Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #454008 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-28 17:12 +0000 |
| Last post | 2017-03-31 07:58 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 77 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-03-28 17:12 +0000
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-28 10:46 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories "Dave M" <dgminala@mediacombb.net> - 2017-03-28 14:23 -0500
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-03-28 10:47 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-28 10:53 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> - 2017-03-28 19:49 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-28 10:58 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-03-28 11:01 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-04-02 00:47 -0400
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-28 14:09 -0400
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-03-28 14:39 -0400
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-03-28 19:45 +0100
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-28 20:11 +0100
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-28 12:34 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-03-28 21:20 +0100
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-28 13:30 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Gunther Heiko Hagen <guntherxxx@quantserve.de> - 2017-03-28 21:36 +0000
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Gunther Heiko Hagen <guntherxxx@quantserve.de> - 2017-03-28 21:53 +0000
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-28 17:12 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-28 19:39 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-28 21:16 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-29 06:23 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2017-03-29 15:19 +0100
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-29 10:28 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-29 17:24 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-29 19:07 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-29 10:23 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-29 19:01 +0100
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-29 11:15 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-29 19:58 +0100
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-29 12:23 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 17:05 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-29 19:02 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-03-29 22:06 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 21:18 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-03-31 08:59 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-31 11:47 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-03-31 12:46 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-31 13:27 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-03-31 21:09 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-31 22:32 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-04-02 01:32 -0400
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-04-02 09:49 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-04-04 21:50 -0400
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-29 18:02 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-29 19:00 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-30 08:06 +0100
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-30 00:17 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Frank Miles <fpm@u.washington.edu> - 2017-03-30 15:46 +0000
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-29 17:53 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-28 13:49 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-28 17:16 -0400
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-28 16:12 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-28 23:40 +0100
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-28 15:46 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-28 18:51 -0400
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-29 00:19 +0100
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-28 19:17 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-28 16:22 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-28 17:08 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-28 15:48 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-03-28 23:14 +0000
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-28 16:30 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-29 10:12 +0100
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-03-28 16:19 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories "nuny@bid.nes" <alien8752@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 14:59 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-28 15:40 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2017-03-28 16:18 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-28 19:29 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Adrian Jansen <adrian@qq.vv.net> - 2017-03-29 09:12 +1000
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Chris <cbx@noreply.com> - 2017-03-28 23:26 +0000
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-28 17:15 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Wond <gboot.phil@gmx.com> - 2017-03-29 14:31 +0000
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-03-29 08:15 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-03-29 10:59 -0700
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories Ingvald44 <noone@nowhere.com> - 2017-03-29 20:00 -0400
Re: OT: Best Ever Sci-Fi short stories "David Eather" <eather@tpg.com.au> - 2017-03-31 07:58 +1000
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-31 22:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <obndrj$9b4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #454560 |
On 3/31/2017 9:09 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > Incidentally, there was a 13 year period of my life, when I did not > own a TV. We own a "movie viewing device", not a "TV" -- though they look surprisingly similar! :> > Although I was somewhat culturally deficient, I exhibited > no obvious mental or physical damage from the experience. However, > when I returned to watching TV, it was I was visiting a different > civilization. Little was familiar. Everything I saw was full of > errors and mistakes. Some actors and actresses seemed like aliens. It > was all very strange. However, I eventually became accustomed to the > changes, somewhat more tolerant of errors, and soon turned into a > stereotypical couch potato. It's been downhill ever since. I've never had "cable", "dish", etc. When libraries started carrying movies, I started using the "movie viewing device". E.g., I didn't "discover" the Firefly TV series (I suspect it was on a "cable" provider, not broadcast TV) until stumbling on the library's video collection while browsing their shelves. [I've not been in a movie theater in ~25 years -- the last film I saw was _The Mask_ when a colleague came to town and I accompanied him and his family to the theater.] Now, use it every evening as "background animation". Tonight, start on _RED_ (again) -- to be followed by _RED2_, tomorrow (both delightfully entertaining!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-02 01:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Oomdnalr2p1qEX3FnZ2dnUU7-I3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #454560 |
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> Incidentally, there was a 13 year period of my life, when I did not
> own a TV. Although I was somewhat culturally deficient, I exhibited
> no obvious mental or physical damage from the experience. However,
> when I returned to watching TV, it was I was visiting a different
> civilization. Little was familiar. Everything I saw was full of
> errors and mistakes. Some actors and actresses seemed like aliens. It
> was all very strange. However, I eventually became accustomed to the
> changes, somewhat more tolerant of errors, and soon turned into a
> stereotypical couch potato. It's been downhill ever since.
Comet TV runs free Science fiction movies and TV shows that you
stream directly from their website. No need to register, or install
software.
Here is this month's Movies:
http://www.comettv.com/movies/
Here is this month's schedule:
http://www.comettv.com/schedule/
There is no direct link to the V series, just click on 'Shows' on
the menu bar.
--
Never piss off an Engineer!
They don't get mad.
They don't get even.
They go for over unity! ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-02 09:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9fa2ecdm2c40hrbk6sdiaphq3ipv4gvsk0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #454735 |
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 01:32:39 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: > Comet TV runs free Science fiction movies and TV shows that you >stream directly from their website. No need to register, or install >software. > > Here is this month's Movies: >http://www.comettv.com/movies/ > > Here is this month's schedule: >http://www.comettv.com/schedule/ > > There is no direct link to the V series, just click on 'Shows' on >the menu bar. Thanks. I have a Roku 3 and watch Comet TV there: <https://channelstore.roku.com/details/140565/comet-tv> There are also some others, which seem to appear and disappear: <https://channelstore.roku.com/details/112454/science-fiction-sold-out-shows> <https://channelstore.roku.com/details/33980/science-fiction> -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-04 21:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tPidnZbO4JvK0HnFnZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #454777 |
Jeff Liebermann wrote: > On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 01:32:39 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> Comet TV runs free Science fiction movies and TV shows that you >> stream directly from their website. No need to register, or install >> software. >> >> Here is this month's Movies: >> http://www.comettv.com/movies/ >> >> Here is this month's schedule: >> http://www.comettv.com/schedule/ >> >> There is no direct link to the V series, just click on 'Shows' on >> the menu bar. > > Thanks. > I have a Roku 3 and watch Comet TV there: > <https://channelstore.roku.com/details/140565/comet-tv> > > There are also some others, which seem to appear and disappear: > <https://channelstore.roku.com/details/112454/science-fiction-sold-out-shows> > <https://channelstore.roku.com/details/33980/science-fiction> I use a Mecool BB2 Pro Android 6.0, running Kodi 17.0. 64bit Octa core @ 2GHz, 16GB ROM, 3 GB DDR4 RAM, and capable of 4K video. http://www.ebay.com/itm/232247819274 -- Never piss off an Engineer! They don't get mad. They don't get even. They go for over unity! ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 18:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <810ba95f-333d-4f9b-b830-684179175869@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454129 |
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 1:23:52 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote: > On 3/29/2017 6:23 AM, George Herold wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 12:16:32 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote: > >> On 3/28/2017 7:39 PM, George Herold wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 8:12:55 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote: > >>>> On 3/28/2017 2:36 PM, Gunther Heiko Hagen wrote: > >>>>>> I've been wading through Charles Stross' novels, lately, and finding > >>>>>> them very enjoyable! > >>>>> > >>>>> Not bad! Not bad at all. > >>>> > >>>> I find many of his ideas "just beyond possible" -- by today's technology. > >>>> So, easy to suspend disbelief and think about those worlds being *real* > >>>> instead of simply "imagined". Then, it becomes a worthwhile effort to > >>>> examine the worlds in greater detail: does it all make sense in the > >>>> gestalt? Or, has he just slapped some ideas together that don't really > >>>> stand up to closer scrutiny. > >>>> > >>>> [E.g., the Firefly series: cowboys in outer space?? WTF?] > >>> > >>> I loved Firefly.. cowboys in space. (For me) fictions is first > >>> entertainment... of course I like Tarzan and John Carter. > >>> he said shamelessly, > >>> > >>> If you like it, it's good, if not read someone else. > >> > >> There's a difference between "entertainment" and something in > >> which you'd want to invest *effort*. I'm rewatching Firefly > >> (last night, tonight and tomorrow night) for the fourth time... > >> culminating in the yet another rewatching of Serenity. > >> > >> But, the Firefly episodes are fluff -- even compared to Serenity > >> (which is a more self-consistent story). This is also apparent > >> in the scripts, acting, etc. -- you get the distinct impression > >> that Firefly doesn't take itself seriously; a feeling that you > >> *don't* get with Serenity. > >> > >> [Read David Wong's works (John & Suits) to see that sort of > >> tongue-in-cheek in full force -- and he's invested a LOT more > >> in the worlds he's created, therein!] > >> > >> By contrast, Stross's "Halting State" series is much more of an > >> "engineered" story/world. You don't have spaceships and *horses* > >> as the two means of transportation! :> (I.e., _Cowboys and Aliens_ > >> was more self-consistent than Firefly) > > > > I never heard of David Wong... which book should I start with? > > https://www.amazon.com/Futuristic-Violence-Fancy-Suits-Novel/dp/1250040191 > > _John Dies at the End_ > > "Spiders" is sort of a sequel. And "Fancy Suits" flies off in even > weirder directions. > > I'd actually recommend watching the *movie* (John), first. The story is > *so* weird that it is easier to experience it visually. *Then*, read the > book (there are slight differences). > > The story actually "makes sense" (in a bizarre sort of way) but the > first pass through (the movie) you spend much of your time on unsure > footing: "WTF is going on, here?" > > I'd watched the movie many times before tackling the book. It's a fun > way to waste a couple of hours! And, is the sort of thing you can > watch and keep picking up "little details" with each viewing (once you > are freed of the effort to try to follow the basic story) It was then > easier to relate what was happening in the book with the recollections > of the film. There are just too many really weird things going on so > you're never quite sure of your footing, as you read. > > [My first Wolfe novel -- Autarch -- was similarly disturbing. I had > to push through 100 pages before I was willing to accept the ideas > that he was presenting as "normal"] > > > I've heard of Charles Stross, but haven't read any... > > Again do you have a recommendation? > > I was really drawn in by the Halting State series: > _Halting State_ > _Rule 34_ > I think Rule 34 was the first story I stumbled upon (browsing the stacks at > local library). That sent me back hunting for other/related stories -- which, > of course, required rereading Rule 34 *after* having later read Halting State. > > From there, I'd move to the Freyaverse series: > _Saturn's Children_ > _Neptune's Brood_ > > The plots in all are... "involved". Freyaverse actually presents a clever > concept as the underpinnings of the stories. The "worlds" (universes?) > in each appear to have been carefully crafted to be self-consistent > and "make sense" in themselves. > > [I despise "magic wand" stories that resolve themselves by some silly/quaint > "trick" -- Dr Who being famous for this sort of cop-out] > > > I think Bujold is my favorite living writer at the moment, > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_McMaster_Bujold > > though she hasn't written much lately... I heard she was sick. > > My problem with "recreational reading" is that I have a voracious > appetite and "inhale" books (I budget 100pp daily and can usually > guarantee 80pp -- about 25000pp/year). > > So, I need to find authors that have written a fair amount. I won't > start book 1 of a multi-volume series until I'm pretty sure the > *last* volume has already been published -- I look at the front matter > to see if it lists "other volumes in this series" and examine each of > them, in turn, before starting the first; I don't want to have to wait > a year, or more, for a story to "resume"; rereading a book just to > refresh my memory of what had happened in order to appreciate the > next volume isn't a good use of my time -- esp if there is no reason to > start on it until its sequels are ready! :> Well if you pick dead writers, you should be OK. My mother had a collection ~10 vol. of Alexander Dumas... (he wrote much more.) > > Of course, this doesn't innoculate you from an author revisiting > a series and augmenting it. > > And, some authors just keep beating the same theme far too long (Piers > Anthony, Terry Pratchett, etc.) -- "Move along; nothing to see, here!" I like Terry Pratchett, (well not the early stuff.. starting somewhere with the witches.) I guess I mostly just want a good story, with characters that I like. If I get hold of a good book it will be gone in no time... A bad novel can linger forever. Bujold is space opera, fantasy, romance. She draws wonderful characters! And tells a nice tale. > > van Vogt is my favorite "classic" author. But, many of the stories > are more "adventure" than SciFi -- despite the themes involved. > And, some have been reworked over the years so I will encounter > a story that "seems awfully familiar"; then, have to plow through > the rest of the collection in search of the OTHER story that it > resembles (but, his books are short so it turns into a delightful > excuse to reread much of the set!) > > Gene Wolfe is another that requires an "investment" to enjoy. > I'm due to reread "Soldier", soon (have to leave enough time > between readings that I can "forget" many of the details else > it wouldn't be as "fresh") > > Ditto Neal Stephenson (avoid _Anathem_ until you've decided if > you want to make that sort of investment) Huh, I've read all those guys but never got into any of them... Which is fine, we all have different tastes... books are art after all. (When I find an author I like, I'll eat 'em up... In general, I think the early stuff (from some writer) is the best.) I don't really want to work too hard. When the plot lines get too numerous, I get confused. I started "Game of Thrones" but stopped 3/4 of the way through the first vol. When I want to work hard, I read a technical/science book. But that's just me, George H. > > _The Alternate Worlds of 2001_ (I think that's the correct title) is > also worth a couple of hours -- if only from a historical perspective. > And, of course, my earlier reference to "The Sentinel". > > Along the same lines, a reading of _War of the Worlds_ *followed* by > viewings of the 1950's film and the ~2000 remake is worth the time. > > The same is true of "Farewell to the Master", _The Day the Earth Stood > Still_ and its more recent remake. > > [I went through a period where I was systematically chasing down books > FROM WHICH movies had been made -- and not the other way around -- just > as an exercise in seeing the liberties the film-makers had taken with the > original stories. And, trying to guess as to their reasons for the > discrepancies (WoW has an obvious cultural place in its presentations)] > > If you really want to push along those lines, the original _Casono Royale_ > (TV!) followed by the David Nivens version of the same and the Daniel > Craig re-remake are interesting to examine for stylistic differences, > etc. -- esp in light of the original novel. > > And, I *always* recommend Twain's _Letters from the Earth_ as an > example of truly clever/witty writing. > > As you suggested: have fun! Last few episodes of Firefly, tonight. > Much looking forward to Serenity, again!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 19:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <obholo$m2o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #454166 |
On 3/29/2017 6:02 PM, George Herold wrote: >> My problem with "recreational reading" is that I have a voracious >> appetite and "inhale" books (I budget 100pp daily and can usually >> guarantee 80pp -- about 25000pp/year). >> >> So, I need to find authors that have written a fair amount. I won't >> start book 1 of a multi-volume series until I'm pretty sure the >> *last* volume has already been published -- I look at the front matter >> to see if it lists "other volumes in this series" and examine each of >> them, in turn, before starting the first; I don't want to have to wait >> a year, or more, for a story to "resume"; rereading a book just to >> refresh my memory of what had happened in order to appreciate the >> next volume isn't a good use of my time -- esp if there is no reason to >> start on it until its sequels are ready! :> > > Well if you pick dead writers, you should be OK. Yes. The flip-side is you'll *never* find another title, once you've "consumed" them all. :< At least, with living authors, you can hope that taking a many year hiatus from their work will result in <something> filling in the void, later. E.g., DAdams wrote *far* too little! As a result, I am "forced" to keep rereading the same titles. And, while enjoyable, it would be nice to be able to stumble on "something new". [I recall finding a "new" van Vogt title some 30 years ago. It was as if I'd found a palm-sized lump of *gold*... caress it, don't rush the experience, etc. :< ] > My mother had a collection ~10 vol. of Alexander Dumas... > (he wrote much more.) > >> Of course, this doesn't innoculate you from an author revisiting >> a series and augmenting it. >> >> And, some authors just keep beating the same theme far too long (Piers >> Anthony, Terry Pratchett, etc.) -- "Move along; nothing to see, here!" > I like Terry Pratchett, (well not the early stuff.. starting somewhere > with the witches.) I guess I mostly just want a good story, > with characters that I like. If I get hold of a good book it will be > gone in no time... A bad novel can linger forever. > > Bujold is space opera, fantasy, romance. She draws wonderful characters! > And tells a nice tale. > >> van Vogt is my favorite "classic" author. But, many of the stories >> are more "adventure" than SciFi -- despite the themes involved. >> And, some have been reworked over the years so I will encounter >> a story that "seems awfully familiar"; then, have to plow through >> the rest of the collection in search of the OTHER story that it >> resembles (but, his books are short so it turns into a delightful >> excuse to reread much of the set!) >> >> Gene Wolfe is another that requires an "investment" to enjoy. >> I'm due to reread "Soldier", soon (have to leave enough time >> between readings that I can "forget" many of the details else >> it wouldn't be as "fresh") >> >> Ditto Neal Stephenson (avoid _Anathem_ until you've decided if >> you want to make that sort of investment) > > Huh, I've read all those guys but never got into any of them... > Which is fine, we all have different tastes... books are art > after all. It's rare for an author to have a consistent set of "hits". OTOH, I've had better luck sticking to authors that have written <something> I liked than bouncing around between "unvetted" authors. > (When I find an author I like, I'll eat 'em up... > In general, I think the early stuff (from some writer) is the best.) > > I don't really want to work too hard. When the plot lines get too > numerous, I get confused. I started "Game of Thrones" but stopped > 3/4 of the way through the first vol. I try really hard to finish every book / series I start. I couldn't wade through _The Silmarillion_, regardless of the level of determination. And, after *forcing* myself through _Perelandrea_, gave up on The Space Trilogy and anything else Lewis may have authored! > When I want to work hard, I read a technical/science book. Technical books take far more effort. Especially if you are trying to learn something new. My reading speed/rate drops by an order of magnitude, there. So, I revel in the things I can read "for entertainment" and find ways to squeeze in a few minutes, here and there. E.g., I have found that I can comfortably read with a Nook while walking -- whereas a paperback is nust not practical (probably due to the size of the text and having a harder time keeping track of which *line* you're on as it bobs-and-weaves in front of you). I'm not keen on stories that are total fluff (e.g., like watching a Flash Gordon serial!) > But that's just me,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 08:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e82DA.398171$QJ4.230437@fx26.am4> |
| In reply to | #454177 |
On 30/03/17 03:00, Don Y wrote: > E.g., DAdams wrote *far* too little! As a result, I am "forced" > to keep rereading the same titles. And, while enjoyable, it would > be nice to be able to stumble on "something new". I presume you have listened to the /original/ HHGttG radio series, preferably in a darkened room so the colours are even more vivid. Caution: there are many audio-only versions; only accept the original. I still have an off-air recording on reel-to-reel tape :) The early-80s TV series was OK-ish, but the graphics were so good (at the time) they distract from the important pictures. Ken Campbell's stage version had the right atmosphere; Zaphod was played by two men in a single jumpsuit :) I haven't bothered to watch the film. > E.g., I have found that I can > comfortably read with a Nook while walking -- whereas a paperback is nust > not practical (probably due to the size of the text and having a harder > time keeping track of which *line* you're on as it bobs-and-weaves in front > of you). <smack> that is, of course, the sound of you walking into a lamppost. What else could the sound possibly be? :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 00:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <obib94$2lp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #454207 |
On 3/30/2017 12:06 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: > On 30/03/17 03:00, Don Y wrote: >> E.g., DAdams wrote *far* too little! As a result, I am "forced" >> to keep rereading the same titles. And, while enjoyable, it would >> be nice to be able to stumble on "something new". > > I presume you have listened to the /original/ HHGttG radio > series, preferably in a darkened room so the colours are > even more vivid. > > Caution: there are many audio-only versions; only accept > the original. I still have an off-air recording on > reel-to-reel tape :) > > The early-80s TV series was OK-ish, but the graphics > were so good (at the time) they distract from the important > pictures. > > Ken Campbell's stage version had the right atmosphere; > Zaphod was played by two men in a single jumpsuit :) > > I haven't bothered to watch the film. The "remake" is... "interesting", but disappointing. The original TV series was more true to the series. And, the actress playing Tricia was more entertaining! OTOH, Slartibartfast was a more memorable character in the remake than in the original. And, the cameo of Marvin in the remake was a good laugh (though they made him far too obvious). IIRC, DA makes a cameo at the end of the TV version (walking into the sea, naked). A photo-cameo of him appears in the remake. >> E.g., I have found that I can >> comfortably read with a Nook while walking -- whereas a paperback is nust >> not practical (probably due to the size of the text and having a harder >> time keeping track of which *line* you're on as it bobs-and-weaves in front >> of you). > > <smack> that is, of course, the sound of you walking > into a lamppost. What else could the sound possibly be? :) A shovel popping up out of the ground? :> No lamp posts, here -- no street lighting in the neighborhood (we prize our dark skies for astronomers, etc.) [I actually preferred the Dirk Gently books over the HHGTTG series]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Miles <fpm@u.washington.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-30 15:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <obj98t$2mc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #454166 |
Kinda the same tone as Pratchett, but entirely different: one of my favorites is "Doorways in the Sand" - Zelazny. (short novel)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 17:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0e76aa2-6ff3-4410-961a-3cf07facf462@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454114 |
On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 12:24:06 AM UTC+11, George Herold wrote: > On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 12:16:32 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote: > > On 3/28/2017 7:39 PM, George Herold wrote: > > > On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 8:12:55 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote: > > >> On 3/28/2017 2:36 PM, Gunther Heiko Hagen wrote: > > >>>> I've been wading through Charles Stross' novels, lately, and finding > > >>>> them very enjoyable! > > >>> > > >>> Not bad! Not bad at all. > > >> > > >> I find many of his ideas "just beyond possible" -- by today's technology. > > >> So, easy to suspend disbelief and think about those worlds being *real* > > >> instead of simply "imagined". Then, it becomes a worthwhile effort to > > >> examine the worlds in greater detail: does it all make sense in the > > >> gestalt? Or, has he just slapped some ideas together that don't really > > >> stand up to closer scrutiny. > > >> > > >> [E.g., the Firefly series: cowboys in outer space?? WTF?] > > > > > > I loved Firefly.. cowboys in space. (For me) fictions is first > > > entertainment... of course I like Tarzan and John Carter. > > > he said shamelessly, > > > > > > If you like it, it's good, if not read someone else. > > > > There's a difference between "entertainment" and something in > > which you'd want to invest *effort*. I'm rewatching Firefly > > (last night, tonight and tomorrow night) for the fourth time... > > culminating in the yet another rewatching of Serenity. > > > > But, the Firefly episodes are fluff -- even compared to Serenity > > (which is a more self-consistent story). This is also apparent > > in the scripts, acting, etc. -- you get the distinct impression > > that Firefly doesn't take itself seriously; a feeling that you > > *don't* get with Serenity. > > > > [Read David Wong's works (John & Suits) to see that sort of > > tongue-in-cheek in full force -- and he's invested a LOT more > > in the worlds he's created, therein!] > > > > By contrast, Stross's "Halting State" series is much more of an > > "engineered" story/world. You don't have spaceships and *horses* > > as the two means of transportation! :> (I.e., _Cowboys and Aliens_ > > was more self-consistent than Firefly) > > I never heard of David Wong... which book should I start with? > https://www.amazon.com/Futuristic-Violence-Fancy-Suits-Novel/dp/1250040191 > > I've heard of Charles Stross, but haven't read any... > Again do you have a recommendation? http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/faq.html I've read everything in the Merchant Prince, the Laundry Files and the Halting State series. The two Halting State novels are the best. I think Ken MacLeod is better as far as Edinburgh science fiction writers go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_MacLeod and he is a friend of one of my wife's first graduates students who is now a reader (above senor lecturer, below professor) at the University of Edinburgh. Everything Ken MacLeod has written is worth reading, not least because his politics are slightly left of centre - no more than mine - but even that is rare in science fiction authors. The "fall revolution" series isn't as polished as the later work, but still well worth reading. > I think Bujold is my favorite living writer at the moment, > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_McMaster_Bujold > though she hasn't written much lately... I heard she was sick. She seems to have picked up a bit recently. I've got two recent publications on my Kindle, waiting for the next intercontinental flight. She certainly writes the best comic science fiction in the business, and her characters are well drawn, but she's no Neal Stephenson, Ian M. Banks or Ken MacLeod. Charles Stross is in the same ball-park. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 13:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <itildc1f4ujtignpuss2fgrjl93mt8e5sq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #454035 |
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:20:12 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote: >>"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message news:obe5hk$ak$1@dont-email.me... > >>Screw electronics for a minute. What is the best ever sci-fi short story >>you have ever ever ever read? I'll kick off by nominating 'Time's Arrow' >>by AC Clarke. > > >I used to read a mass of sci-fi when I was about 8 or 9, by all the usual's >like, J. Blish, T. Sturgeon, R. Heinlein, I. Asimov, A. Clarke, R. Bradbury, >A. Norton, F. Herbert, P. Anderson... > >However, as I am now 58, I am unable to answer your question. > Yeah, SF is seldom great literature. Or never. What's your favorite book ever? Mine is "A Damsel in Distress" by P G Wodehouse. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 17:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <woACA.175545$Bp6.65761@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #454037 |
On 03/28/2017 04:49 PM, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:20:12 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" > <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote: > >>> "Cursitor Doom" wrote in message news:obe5hk$ak$1@dont-email.me... >> >>> Screw electronics for a minute. What is the best ever sci-fi short story >>> you have ever ever ever read? I'll kick off by nominating 'Time's Arrow' >>> by AC Clarke. >> >> >> I used to read a mass of sci-fi when I was about 8 or 9, by all the usual's >> like, J. Blish, T. Sturgeon, R. Heinlein, I. Asimov, A. Clarke, R. Bradbury, >> A. Norton, F. Herbert, P. Anderson... >> >> However, as I am now 58, I am unable to answer your question. >> > > Yeah, SF is seldom great literature. Or never. "1984" is actually one of the worst books ever written, but people seem to have just not noticed yet. Both bad as a SF novel, and bad as a social commentary. It covers all the bases.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 16:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea1b516c-a960-40c6-98db-fbfb32860cf2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454039 |
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:16:15 AM UTC+11, bitrex wrote: > On 03/28/2017 04:49 PM, John Larkin wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:20:12 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" > > <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote: > > > >>> "Cursitor Doom" wrote in message news:obe5hk$ak$1@dont-email.me... > >> > >>> Screw electronics for a minute. What is the best ever sci-fi short story > >>> you have ever ever ever read? I'll kick off by nominating 'Time's Arrow' > >>> by AC Clarke. > >> > >> > >> I used to read a mass of sci-fi when I was about 8 or 9, by all the usual's > >> like, J. Blish, T. Sturgeon, R. Heinlein, I. Asimov, A. Clarke, R. Bradbury, > >> A. Norton, F. Herbert, P. Anderson... > >> > >> However, as I am now 58, I am unable to answer your question. > >> > > > > Yeah, SF is seldom great literature. Or never. > > "1984" is actually one of the worst books ever written, but people seem > to have just not noticed yet. > > Both bad as a SF novel, and bad as a social commentary. It covers all > the bases. It was anti-communist propaganda. George Orwell/Eric Blair didn't like Russian Communism, with good reason. His "Homage to Catalonia" makes it clear where the emotional component came from, but the intellectual component was broader-based. It's not great art, but it was very effective propaganda, along with "Animal Farm". I'd argue that it wasn't science fiction, but rather main stream writing that adopted a few science fiction conventions, much like Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World". -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 23:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pDBCA.334751$jb5.326528@fx25.am4> |
| In reply to | #454037 |
On 28/03/17 21:49, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:20:12 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" > <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote: > >>> "Cursitor Doom" wrote in message news:obe5hk$ak$1@dont-email.me... >> >>> Screw electronics for a minute. What is the best ever sci-fi short story >>> you have ever ever ever read? I'll kick off by nominating 'Time's Arrow' >>> by AC Clarke. >> >> >> I used to read a mass of sci-fi when I was about 8 or 9, by all the usual's >> like, J. Blish, T. Sturgeon, R. Heinlein, I. Asimov, A. Clarke, R. Bradbury, >> A. Norton, F. Herbert, P. Anderson... >> >> However, as I am now 58, I am unable to answer your question. >> > > Yeah, SF is seldom great literature. Or never. Indeed. But who cares? That isn't the reason for reading it. Personally I like stories (and other things) that give my preconceptions a kick up the arse - i.e. that make me /think/. A large bookshop in Cambridge had many bookshelves marked "fiction" and one bookshelf marked "literature". That rankled, so I asked the manager how he decided to put a book in one or the other. He looked confused, hummed and hawed, and then muttered about literature=hardback and/or literature=old. Very unsatisfying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 15:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <drpldchkfdv3dclh1eqnrladh8jc60bu2u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #454054 |
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:40:22 +0100, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >On 28/03/17 21:49, John Larkin wrote: >> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:20:12 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" >> <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>> "Cursitor Doom" wrote in message news:obe5hk$ak$1@dont-email.me... >>> >>>> Screw electronics for a minute. What is the best ever sci-fi short story >>>> you have ever ever ever read? I'll kick off by nominating 'Time's Arrow' >>>> by AC Clarke. >>> >>> >>> I used to read a mass of sci-fi when I was about 8 or 9, by all the usual's >>> like, J. Blish, T. Sturgeon, R. Heinlein, I. Asimov, A. Clarke, R. Bradbury, >>> A. Norton, F. Herbert, P. Anderson... >>> >>> However, as I am now 58, I am unable to answer your question. >>> >> >> Yeah, SF is seldom great literature. Or never. > >Indeed. But who cares? I care. I won't read bad writing (unless it's electronics.) > >That isn't the reason for reading it. Personally I like >stories (and other things) that give my preconceptions >a kick up the arse - i.e. that make me /think/. SF seldom does that. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 18:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <QNBCA.90616$_83.47944@fx07.iad> |
| In reply to | #454058 |
On 03/28/2017 06:46 PM, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:40:22 +0100, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 28/03/17 21:49, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:20:12 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" >>> <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>> "Cursitor Doom" wrote in message news:obe5hk$ak$1@dont-email.me... >>>> >>>>> Screw electronics for a minute. What is the best ever sci-fi short story >>>>> you have ever ever ever read? I'll kick off by nominating 'Time's Arrow' >>>>> by AC Clarke. >>>> >>>> >>>> I used to read a mass of sci-fi when I was about 8 or 9, by all the usual's >>>> like, J. Blish, T. Sturgeon, R. Heinlein, I. Asimov, A. Clarke, R. Bradbury, >>>> A. Norton, F. Herbert, P. Anderson... >>>> >>>> However, as I am now 58, I am unable to answer your question. >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, SF is seldom great literature. Or never. >> >> Indeed. But who cares? > > I care. I won't read bad writing (unless it's electronics.) > > >> >> That isn't the reason for reading it. Personally I like >> stories (and other things) that give my preconceptions >> a kick up the arse - i.e. that make me /think/. > > SF seldom does that. Most "SF" books these days are really wizards and warriors books. In space. SPAAAAAAAAAACCEEE
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 00:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <icCCA.609511$w46.134826@fx39.am4> |
| In reply to | #454063 |
On 28/03/17 23:51, bitrex wrote: > On 03/28/2017 06:46 PM, John Larkin wrote: >> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:40:22 +0100, Tom Gardner >> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 28/03/17 21:49, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:20:12 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" >>>> <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> "Cursitor Doom" wrote in message news:obe5hk$ak$1@dont-email.me... >>>>> >>>>>> Screw electronics for a minute. What is the best ever sci-fi short story >>>>>> you have ever ever ever read? I'll kick off by nominating 'Time's Arrow' >>>>>> by AC Clarke. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I used to read a mass of sci-fi when I was about 8 or 9, by all the usual's >>>>> like, J. Blish, T. Sturgeon, R. Heinlein, I. Asimov, A. Clarke, R. Bradbury, >>>>> A. Norton, F. Herbert, P. Anderson... >>>>> >>>>> However, as I am now 58, I am unable to answer your question. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah, SF is seldom great literature. Or never. >>> >>> Indeed. But who cares? >> >> I care. I won't read bad writing (unless it's electronics.) >> >> >>> >>> That isn't the reason for reading it. Personally I like >>> stories (and other things) that give my preconceptions >>> a kick up the arse - i.e. that make me /think/. >> >> SF seldom does that. > > Most "SF" books these days are really wizards and warriors books. In space. > > SPAAAAAAAAAACCEEE Don't forget the squids in spacesuits. But Ted Sturgeon memorably nailed that: "90% of everything is crap". Unlike, say, Dan Brown whose writing is undoubtedly grate literetoor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 19:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b6bcfa78-e3af-472c-a870-101fa1016aa4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454063 |
On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 6:51:37 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote: > On 03/28/2017 06:46 PM, John Larkin wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:40:22 +0100, Tom Gardner > > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> On 28/03/17 21:49, John Larkin wrote: > >>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:20:12 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" > >>> <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote: > >>> > >>>>> "Cursitor Doom" wrote in message news:obe5hk$ak$1@dont-email.me... > >>>> > >>>>> Screw electronics for a minute. What is the best ever sci-fi short story > >>>>> you have ever ever ever read? I'll kick off by nominating 'Time's Arrow' > >>>>> by AC Clarke. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I used to read a mass of sci-fi when I was about 8 or 9, by all the usual's > >>>> like, J. Blish, T. Sturgeon, R. Heinlein, I. Asimov, A. Clarke, R. Bradbury, > >>>> A. Norton, F. Herbert, P. Anderson... > >>>> > >>>> However, as I am now 58, I am unable to answer your question. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Yeah, SF is seldom great literature. Or never. > >> > >> Indeed. But who cares? > > > > I care. I won't read bad writing (unless it's electronics.) > > > > > >> > >> That isn't the reason for reading it. Personally I like > >> stories (and other things) that give my preconceptions > >> a kick up the arse - i.e. that make me /think/. > > > > SF seldom does that. > > Most "SF" books these days are really wizards and warriors books. In space. > > SPAAAAAAAAAACCEEE "Locked in" (it's not about phase detection) is my favorite John Scalzi book. George H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 16:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ab2f441c-5821-4068-a892-cd391f8c261f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #454058 |
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 9:46:56 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:40:22 +0100, Tom Gardner > <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >On 28/03/17 21:49, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:20:12 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" > >> <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >>>> "Cursitor Doom" wrote in message news:obe5hk$ak$1@dont-email.me... <snip> > >That isn't the reason for reading it. Personally I like > >stories (and other things) that give my preconceptions > >a kick up the arse - i.e. that make me /think/. > > SF seldom does that. Very little makes John Larkin think - it doesn't seem to be one of his preferred activities - and he's happy to have even denialist web-sites do his thinking for him. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 17:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <obetpf$iin$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #454054 |
On 3/28/2017 3:40 PM, Tom Gardner wrote: > On 28/03/17 21:49, John Larkin wrote: >> On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:20:12 +0100, "Kevin Aylward" >> <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>> "Cursitor Doom" wrote in message news:obe5hk$ak$1@dont-email.me... >>> >>>> Screw electronics for a minute. What is the best ever sci-fi short story >>>> you have ever ever ever read? I'll kick off by nominating 'Time's Arrow' >>>> by AC Clarke. >>> >>> >>> I used to read a mass of sci-fi when I was about 8 or 9, by all the usual's >>> like, J. Blish, T. Sturgeon, R. Heinlein, I. Asimov, A. Clarke, R. Bradbury, >>> A. Norton, F. Herbert, P. Anderson... >>> >>> However, as I am now 58, I am unable to answer your question. >> >> Yeah, SF is seldom great literature. Or never. > > Indeed. But who cares? > > That isn't the reason for reading it. Personally I like > stories (and other things) that give my preconceptions > a kick up the arse - i.e. that make me /think/. Exactly. And, the "thinking" doesn't have to be with regard to some clever/novel idea. E.g., one of my favorite moments (best illustrated in movie instead of novel) is the Jurassic Park scene where the paleontologists *first* encounter living dinosaurs on the island (not realizing that this is, in fact, what their visit is about). The "thinking" goes along this line: - imagine taking up a profession where you KNOW (with *complete* certainty) that you will always be GUESSING about the creatures you are studying from fossil records; that you will never be 100% sure of any of your deductions - then, *seeing* one of those creatures before your eyes Now, as the reader (or, watcher, in the case of the movie), imagine what that mental state would be like -- if *you* were that person! Clarke has a short story (name escapes me) where you stumble upon a guy showing very realistic, but amateurish *movies* in some abandon storefront for pocket change. You quickly learn that the guy has invented a time machine that lets him only *view* past events (not interact with them). So, filming those events and presenting them to the public (without even the claim that they are true historical accounts) is about all he can do to "gain" (financially) from his invention. The "thinking" here is to imagine how you'd be affected to KNOW (with *certainty*) ALL of the details of ANY historical event. Then, extrapolate that to thinking about how society would be affected by that sort of knowledge. (i.e., you can convince even the biggest skeptic by simply revisiting ANY/EVERY part of *his* personal past to convince him that your "device" does, in fact, accurately show the past. So, why would it NOT show the past of OTHER events?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web