Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #674555 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-17 11:47 -0700 |
| Last post | 2026-10-20 15:09 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 69 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-17 11:47 -0700
Re: Fat books Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 12:54 -0600
Re: Fat books Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-18 09:40 +1300
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-17 22:33 -0700
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-17 22:38 -0700
Re: Fat books BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> - 2026-10-17 23:07 -0700
Re: Fat books Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-18 21:02 +1300
Re: Fat books BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> - 2026-10-18 07:42 -0700
Re: Fat books William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 16:42 -0400
Re: Fat books Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 14:48 -0600
Re: Fat books kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-18 20:48 -0400
Re: Fat books BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> - 2026-10-18 18:56 -0700
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 19:53 -0700
Re: Fat books Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 23:39 -0400
Re: Fat books BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:51 -0700
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:28 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-18 19:33 +0800
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:45 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 20:35 +0800
Re: Fat books Torbjorn Lindgren <tl@none.invalid> - 2026-10-20 14:19 +0000
Re: Fat books Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2026-10-18 09:04 -0700
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 13:02 -0700
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 17:25 -0700
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-18 21:39 +0200
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 17:06 -0700
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-19 14:00 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-19 21:04 +0800
Re: Fat books Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2026-10-19 18:31 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 05:55 +0800
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-20 10:37 +0100
Re: Fat books Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-10-20 05:39 +0200
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-20 07:01 +0100
Re: Fat books Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2026-10-20 08:57 +0100
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-20 10:42 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 20:51 +0800
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-19 21:40 +0200
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 05:58 +0800
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-20 13:09 +0200
Re: Fat books Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-10-20 14:00 +0000
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 22:06 +0800
Re: Fat books Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:01 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-21 10:38 +0800
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 07:18 -0700
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 23:02 +0800
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-20 15:15 +0100
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 08:05 -0700
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 08:28 -0700
Re: Fat books kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-20 12:14 -0400
Re: Fat books Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-10-20 19:15 +0000
Re: Fat books Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-10-20 12:43 -0700
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 15:29 -0700
Re: Fat books Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-10-20 18:32 -0700
Re: Fat books Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-22 12:02 +1300
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-21 20:35 -0700
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 10:28 -0700
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 10:44 -0700
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 01:49 +0800
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 10:59 -0700
Re: Fat books kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-20 12:13 -0400
Re: Fat books Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2026-10-20 09:13 -0700
Re: Fat books Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-10-20 09:53 -0700
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 19:50 -0700
Re: Fat books BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:59 -0700
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-18 19:46 +0800
Re: Fat books William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 16:57 -0400
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 16:48 -0700
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 16:57 -0700
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 21:04 +0800
Re: Fat books William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 15:09 -0400
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 11:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Fat books |
| Message-ID | <6AD3C2CC.475F@ix.netcom.com> |
Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself annoyed.
>
> I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly the
> worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but the
> padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader.
>
> Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the point,
> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the
> characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take
> half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort
> paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the
> characters in the story are complaining about the padding.
>
> A competent editor could have made this a much better book by cutting it
> to about one third of its length.
>
> I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen
> comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier
> writing.
>
> It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to
> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with
> it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up
> any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to
> read because their books are too thick.
>
> But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books
> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to
> complain about this?
>
> --
> Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
> Newcastle, NSW
This is not literary criticism. It is a self-indulgent tantrum from a
reader who confuses personal irritation with objective analysis and then
tries to inflate it into an industry-wide conspiracy.
You mistake dialogue for padding and call it proof. Quoting one
character telling another to get to the point does not demonstrate
authorial failure. It demonstrates a character who is frustrated.
Treating in-story dialogue as a meta-confession by Asimov is the
critical equivalent of believing a novel’s villain is the author’s
autobiography.
"Could have been cut to one-third" is pure assertion without a
single concrete cut. You offer zero page counts, zero scene breakdowns,
zero demonstration that removing two-thirds would leave a coherent plot,
character arc, or thematic payoff. That is not editing advice. That is
fantasy surgery performed with a chainsaw and no anatomy knowledge.
You leap from one book you dislike to a sweeping claim about
Asimov’s later career and reputation. "I’ve seen comments" is anecdotal
garbage. No sales data, no critical consensus metrics, no comparison of
contemporaneous reviews versus later ones. You are treating your own
annoyance as a proxy for market and critical judgment.
The "paid by the page" explanation is historically illiterate.
Modern trade publishing does not pay authors by the page or by the word
in the way pulp magazines once did. Advances and royalties are based on
projected sales and contract terms, not length. Blaming "payment by the
page" for 1980s–90s hardcovers is simply wrong.
You treat thickness as an automatic quality defect. Many of the most
commercially and critically successful novels of the last fifty years
are long. Length is not the variable; density and necessity are. You
never distinguish between the two.
You assume that every reader shares your patience threshold and that
anything exceeding it is objectively padded. You assume publishers have
abandoned editing because books are long, ignoring the existence of
developmental editors, copy editors, and the commercial reality that
certain audiences buy thick books precisely because they want immersion.
You assume declining sales (if real) are caused by length rather than
competing media, changing leisure habits, price, or content. You never
admit the possibility that Robots and Empire was written at that length
because Asimov chose to expand the political and historical scope of his
universe rather than because he was padding for money.
Readers who buy series finales and late-career works by established
authors often want more of the same world, not less. Publishers know
this; they are not stupid. Editors who routinely gut bestselling
authors’ manuscripts risk losing the author and the revenue. Your
preferred "one-third length" version would have to sell to the same
audience that already accepted the longer book. Competitors and
imitators in science fiction have thrived with both lean and expansive
styles. Your refusal to read thick books is a personal filter, not a
market signal that forces publishers to change.
Asimov’s later novels sold in large numbers despite (or because of)
their length. The physical and economic constraints of publishing do not
make long books inherently unprofitable; paper, printing, and
distribution costs scale, but so can price and perceived value. Your
claim that "books don’t sell as well as they used to" is too vague to
test and ignores category differences, format shifts (ebooks,
audiobooks), and the fact that some long books still move hundreds of
thousands of copies. A single reader’s irritation does not scale into
industry failure.
The entire causal chain—character dialogue equals authorial padding
equals payment incentives equals editorial collapse equals sales
decline—must be discarded. Replace it with actual textual analysis of
specific scenes that fail to advance plot, character, or theme,
supported by evidence rather than feelings. The industry diagnosis must
be rebuilt from contracts, sales data, and editorial practice rather
than nostalgia and anecdote.
Nothing of structural value survives. The observation that some late
Asimov is less tight than early Asimov is a commonplace, not an insight
you originated or substantiated.
You are not diagnosing a publishing disease. You are complaining that a
book refused to finish at the exact moment your personal tolerance
expired, then dressing the complaint up as systemic critique.
The Swarmmaker Fleet
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 12:54 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <11b0g92$grpc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674555 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Peter Moylan wrote: >> >> I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself annoyed. >> >> I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly the >> worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but the >> padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader. >> >> Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the point, >> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the >> characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take >> half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort >> paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the >> characters in the story are complaining about the padding. >> >> A competent editor could have made this a much better book by cutting it >> to about one third of its length. >> >> I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen >> comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier >> writing. >> >> It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to >> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with >> it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up >> any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to >> read because their books are too thick. >> >> But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books >> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to >> complain about this? >> >> -- >> Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org >> Newcastle, NSW > > > > This is not literary criticism. It is a self-indulgent tantrum from a > reader who confuses personal irritation with objective analysis and then > tries to inflate it into an industry-wide conspiracy. > > You mistake dialogue for padding and call it proof. Quoting one > character telling another to get to the point does not demonstrate > authorial failure. It demonstrates a character who is frustrated. > Treating in-story dialogue as a meta-confession by Asimov is the > critical equivalent of believing a novel’s villain is the author’s > autobiography. one character may not demonstrate the failure he is referring to, but it struck a chord with me. Try getting very far into the followups in Stephen R. Donaldson's space opera with Angus Thermopyle. It's just like this and of such badness that it reminds one of someone using copy-paste, but with an AI to twist up the words slightly so that it can't be labeled that simply. The reader just doesn't need that many similar brushups on what happened last novel. I set it down before finishing. -- Can you strip away so we may start again? "There’s a switch and they don't seem authentic or themselves. It feels like I’m an unnecessary body and it’s a waste of time to even be there." -- Grim, playful Blaine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 09:40 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <11b0mhq$ihhg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674556 |
> The Starmaker wrote: >> Peter Moylan wrote: >>> >>> I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself >>> annoyed. >>> >>> I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly the >>> worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but the >>> padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader. >>> >>> Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the point, >>> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the >>> characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take >>> half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort >>> paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the >>> characters in the story are complaining about the padding. >>> >>> A competent editor could have made this a much better book by cutting it >>> to about one third of its length. >>> >>> I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen >>> comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier >>> writing. >>> >>> It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to >>> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with >>> it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up >>> any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to >>> read because their books are too thick. >>> >>> But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books >>> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to >>> complain about this? >>> >>> -- >>> Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org >>> Newcastle, NSW >> >> >> >> This is not literary criticism. It is a self-indulgent tantrum from a >> reader who confuses personal irritation with objective analysis and then >> tries to inflate it into an industry-wide conspiracy. >> >> You mistake dialogue for padding and call it proof. Quoting one >> character telling another to get to the point does not demonstrate >> authorial failure. It demonstrates a character who is frustrated. Perhaps you misread Peter Moylan's comment. The quote from the character in his post above was made because it succinctly stated his impression of the book at the time he was reading and not an example to back up his criticism. (That is how I saw it.) >> Treating in-story dialogue as a meta-confession by Asimov is the >> critical equivalent of believing a novel’s villain is the author’s >> autobiography.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 22:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6AD45A20.55FF@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #674556 |
Let's stop with all dis science fiction stuff.. Mars is not a planet! There is no reason to go to Mars because Mars is not a planet! It's just a rock. No different from the Moon. Mars is just a balancing system to keep the Earth on course.. and from flying away to some freeway. Blaine wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > Peter Moylan wrote: > >> > >> I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself annoyed. > >> > >> I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly the > >> worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but the > >> padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader. > >> > >> Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the point, > >> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the > >> characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take > >> half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort > >> paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the > >> characters in the story are complaining about the padding. > >> > >> A competent editor could have made this a much better book by cutting it > >> to about one third of its length. > >> > >> I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen > >> comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier > >> writing. > >> > >> It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to > >> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with > >> it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up > >> any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to > >> read because their books are too thick. > >> > >> But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books > >> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to > >> complain about this? > >> > >> -- > >> Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org > >> Newcastle, NSW > > > > > > > > This is not literary criticism. It is a self-indulgent tantrum from a > > reader who confuses personal irritation with objective analysis and then > > tries to inflate it into an industry-wide conspiracy. > > > > You mistake dialogue for padding and call it proof. Quoting one > > character telling another to get to the point does not demonstrate > > authorial failure. It demonstrates a character who is frustrated. > > Treating in-story dialogue as a meta-confession by Asimov is the > > critical equivalent of believing a novel’s villain is the author’s > > autobiography. > > one character may not demonstrate the failure he is referring to, but it > struck a chord with me. Try getting very far into the followups in > Stephen R. Donaldson's space opera with Angus Thermopyle. It's just like > this and of such badness that it reminds one of someone using > copy-paste, but with an AI to twist up the words slightly so that it > can't be labeled that simply. The reader just doesn't need that many > similar brushups on what happened last novel. I set it down before > finishing. > > -- > Can you strip away so we may start again? > "There’s a switch and they don't > seem authentic or themselves. It > feels like I’m an unnecessary > body and it’s a waste of time to > even be there." -- Grim, playful Blaine. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 22:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6AD45B5D.570A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #674577 |
I never read a fiction book and I certaintly never read a science fiction book That's like giving a 3 year old LSD. Who do you think reads science fiction books? People who want to go to Mars! Fiction and science fiction... that's a fucking double wammy!!! Give the kid a half a tab of LSD. The Starmaker wrote: > > Let's stop with all dis science fiction stuff.. > Mars is not a planet! > > There is no reason to go to Mars because > Mars is not a planet! > > It's just a rock. > > No different from the Moon. > > Mars is just a balancing system > to keep the Earth on course.. > and from flying away to some freeway. > > Blaine wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > Peter Moylan wrote: > > >> > > >> I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself annoyed. > > >> > > >> I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly the > > >> worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but the > > >> padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader. > > >> > > >> Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the point, > > >> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the > > >> characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take > > >> half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort > > >> paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the > > >> characters in the story are complaining about the padding. > > >> > > >> A competent editor could have made this a much better book by cutting it > > >> to about one third of its length. > > >> > > >> I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen > > >> comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier > > >> writing. > > >> > > >> It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to > > >> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with > > >> it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up > > >> any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to > > >> read because their books are too thick. > > >> > > >> But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books > > >> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to > > >> complain about this? > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org > > >> Newcastle, NSW > > > > > > > > > > > > This is not literary criticism. It is a self-indulgent tantrum from a > > > reader who confuses personal irritation with objective analysis and then > > > tries to inflate it into an industry-wide conspiracy. > > > > > > You mistake dialogue for padding and call it proof. Quoting one > > > character telling another to get to the point does not demonstrate > > > authorial failure. It demonstrates a character who is frustrated. > > > Treating in-story dialogue as a meta-confession by Asimov is the > > > critical equivalent of believing a novel’s villain is the author’s > > > autobiography. > > > > one character may not demonstrate the failure he is referring to, but it > > struck a chord with me. Try getting very far into the followups in > > Stephen R. Donaldson's space opera with Angus Thermopyle. It's just like > > this and of such badness that it reminds one of someone using > > copy-paste, but with an AI to twist up the words slightly so that it > > can't be labeled that simply. The reader just doesn't need that many > > similar brushups on what happened last novel. I set it down before > > finishing. > > > > -- > > Can you strip away so we may start again? > > "There’s a switch and they don't > > seem authentic or themselves. It > > feels like I’m an unnecessary > > body and it’s a waste of time to > > even be there." -- Grim, playful Blaine. > > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > and challenge the unchallengeable. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 23:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11b1nna$st4l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674578 |
On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote: > I never read a fiction book > and I certaintly never read > a science fiction book Nor do ever appear to even cracked any book especially not even one on classical physicw. > > That's like giving a > 3 year old LSD. Believe me you seem ignorant of drugs and giving anyone incapable of consent any drug even legal ones except by physician's prescription or parental directions > > > Who do you think reads > science fiction books? People > who want to go to Mars! No! Not Mars but certainly not 1950's Earth. We wanted to go to the stars if you have ever watch the TV show Star Trek and its enlargements that was want we wanted. > > Fiction and > science fiction... > that's a fucking double wammy!!! > > Give the kid a half a tab of LSD. > > > The Starmaker wrote: >> >> Let's stop with all dis science fiction stuff.. >> Mars is not a planet! >> >> There is no reason to go to Mars because >> Mars is not a planet! >> >> It's just a rock. So is the Earth but the Earth got infected with Life and certain conditions and if not imported perhaps from other infected rocks eventually Life Evolved and here we are. Thank you rock, Thank you Moon and Sun and the rest of the Universe because without Time and Space where would we be? If you do not read Science Fiction books and you post off topic here you must be a troll and I call on all good users to cast you out... At 89 I got no more time for you...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 21:02 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <11b1ufv$uq18$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674582 |
On 18/10/2026 19:07, BobbieSellers wrote: > On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote: > If you do not read Science Fiction books and > you post off topic here you must be a troll and I call > on all good users to cast you out... Starmaker used to be a daily poster here and whilst initially amusing, most people will have binned it already but still see its posts when replied to. > At 89 I got no more time for you... Even if you were 8 or 9 you wouldn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 07:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11b2ls9$17f7m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674584 |
On 10/18/26 01:02, Titus G wrote: > On 18/10/2026 19:07, BobbieSellers wrote: >> On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote: > >> If you do not read Science Fiction books and >> you post off topic here you must be a troll and I call >> on all good users to cast you out... > > Starmaker used to be a daily poster here and whilst initially amusing, > most people will have binned it already but still see its posts when > replied to. > >> At 89 I got no more time for you... > > Even if you were 8 or 9 you wouldn't. > When I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no worry about that because at that time we only had comic books and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all. My elementary school calculator was a pencil with a celluloid sleeve with the times table and you just rotated it to the 6 X 9 column to get 54, and no more power needed but your fingers. Smarter nations taught the use of the abacus. But I went to schools in California and in Nevada and California again. Nevada started teaching algebra earlier in the grade school than California. bliss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 16:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11b3b0g$1g1bi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674607 |
BobbieSellers wrote: > On 10/18/26 01:02, Titus G wrote: >> On 18/10/2026 19:07, BobbieSellers wrote: >>> On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote: >> >>> If you do not read Science Fiction books and >>> you post off topic here you must be a troll and I call >>> on all good users to cast you out... >> >> Starmaker used to be a daily poster here and whilst initially amusing, >> most people will have binned it already but still see its posts when >> replied to. >> >>> At 89 I got no more time for you... >> >> Even if you were 8 or 9 you wouldn't. >> > > When I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been > experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no > worry about that because at that time we only had comic books > and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all. > > My elementary school calculator was a pencil with > a celluloid sleeve with the times table and you just rotated > it to the 6 X 9 column to get 54, and no more power needed > but your fingers. We wouldn't have been allowed that in Toronto in the 1950s. If you couldn't memorize products up to 12X12 you got at best a D in arithmetic. A friend who teaches at a junior college in Arizona tells me that two of his students failed to multiply 7X9. One knew that it was "around 60". Graduates from this course are supposed to be qualified for any second year Calculus course in the US. Even one offered by MIT. This could end in tears. William Hyde
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 14:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <11b3bbn$1g0ll$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674617 |
William Hyde wrote: > BobbieSellers wrote: >> On 10/18/26 01:02, Titus G wrote: >>> On 18/10/2026 19:07, BobbieSellers wrote: >>>> On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote: >>> >>>> If you do not read Science Fiction books and >>>> you post off topic here you must be a troll and I call >>>> on all good users to cast you out... >>> >>> Starmaker used to be a daily poster here and whilst initially amusing, >>> most people will have binned it already but still see its posts when >>> replied to. >>> >>>> At 89 I got no more time for you... >>> >>> Even if you were 8 or 9 you wouldn't. >>> >> >> When I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been >> experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no >> worry about that because at that time we only had comic books >> and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all. >> >> My elementary school calculator was a pencil with >> a celluloid sleeve with the times table and you just rotated >> it to the 6 X 9 column to get 54, and no more power needed >> but your fingers. > > We wouldn't have been allowed that in Toronto in the 1950s. If you > couldn't memorize products up to 12X12 you got at best a D in arithmetic. > > A friend who teaches at a junior college in Arizona tells me that two of > his students failed to multiply 7X9. One knew that it was "around 60". > > Graduates from this course are supposed to be qualified for any second > year Calculus course in the US. Even one offered by MIT. This could > end in tears. > > William Hyde > I've been talking about this a bit. Maybe it's why they are shutting down the universities, because many people aren't up to it and should just take a dash more math. -- Can you strip away so we may start again? "There’s a switch and they don't seem authentic or themselves. It feels like I’m an unnecessary body and it’s a waste of time to even be there." -- Grim, playful Blaine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 20:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11b3pce$hci$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #674607 |
BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote: > When I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been >experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no >worry about that because at that time we only had comic books >and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all. Didn't you look at the ads in the back? They were 100% trolling! Start your own empire of sea horses! Get a thousand dollars worth of rare stamps for only a penny! A friend of mine sent $5 which was an enormous amount of money at the time to a PO box in the midwest to get directions for "ANTI-GRAVITY! NO MAGNETS, GASSES OR EXOTIC FUELS!" He was disappointed. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 18:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11b3tcg$1lsqc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674635 |
On 10/18/26 17:48, Scott Dorsey wrote: > BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote: >> When I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been >> experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no >> worry about that because at that time we only had comic books >> and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all. > > Didn't you look at the ads in the back? They were 100% trolling! > Start your own empire of sea horses! Get a thousand dollars worth > of rare stamps for only a penny! > > A friend of mine sent $5 which was an enormous amount of money at > the time to a PO box in the midwest to get directions for "ANTI-GRAVITY! > NO MAGNETS, GASSES OR EXOTIC FUELS!" He was disappointed. > --scott Generally disappointment was the rule but we were very poor and i never fell for sea monkeys or a lot of the other advertised crap. The commonest one was for devices to extend your gas mileage in many magazines. My step-father spent a lot on stamps to send in answers to Hearst newspaper games which netted him nada. bliss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 19:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6AD5862B.784D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #674637 |
BobbieSellers wrote: > > On 10/18/26 17:48, Scott Dorsey wrote: > > BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote: > >> When I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been > >> experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no > >> worry about that because at that time we only had comic books > >> and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all. > > > > Didn't you look at the ads in the back? They were 100% trolling! > > Start your own empire of sea horses! Get a thousand dollars worth > > of rare stamps for only a penny! > > > > A friend of mine sent $5 which was an enormous amount of money at > > the time to a PO box in the midwest to get directions for "ANTI-GRAVITY! > > NO MAGNETS, GASSES OR EXOTIC FUELS!" He was disappointed. > > --scott > > Generally disappointment was the rule but we were very poor and i never > fell for sea monkeys or a lot of the other advertised crap. > The commonest one was for devices to extend your gas mileage in many > magazines. My step-father spent a lot on stamps to send in answers > to Hearst newspaper games which netted him nada. > > bliss > > Every kid in America LOVE those Aldoph Hitler stamps!!! -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 23:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <914bdl1ogojtvn54q9acd8rschg3adu06v@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #674637 |
On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 18:56:30 -0700, BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote: >On 10/18/26 17:48, Scott Dorsey wrote: >> BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote: >>> When I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been >>> experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no >>> worry about that because at that time we only had comic books >>> and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all. >> >> Didn't you look at the ads in the back? They were 100% trolling! >> Start your own empire of sea horses! Get a thousand dollars worth >> of rare stamps for only a penny! >> >> A friend of mine sent $5 which was an enormous amount of money at >> the time to a PO box in the midwest to get directions for "ANTI-GRAVITY! >> NO MAGNETS, GASSES OR EXOTIC FUELS!" He was disappointed. >> --scott > > Generally disappointment was the rule but we were very poor and i never >fell for sea monkeys or a lot of the other advertised crap. >The commonest one was for devices to extend your gas mileage in many >magazines. My step-father spent a lot on stamps to send in answers >to Hearst newspaper games which netted him nada. > Most of those ads required that you send them a "S.A.S.E.". Would anyone under 50 understand what was being asked for?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 21:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11b47kd$1okkd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674641 |
On 10/18/26 20:39, Tony Cooper wrote: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 18:56:30 -0700, BobbieSellers > <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote: > >> On 10/18/26 17:48, Scott Dorsey wrote: >>> BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote: >>>> When I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been >>>> experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no >>>> worry about that because at that time we only had comic books >>>> and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all. >>> >>> Didn't you look at the ads in the back? They were 100% trolling! >>> Start your own empire of sea horses! Get a thousand dollars worth >>> of rare stamps for only a penny! >>> >>> A friend of mine sent $5 which was an enormous amount of money at >>> the time to a PO box in the midwest to get directions for "ANTI-GRAVITY! >>> NO MAGNETS, GASSES OR EXOTIC FUELS!" He was disappointed. >>> --scott >> >> Generally disappointment was the rule but we were very poor and i never >> fell for sea monkeys or a lot of the other advertised crap. >> The commonest one was for devices to extend your gas mileage in many >> magazines. My step-father spent a lot on stamps to send in answers >> to Hearst newspaper games which netted him nada. >> > > Most of those ads required that you send them a "S.A.S.E.". Would > anyone under 50 understand what was being asked for? People under 50 are a mystery to me. A Self Addressed Stamped Envelope. But I would turn the word order around to a Stamped Self-Addressed Envelope. SSAE... bliss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 11:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <njjlb1Fmf6oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #674582 |
Le 18/10/2026 à 07:07, BobbieSellers a écrit : > On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote: >> >> I never read a fiction book >> and I certaintly never read >> a science fiction book > > Nor do ever appear to even cracked > any book especially not even one on classical > physicw. [...] I plonked The Starmaker a while back, but it seems hard to believe that someone has never read a work of fiction, not even as a youthful experiment. I came across some interesting material yesterday in 'L'Express' about the history of reading and its present decline. I had time only to scan it, and mean to return to it for a closer look. The argument, in several articles over many pages, was that reading fiction and non-fiction is fundamental to enlightenment and human development, allows one to escape oneself and see the world from other points of view. In politics, the book is detached from face-to-face immediacy and emotion. It is infinitely patient, allows time for reflection and checking, and is the antidote to, for example, Trump's unstable superficiality. Reading fiction for thirty minutes a day was even correlated with two years' increase in life expectancy (there may be mention of a causal link, but I didn't see it; must look again). Unfortunately for present purposes, the articles are in French and behind a paywall (I was using Pressreader, courtesy of our local library): <https://www.lexpress.fr/idees-et-debats/la-fin-de-la-lecture-mene-lhumanite-vers-un-nouvel-age-des-tenebres-le-cri-dalarme-de-james-marriott-Q5YW5AT2PJCFRPA3F6JXWIRRUA/?cmp_redirect=true> At least some of the original work is in English - e.g.: <https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1847929516>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 19:33 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <_72BS.531021$FEvb.457620@fx12.ams4> |
| In reply to | #674586 |
On 10/18/2026 6:28 PM, Hibou wrote: > Le 18/10/2026 à 07:07, BobbieSellers a écrit : >> On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote: >>> >>> I never read a fiction book >>> and I certaintly never read >>> a science fiction book >> >> Nor do ever appear to even cracked >> any book especially not even one on classical >> physicw. [...] > > > I plonked The Starmaker a while back, but it seems hard to believe that > someone has never read a work of fiction, not even as a youthful > experiment. > > I came across some interesting material yesterday in 'L'Express' about > the history of reading and its present decline. I had time only to scan > it, and mean to return to it for a closer look. The argument, in several > articles over many pages, was that reading fiction and non-fiction is > fundamental to enlightenment and human development, allows one to escape > oneself and see the world from other points of view. In politics, the > book is detached from face-to-face immediacy and emotion. It is > infinitely patient, allows time for reflection and checking, and is the > antidote to, for example, Trump's unstable superficiality. Reading > fiction for thirty minutes a day was even correlated with two years' > increase in life expectancy (there may be mention of a causal link, but > I didn't see it; must look again). > > Unfortunately for present purposes, the articles are in French and > behind a paywall (I was using Pressreader, courtesy of our local library): > > <https://www.lexpress.fr/idees-et-debats/la-fin-de-la-lecture-mene- > lhumanite-vers-un-nouvel-age-des-tenebres-le-cri-dalarme-de-james- > marriott-Q5YW5AT2PJCFRPA3F6JXWIRRUA/?cmp_redirect=true> > > At least some of the original work is in English - e.g.: > > <https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1847929516> Well, I'm not sure decline in reading fiction measures anything much. After all, people are inundated with more interesting storytelling methods nowadays, mostly videos. A lot of people are "addicted" [1] to short form video dramas, the same way people listened to radio dramas -- literal soap operas -- in the 1930s. These are shot in phone proportions and one minute segments to maximize advertisement revenue. You can subscribe to these drama "sta- tions" to get rid of the ads. As much of entertainment is literally slush [2], and people aren't very judgemental when bored, I don't see much value in reading physical books over audiobooks, or phone dramas, for consooming the fiction. Of course, reading comprehension is developed over time and by reading lots of books, but we can also argue that reading comprehension isn't all that necessary in daily life for regular people. After all, higher education is now considered "passe" -- the accent is missing -- and just a formality to get through to enter /adult life/ and employment; it really doesn't matter what education people get. It's just a random flip of the coin by someone in H.R. if a person gets a job or not [3]. And to counter my prior arguments, sort of, I have to mention that I read a lot of nonfiction, which without reading comprehension, I would not understand at all. You can see some of the easier tomes in the background of my BlueSky profile, linked below. And to counter the counter argument, I'll finish with: I don't /need/ regular people to have such reading comprehension to enjoy their daily lives. I'm not an educational snob, and don't care if a particular per- son goes through higher education or not. Then to finish off, we can discuss these things at length, but please have a well formed -- if not well informed -- opinion about regular peo- ple and reading, so at least we can argue in good faith and don't have to move the goal posts all over the battleground for the ensuing flame- war [4]. Best wishes, and happy reading comprehension! [1] I use the quotes with purpose, it's not addiction as it's merely en- tertainment. [2] To differentiate from A.I. slop. [3] I have more to say on this subject, but will keep this soap box monologue short. [4] Here I make the presumptive argument that /finishing with/ and /fin- ishing off/ are two different expressions and can be used in succession. -- Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/ I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:; Federated at https://fed.brid.gy/bsky/myrkraverk.bsky.social
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 13:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <njjtboFofa6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #674590 |
Le 18/10/2026 à 12:33, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson a écrit : > > Well, I'm not sure decline in reading fiction measures anything much. > After all, people are inundated with more interesting storytelling > methods nowadays, mostly videos. > > A lot of people are "addicted" [1] to short form video dramas, the same > way people listened to radio dramas -- literal soap operas -- in the > 1930s. These are shot in phone proportions and one minute segments to > maximize advertisement revenue. You can subscribe to these drama "sta- > tions" to get rid of the ads. > > As much of entertainment is literally slush [2], and people aren't very > judgemental when bored, I don't see much value in reading physical books > over audiobooks, or phone dramas, for consooming the fiction. > > Of course, reading comprehension is developed over time and by reading > lots of books, but we can also argue that reading comprehension isn't > all that necessary in daily life for regular people. After all, higher > education is now considered "passe" -- the accent is missing -- and just > a formality to get through to enter /adult life/ and employment; it > really doesn't matter what education people get. It's just a random > flip of the coin by someone in H.R. if a person gets a job or not [3]. > > And to counter my prior arguments, sort of, I have to mention that I > read a lot of nonfiction, which without reading comprehension, I would > not understand at all. You can see some of the easier tomes in the > background of my BlueSky profile, linked below. > > And to counter the counter argument, I'll finish with: I don't /need/ > regular people to have such reading comprehension to enjoy their daily > lives. I'm not an educational snob, and don't care if a particular per- > son goes through higher education or not. > > Then to finish off, we can discuss these things at length, but please > have a well formed -- if not well informed -- opinion about regular peo- > ple and reading, so at least we can argue in good faith and don't have > to move the goal posts all over the battleground for the ensuing flame- > war [4]. I've not expressed an opinion yet, save that the articles seem interesting. Here's one, though: the idea that books are good for people seems plausible. I think I know a bit about a few subjects, and I've forgotten a lot about others. They are the ones in which I've read a number of books - which is not to say that books are the only way to acquire knowledge - far from it - but they do let one delve more deeply. Films and videos, yes, love them; but novels are more versatile. It's hard to have a first-person viewpoint and inner narrative on film. 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' and 'The Reader' just aren't the same on screen, and I don't think 'La métaphysique des tubes' could ever be filmed. Fiction expands experience. One can live through alien invasions - in 'A for Andromeda', for instance; the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre; descend among the Morlocks, armed with just some matches and sulphur; hear about the politics of the Lilliputians; travel through Middle Earth; visit the Planet of the Apes; hunt for a mole in the Circus; suffer amorous bondage with Somerset Maugham, the torture of Japanese corporate life with Amélie Nothomb, or be a slave to pity with Stefan Zweig…. And writing? Writing is the least expensive medium and has the fewest limitations - and the pictures are even better than those on the radio.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 20:35 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <1eJBS.256782$lGW8.178835@fx07.ams4> |
| In reply to | #674605 |
On 10/18/2026 8:45 PM, Hibou wrote: > Le 18/10/2026 à 12:33, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson a écrit : >> >> Well, I'm not sure decline in reading fiction measures anything much. >> After all, people are inundated with more interesting storytelling >> methods nowadays, mostly videos. >> >> A lot of people are "addicted" [1] to short form video dramas, the same >> way people listened to radio dramas -- literal soap operas -- in the >> 1930s. These are shot in phone proportions and one minute segments to >> maximize advertisement revenue. You can subscribe to these drama "sta- >> tions" to get rid of the ads. >> >> As much of entertainment is literally slush [2], and people aren't very >> judgemental when bored, I don't see much value in reading physical books >> over audiobooks, or phone dramas, for consooming the fiction. >> >> Of course, reading comprehension is developed over time and by reading >> lots of books, but we can also argue that reading comprehension isn't >> all that necessary in daily life for regular people. After all, higher >> education is now considered "passe" -- the accent is missing -- and just >> a formality to get through to enter /adult life/ and employment; it >> really doesn't matter what education people get. It's just a random >> flip of the coin by someone in H.R. if a person gets a job or not [3]. >> >> And to counter my prior arguments, sort of, I have to mention that I >> read a lot of nonfiction, which without reading comprehension, I would >> not understand at all. You can see some of the easier tomes in the >> background of my BlueSky profile, linked below. >> >> And to counter the counter argument, I'll finish with: I don't /need/ >> regular people to have such reading comprehension to enjoy their daily >> lives. I'm not an educational snob, and don't care if a particular per- >> son goes through higher education or not. >> >> Then to finish off, we can discuss these things at length, but please >> have a well formed -- if not well informed -- opinion about regular peo- >> ple and reading, so at least we can argue in good faith and don't have >> to move the goal posts all over the battleground for the ensuing flame- >> war [4]. > > > I've not expressed an opinion yet, save that the articles seem > interesting. Here's one, though: the idea that books are good for people > seems plausible. > > I think I know a bit about a few subjects, and I've forgotten a lot > about others. They are the ones in which I've read a number of books - > which is not to say that books are the only way to acquire knowledge - > far from it - but they do let one delve more deeply. > > Films and videos, yes, love them; but novels are more versatile. It's > hard to have a first-person viewpoint and inner narrative on film. > 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' and 'The Reader' just aren't the same on screen, > and I don't think 'La métaphysique des tubes' could ever be filmed. > > Fiction expands experience. One can live through alien invasions - in 'A > for Andromeda', for instance; the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre; descend > among the Morlocks, armed with just some matches and sulphur; hear about > the politics of the Lilliputians; travel through Middle Earth; visit the > Planet of the Apes; hunt for a mole in the Circus; suffer amorous > bondage with Somerset Maugham, the torture of Japanese corporate life > with Amélie Nothomb, or be a slave to pity with Stefan Zweig…. > > And writing? Writing is the least expensive medium and has the fewest > limitations - and the pictures are even better than those on the radio. Yes, fiction expands experience, and for learning, I myself prefer books. Yet, I've learned a lot from video lectures, both professionally produced, and random stuff on YouTube [1], so I don't think the medium matters as much, unless you want to stick to 19th century knowledge when books was the only medium that would stick [2]. I have not read much of what you mention above, so I cannot comment on the specific fictions. I'll just add that I loved reading about Lord Greystoke as a child [3]. His 2016 movie isn't even bad, but I have not seen his latest, which will be or was released this year. And well produced audio books are almost the same as reading a physical book. Bad narration, or a voice that doesn't fit my own image of the story can make the experience boring, or even disgusting. And since fiction is strictly linear [4] audio narration vs. reading is a matter of taste, and health. It should be quite obvious that if it's painful to turn pages, an audiobook is the better option. That last point is why I don't discriminate against people who prefer to listen to stories, rather than read physical books. The medical pro- fessionals of alt.usage.english will no doubt agree. I myself started to listen to audiobooks while walking about, and riding in cars. It makes the trip much more enjoyable -- especially when it's routine. But other people may prefer music, or silence, of which I have no judge- ment. Best wishes, and happy reading! [1] Some years ago, so I'm not current on what's good and what isn't. I hope Ben Eater is still teaching people how to make a 6502 with bread- boards. [2] And some of it is still valid today. You can read an old book on blacksmithing, and be delighted at how to make your own smithy, and not have to buy all the electrical tools. To over simplify, making hand cranked tools was a big part of the book as people weren't expected to always afford the latest and greatest steam engines. No, I don't know what book I was reading; it's somewhere on archive.org. [3] Just ask the nearest L.L.M. if you don't know who that is. [4] Most of the time. -- Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/ I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:; Federated at https://fed.brid.gy/bsky/myrkraverk.bsky.social
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Torbjorn Lindgren <tl@none.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 14:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11b7t8o$32vck$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674735 |
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote: >[1] Some years ago, so I'm not current on what's good and what isn't. >I hope Ben Eater is still teaching people how to make a 6502 with bread- >boards. Ben Eater[1] is still around and doing things (after a hiatus) and there's several others also doing interesting stuff. He was far from the first but he did push it much closer to the surface. A few personal recommendations if anyone is interested in this kind of stuff: My favorite is James Sharman[2] which is doing a complete homebrew cpu/computer with a pipelined 8-bit cpu using 74xx circuit - the instruction set is vaguely RISC inspired and has an exposed pipeline for somplicity (fairly rare). Designs starts with breadbords and is then transferring it to PCBs for more reliability when the cabling starts to overwhelm it. He's currently on the sprite circuits for the 640x480 graphics (tile based like NES/SNES and some other game consoles, really wacky stuff). There's also Dr Matt Regan[3] which has a very different take on the whole field, using Turing style machines (very big state machine) to "emulate" various existing CPU (6502, Z80) and entire machines (VIC 20, C64, Apple 2, ZX81, ZX Spectrum) in hardware. It works surprisingly well and performant due to easy avilability of large ROM/RAM chips and faster clocks.This does mean that his approach is really only usable for things that are decades old at the time of implementation). It's does have a weird reconfigurability where the circuits are far more similar than one would expect with most of the difference in the ROM/state machine data. There's of course also Usagi Electrics's UE-1[4] homebrew one-bit vacuum tube computer, loosely based on the MC14500 but with a number of expansion/improvements. He uses copper coated boards and route away copper to create the tracks and then it can drill automatically - drill alignment tends to be a very tedious steps if doing "normal" home etched PCBs. There's some breadboard prototyping and CAD (Cardboard Assisted Design) too. Density obviously sucks going that route but that's a given *anyway* since he's using full-sized tubes and he can iterate much faster than if he were using professionally made PCBs. He also have a lot of other content that's likely to be interesting to viewer that find this interesting but liked directly to the UE-1 playlist here. There's at least one more creator doing things like this that I liked but can't find it quickly because there's no activity there for a long time. 1. https://www.youtube.com/@BenEater 2. https://www.youtube.com/@weirdboyjim 3. https://www.youtube.com/@DrMattRegan 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y149hLe1zYo&list=PLnw98JPyObn0v-98gRV9PfzAQONTKxql3
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web