> I'm not sure which of those books I haven't read - I think there were a _few_
- but it definitely looked to me like a list of great science fiction works.
>
> The ones I think I haven't read:

[snipped]

A half a dozen books from your list were read by me (for the most part).

51 Neuromancer
61 Slaughterhouse Five
94 Ender's Game
115 The Science Fiction of Edgar Allen Poe (half of the stories read)
135 Doomsday Book
181 The Dream Master

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_The Science Fiction of Edgar Allen Poe_
           Table of Contents [1]

MS. found in a bottle
The unparalleled adventure of one Hans Pfaall
The conversation of Eiros and Charmion
A descent into the maelstro\xcc\x88m
The colloquy of Monos and Una
A tale of the Ragged Mountains
The balloon-hoax
Mesmeric revelation
The thousand-and-second tale of Scheherazade
Some words with a mummy
The power of words
The system of Dr. Tarr and Prof. Fether
The facts in the case of M. Valdemar
Eureka
Mellonta Tauta
Von Kempelen and his discovery.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

"189 The Science Fiction of Jack London" is the most intriguing element
to me. The notion of London as a SF author is new to me. Clarice Stasz
talks about London's SF on Sonoma State University's website. [2]

Note.

1. https://library.villanova.edu/Find/Record/636140/TOC
2. http://london.sonoma.edu/Students/scifi.html

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#439448

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 12:58:50 PM UTC-4, Don Kuenz wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 10:56:54 AM UTC-6, lal_truckee wrote:
> >
> >> specifically I indicate James Wallace Harris' list
> >> <http://classics.jameswallaceharris.com/ByRank.php>
> >
> > I'm not sure which of those books I haven't read - I think there were a _few_
> - but it definitely looked to me like a list of great science fiction works.
> >
> > The ones I think I haven't read:
> 
> [snipped]
> 
> A half a dozen books from your list were read by me (for the most part).
> 
> 51 Neuromancer
> 61 Slaughterhouse Five
> 94 Ender's Game
> 115 The Science Fiction of Edgar Allen Poe (half of the stories read)
> 135 Doomsday Book
> 181 The Dream Master
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _The Science Fiction of Edgar Allen Poe_
>            Table of Contents [1]
> 
> MS. found in a bottle
> The unparalleled adventure of one Hans Pfaall
> The conversation of Eiros and Charmion
> A descent into the maelstro\xcc\x88m
> The colloquy of Monos and Una
> A tale of the Ragged Mountains
> The balloon-hoax
> Mesmeric revelation
> The thousand-and-second tale of Scheherazade
> Some words with a mummy
> The power of words
> The system of Dr. Tarr and Prof. Fether
> The facts in the case of M. Valdemar
> Eureka
> Mellonta Tauta
> Von Kempelen and his discovery.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> "189 The Science Fiction of Jack London" is the most intriguing element
> to me. The notion of London as a SF author is new to me. Clarice Stasz
> talks about London's SF on Sonoma State University's website. [2]
> 
> Note.
> 
> 1. https://library.villanova.edu/Find/Record/636140/TOC
> 2. http://london.sonoma.edu/Students/scifi.html

You can find his short stories here:

http://www.jacklondons.net/writings/ShortStories/

One of the SF stories, 'The Unparalleled Invasion' is quite controversial,
in that genocide is depicted as a Good Thing.

pt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#439509

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 11:07:02 AM UTC-6, Peter Trei wrote:

> One of the SF stories, 'The Unparalleled Invasion' is quite controversial,
> in that genocide is depicted as a Good Thing.

It certainly anticipated bacteriological warfare.

In the story, China had announced its intention to overrun the whole world, and 
the world didn't have much else in the way of options with which to 
successfully defend itself.

But in the real world, indeed, the indiscriminate slaughter of women and 
children as a method of warfare is properly regarded as monstrous. I wouldn't 
take that story seriously as an attempt to incite violence against China; it 
simply examines a possible future response to a situation in classic SF fashion.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#439726

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:

> But in the real world, indeed, the indiscriminate slaughter of women and 
> children as a method of warfare is properly regarded as monstrous.

It is, although that is a rather recent development.

It was practiced in WW II, and was the dominant strategy during
the Cold War.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#439738

On Saturday, May 7, 2016 at 12:05:21 PM UTC-4, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> 
> > But in the real world, indeed, the indiscriminate slaughter of women and 
> > children as a method of warfare is properly regarded as monstrous.
> 
> It is, although that is a rather recent development.
> 
> It was practiced in WW II, and was the dominant strategy during
> the Cold War.

It was not unknown in earlier times.  The phrases "Kill them all - 
God will know his own" and "Kill and scalp all, big and little; 
nits make lice."  come to mind.

The pre-modern version was to kill any warrior-age men who wouldn't
surrender, and enslave the rest.  You sent the the tough guys somewhere
dangerous, like a mine, and worked them to death.  

Some of the women were made wives or concubines.  Raping them and 
consigning them to slavery afterwards was done with them was standard 
procedure, also.  Each age has its own version of brutality.

Kevin R

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#439441

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 12:56:54 PM UTC-4, lal_truckee wrote:
> Lists of lists of lists over at SF Signal:
> <http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2016/04/how-well-read-are-you-in-science-fiction/>
> 
> specifically I indicate James Wallace Harris' list 
> <http://classics.jameswallaceharris.com/ByRank.php>

I missed 24:

 26	Gateway	Pohl, Frederik
 37	Humanoids, The	Williamson, Jack
 38	Clockwork Orange, A	Burgess, Anthony
 53	World Below, The	Wright, S. Fowler
 65	Female Man, The	Russ, Joanna
 68	Hyperion	Simmons, Dan
 74	Mirror for Observers, A	Pangborn, Edgar
 79	Beyond Apollo	Malzberg, Barry N.
 82	No Enemy But Time	Bishop, Michael
 84	Hampdenshire Wonder, The	Beresford, J. D.
101	Of All Possible Worlds	Tenn, William
117	War with the Newts	Capek, Karel
123	Wanderer, The	Leiber, Fritz
133	The Fall of Hyperion	Simmons, Dan
135	Doomsday Book	Willis, Connie
139	Clockwork Man, The	Odle, E. V.
140	Absolute at Large, The	Capek, Karel
141	Deluge	Wright, S. Fowler
160	Across the Zodiac	Greg, Percy
164	Herland	Gilman, Charlotte Perkins
165	Back to Methuselah	Shaw, George Bernard
166	The Weigher of Souls	Maurois, Andre
167	To-Morrow's Yesterday	Gloag, John
170	Final Blackout	Hubbard, L. Ron
188	Casey Agonistes	McKenna, Richard
191	Woman on the Edge of Time	Piercy, Marge

This seems not only a list from a certain time, but also seems to
have a greater preponderance of British authors than I'd expect,
seeing as the listmaker is American.

pt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#439445

On Mon, 2 May 2016 08:26:05 -0700 (PDT), Peter Trei
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:bbdd19ea-f4a7-4dc9-8fde-03db5360d3d7@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 12:56:54 PM UTC-4, lal_truckee
> wrote:

>> Lists of lists of lists over at SF Signal:
>> <http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2016/04/how-well-read-are-you-in-science-fiction/>

>> specifically I indicate James Wallace Harris' list 
>> <http://classics.jameswallaceharris.com/ByRank.php>

> I missed 24:

>  26	Gateway	Pohl, Frederik
>  37	Humanoids, The	Williamson, Jack

That one I’ve read.  One of his better ones.

>  38	Clockwork Orange, A	Burgess, Anthony
>  53	World Below, The	Wright, S. Fowler
>  65	Female Man, The	Russ, Joanna

I think that I got between a third and half of the way
through and skip-read the rest.  I did like her Alyx
stories, though.

>  68	Hyperion	Simmons, Dan

Read it; wasn’t enough taken with it to remember anything.

>  74	Mirror for Observers, A	Pangborn, Edgar

Worth reading.

>  79	Beyond Apollo	Malzberg, Barry N.
>  82	No Enemy But Time	Bishop, Michael
>  84	Hampdenshire Wonder, The	Beresford, J. D.
> 101	Of All Possible Worlds	Tenn, William

You might have read at least some of the stories in that
collection; it includes ‘Down Among the Dead Men’ and ‘The
Remarkable Flirgleflip’.

[...]

> 165	Back to Methuselah	Shaw, George Bernard

Not my favorite Shaw, but it *is* Shaw.

[...]

Brian
-- 
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties.  The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#439453

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 9:56:54 AM UTC-7, lal_truckee wrote:


> specifically I indicate James Wallace Harris' list 
> <http://classics.jameswallaceharris.com/ByRank.php>


OK, I've read a lot of them, more than half anyway.  Good enough. 

BTW, 'Grey Lensman' and 'The Lensman Series' are both on the list.  No fair.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#439530

lal_truckee <lal_truckee@yahoo.com> wrote:

>specifically I indicate James Wallace Harris' list 
><http://classics.jameswallaceharris.com/ByRank.php>

After fifty years of reading, and thirty years or so past my "read
everything" era, it gets hard to tell.  There's a lot of those I
started reading but either ended up forgotten or tossed against the
wall.  So on many I'm GUESSING whether I ever finished them and just
forgot what happened there.

So 110 read, 83 unread, unfinished, or unheard-of.
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written

csiph-web