Media Share 9/MEDIASHARE_09.ISO/mag&info/sf018080.zip/SF018080.TXT

Text File | 1993-02-23 | 18KB | 409 lines

SF-LOVERS Digest            Monday, 8 Feb 1993         Volume 18 : Issue 80

Today's Topics:

               Books - Jeter (6 msgs) & Longyear & Miller &
                       Kim Stanley Robinson (4 msgs)

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

Date: 3 Feb 93 09:48:05 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: K.W. Jeter

[e-mail] (Michael I. Lichter) writes:
> I bring this up mainly because I was curious about _The Glass Hammer_.  I
> have _Farewell Horizontal_ by Jeter, but haven't been able to locate
> _Hammer_.  Does anybody know if it's any good, and worth continuing to
> scour used book stores for?

_The Glass Hammer_ is mediocre.  I thought Dr. Adder to be far superior
(but much sicker, definitely.  If a book offends my sensibilities, it makes
me aware of what they are.)

It's somewhat slow-paced, and just doesn't hold together all that well.
There's some memorable stuff in it, but not enough.  I got lucky and got
the book for nothing, the wonderful "Stars Our Destination" bookstore in
Chicago gave away remaindered trade paperbacks at the first few cons they
attended.  Frequent them!!!

[e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Feb 93 19:05:42 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Ed Dambik)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: K.W. Jeter

Yes, GLASS HAMMER is worth finding. Very good book. I remember seeing
copies in various remaindered book stores. DR ADDER, GLASS HAMMER and DEATH
ARMS form what Jeter calls a "thematic trilogy". I think DEATH ARMS is the
darkest of the lot (anybody ever see this one in paperback?).

MADLANDS is Jeter's most recent SF work. This one's set in an LA where
images become reality and people tend to lose their mental and physical
identities big time. Intrigue abounds in this backdrop.

Ed

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

Date: 5 Feb 93 10:22:49 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: K.W. Jeter

[e-mail] (Ed Dambik) writes:
> Yes, GLASS HAMMER is worth finding. Very good book. I remember seeing
> copies in various remaindered book stores. DR ADDER, GLASS HAMMER and
> DEATH ARMS form what Jeter calls a "thematic trilogy". I think DEATH ARMS
> is the darkest of the lot (anybody ever see this one in paperback?).

Yes, 'Death Arms' is definitely even darker than 'Dr.Adder' and 'Glass
Hammer' and is really worth reading too. You can find some interesting
comments from Jeter himself in an appendix to 'Death Arms' published by
Morrigan, but only in the limited editon (I got one FOR SALE), so if you're
interested just send e-mail (it's signed and numbered too...).  You can
find DA in paperback, but only from Grafton (UK publisher). It was released
in 1989...

'Farewell Horizontal' was meant to be the first part of a new trilogy, but
Jeter has decided (1988) not to write SF any more, but only horror books.
He seems to have changed is mind (Madlands), so there's hope...

Patrick J. Gyger
History dpt.
University of Lausanne
[e-mail]

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

Date: 3 Feb 93 18:48:13 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Busby)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: K.W. Jeter

While we're on the subject, I would be grateful if anyone could kindly give
publisher details of Jeter's books 'The Dreamfields' and 'Seeklight'.
Jeter's paperback publishers in the UK list these titles as 'By the same
author' but are unable to supply further details.

Thanks in advance.

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

Date: 4 Feb 93 08:38:34 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: K.W. Jeter

[comments on the _Glass Hammer_ deleted]

> Dick fans might find the book interesting - there's a surprisingly sad,
> affectionate portrayal of a character I took to be Philip K. Dick.  He's
> attempting the strange, personal task of recreating a shattered
> stained-glass window from the millions of fragments.  I believe Jeter
> knew Dick during the period when _VALIS_ was under construction/being
> lived.  (I have a lurking memory that he may be that Kevin who hopes to
> confront God with his stiff dead cat held out before him like a frying
> pan).  Those who know (or who've done their homework & read the
> biographies) feel free to correct this.

   You're right K.W. Jeter is Kevin in Valis (K. stands for Kevin) and Dick
and Jeter used to be good friends (except for some years: Dick thought that
Jeter was a CIA agent being part of a conspiration help against him)...
Dick also appears in _Dr.Adder_ as KCID, the guy who sends helpful messages
on the radio and which appears really only in the end of the novel.  IMHO,
_The Glass Hammer_ is a great book, far better than _Dr.Adder_. But anyone
interested in Jeter's works should read _Death Arms_ too and his other
books.
   K.W. Jeter wrote some 'steampunk' novel (he created the word in a letter
to Locus), like _Infernal Devices_ or _Morlock Night_, very different from
his 'hard' sf style and very good too.
   You could also try his horror books, like _In the land of the Dead_.
Even if you don't like the genre, I think you'll like that. It also has
this powerful, simple form we can find in his sf books and which fits
pretty well to horror.
   Jeter recently published _Madlands_ which is a kind of renewal of some
stuff we can find in books from Dick, like reality=illusion, universe=trap,
etc...

Well, if anyone wants any info on Jeter, I'll do my best, as I am the
ultimate fan... Just ask...

Patrick J. Gyger
History dpt.
University of Lausanne
[e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Feb 93 10:12:38 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: K.W. Jeter

[e-mail] (Kevin Busby) writes:
> No, you're quite right. For what it's worth I second your approval of
> 'The Glass Hammer' (but then Jeter seems consistently good, excepting
> perhaps 'Warlock Night'...).

  It's Morlock Night (like the Morlock in 'The Time Machine' from
H.G.Wells.  In the book, the Morlocks take the machine from Well's hero and
use it for themselves...

> While we're on the subject, I would be grateful if anyone could kindly
> give publisher details of Jeter's books 'The Dreamfields' and
> 'Seeklight'. Jeter's paperback publishers in the UK list these titles as
> 'By the same author' but are unable to supply further details.

 The Dreamfiels and Seeklight are the first published books from Jeter by
Laser books in 1976 and 1977. Laser books is now defunct so these titles
are really hard to find. But it's not quite impossible (I found them).  If
you want them try to contact "[e-mail]". Michael has
one of the good 'bookshops' through e-mail...

Patrick J. Gyger
History dpt.
University of Lausanne
[e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Feb 93 23:06:00 GMT
From: [e-mail] (A.T. Campbell)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: It Came from Schenectady

[e-mail] (Barbara Cormack) writes:
>Is this the correct title for the book by Barry Longyear?  Can anyone tell
>me what it's about, and if it's in print?  Thanks.  (A friend from
>Schenectady is inquiring...)

IT CAME FROM SCHENECTADY is a collection of science fiction stories by
Barry Longyear. The book was published in the mid 80's. It contains several
excellent stories which vary wildly in subject matter, narrative style, and
tone. Highlights include "The Portrait of Baron Negai", "S.H.A.W.N.A.,
Inc.," "Catch the Sun,", and the title story, which answers the question
commonly asked of SF writers, "Where do your ideas come from?"

A. T. Campbell, III
The Aerospace Corporation
El Segundo, CA
[e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Feb 93 10:45:40 GMT
From: [e-mail] (James Thomas Green)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: A Canticle for Leibowitz

SPOILERS

I've just finished "A Canticle for Leibowitz".  It is a rather powerful
story.  It seems to be that should there be an end of the world through
nuclear war, assuming the church did survive, the scenerios outlined here
of the monks saving documents being likely.  It is interesting how
Brother's Francis' account of the discovery of the "holy" relics of the
"blessed" Leibowitz were blown out of proportion (just as I'm sure many of
the modern religious "miracle" fables are actually exaggerations of rather
ordinary events.

A few questions for those who've read the book:

I've been led to believe that the this book is supposed to represent in its
three parts (trinity?) 1. The dark ages 2.  The renaissance and 3. the
Modern world.  This seems to make sense to me. What do you think.

The two headed woman (the tummater woman) who's second head sprouts out and
at the end just after the war becomes conscience I've been told is supposed
to represent "innocence".  As I've also heard that this book is supposed to
be the story of the time of the anti-Christ, and the second atomic war is
supposed to be some kind of "purification." Rachel (and the extra-solar
colonies) are supposed to represent the new "pure on Earth."  Opinions?

James T. Green
[e-mail]

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

Date: 5 Feb 93 22:53:00 GMT
From: [e-mail] (cb52)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson

   This is in response to Evelyn Leeper's review of Red Mars by Kim Stanley
Robinson. (SPOILERS!!!!)

   While I agree that Red Mars is a great book, there are aspects that
should be included in any discussion of the book.  First, there is not a
well thought out defense of the position that the "REDS" take in not
terraforming Mars.  The only advocte of maintaining Mars in its original
state that Robinson spends any time developing is Anne and her only real
argument is simply an emotional attachment to Mars, not a rational well
thought out argument.  Robinson could have spent more time discussing the
ethics of humans changing another planet's atmoshpere for our own benefit.

   I also found that it ended with supposedly intelligent human beings
completely destroying the entire planet and killing off a substantial
number of settlers (altough forshadowing suggests that it will have long
term benefits for terraformers).

   I also found the discussion of "revolution", reasons for revolution and
how to foment one very shallow.  There is no good discussion of how to
build a functional society or government, such as in Heinlein's
The_Moon_is_a_Harsh_ Mistress or even Tunnel_in_the_Sky.

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

Date: 6 Feb 93 03:16:38 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Dani Zweig)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson

[e-mail] (cb52):
>First, there is not a well thought out defense of the position that the
>"REDS" take in not terraforming Mars.  The only...real argument is simply
>an emotional attachment to Mars, not a rational well thought out
>argument.

I'm not sure one could construct something you would accept as a well-
thought-out argument: The basic argument against terraforming Mars would
have to be either "I like it the way it is" or "it is wrong to treat the
universe as though it were put here simply for our convenience and use -
even if no other sentients are harmed."  Either argument can have
considerable power and validity, but neither is rational in the sense you
seem to mean.

>Robinson could have spent more time discussing the ethics of humans
>changing another planet's atmoshpere for our own benefit.

In the absence of Martians, and in the absence of humans (present or
future) who can make better use of the planet as it is, I'd think that
terraforming Mars would, at worst, be an ethically neutral act - on the
order of picking up a lovely rock and carving it into an ugly millstone.
Again, there are arguments against terraforming, but they would not be
ethical arguments.

>There is no good discussion of how to build a functional society or
>government, such as in Heinlein's The_Moon_is_a_Harsh_Mistress or even
>Tunnel_in_the_Sky.

I enjoyed both those books but, I would never cite them in an article that
began by deploring a one-sided discussion.

Dani Zweig
[e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Feb 93 03:59:13 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson

SPOILERS

[e-mail] (cb52) writes:
>   While I agree that Red Mars is a great book, there are aspects that
>should be included in any discussion of the book.  First, there is not a
>well thought out defense of the position that the "REDS" take in not
>terraforming Mars.  The only advocte of maintaining Mars in its original
>state that Robinson spends any time developing is Anne and her only real
>argument is simply an emotional attachment to Mars, not a rational well
>thought out argument.  Robinson could have spent more time discussing the
>ethics of humans changing another planet's atmoshpere for our own benefit.

It seems to me that there is much discussion of what people on Earth are
doing to it to use its resources, and to me there was a clear parallel in
how it is very easy to abuse a planet unthinkingly.  It is also true that
for many people, the emotional attachment is what drives them into
environmentalist movements here as well, so that seems valid to bring out
in a character on Mars.

>   I also found that it ended with supposedly intelligent human beings
>completely destroying the entire planet and killing off a substantial
>number of settlers (altough forshadowing suggests that it will have long
>term benefits for terraformers).

Are you saying you found this unlikely?  Given the human race, I don't
think this at all unlikely or unbelievable.  20% of the population in
Cambodia was killed during the Pol Pot reign there, Yugoslavia is a mess,
and Saddam Hussein did who knows what to the environment by setting Kuwait
on fire.  Undesirable, yes, but unlikely?  Alas, no.

>   I also found the discussion of "revolution", reasons for revolution and
>how to foment one very shallow.  There is no good discussion of how to
>build a functional society or government, such as in Heinlein's
>The_Moon_is_a_Harsh_ Mistress or even Tunnel_in_the_Sky.

I didn't find a good discussion in THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS, which I
just re-read.  What I found, as I said in my review, was Heinlein (or his
characters, if you prefer) saying that A, B, and C would work, and X, Y,
and Z were stupid, and "proving" this by showing a society run on A, B, and
C.  The fact that many successful societies have run on X, Y, and Z he (or
they, if you prefer) ignored entirely.

Lots of times the reasons for revolution *are* shallow.  And how to start a
successful one is probably equally undefined.  What I think Robinson
understands about history is that it is not nice and neat and orderly, with
logical steps from A to B to C (not the same A, B, and C as above :-) ).
History is made by people, and people are irrational, follish, and
emotional.  A good discussion of how to change the social order is not what
led Germany to the Holocaust.  A discussion of how to function in world
politics is not what set the Kuwaiti oil fields ablaze.  It's true that
those who don't study history are condemned to repeat it, but those who
study history aren't much better off.

Evelyn C. Leeper
[phone]
att!mtgzy!ecl
[e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Feb 93 18:55:07 GMT
From: [e-mail] (no label)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson

[e-mail] (Dani Zweig) writes:
>>There is no good discussion of how to build a functional society or
>>government, such as in Heinlein's The_Moon_is_a_Harsh_Mistress or even
>>Tunnel_in_the_Sky.
>
>I enjoyed both those books but, I would never cite them in an article
>that began by deploring a one-sided discussion.

Bingo!  The "discussion" wished for above is indeed brought forth in both
_Harsh Mistress_ and _Tunnel_, but as Evelyn pointed out (at least in the
case of _Mistress_) Heinlein would brook no dissent to his building of a
functional society.  No alternatives are given.

There is plenty of discussion regarding how to build a functional society
in _Red Mars_; the point as I see it is that the characters DON'T KNOW HOW
TO DO IT.  There are factions that think they do, but they are pitted
against others with conflicting plans, AND NEITHER IS DEFINITELY RIGHT.  I
enjoy Heinlein, but I'd like to see you try to convince me that he shows
all sides to a given problem.

Anyway, my argument is that Robinson did indeed do a fine job of creating a
multi-faceted political and social situation on the newly colonized planet.
Complaints about him not showing more support for the Reds seem a bit odd.
The characters were responsible for the arguments for and against
terraforming; not some omniscient and morally perfect narrator being.  I
find it completely plausible that the majority of the colonists, as well as
the majority of the societies back on Earth, would be in favor of
terraforming a dead planet.

Michael L. Medlin
[e-mail]

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

End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************