Hacker Chronicles 2/HACKER2.BIN/465.SF018103.TXT

Text File | 1993-02-23 | 18KB | 376 lines

SF-LOVERS Digest            Monday, 15 Feb 1993       Volume 18 : Issue 103

Today's Topics:

           Books - Norman ( 2 msgs) & Robinson (3 msgs) & Shaw &
                   Simmons (2 msgs) & Vinge (2 msgs)

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

Date: 13 Feb 93 19:56:09 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Raph Koster)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: John Norman & Gor

Regarding the recent discussion of the (IMHO nonexistent) virtues of
Norman's _Gor_ books:

A while back when browsing at Baltimore's specialty store _Tales From the
White Hart_ I was told that the reason there hasn't been a new one in a
while is because the last one he turned in to the publishers was, well,
unreadable, and they said No Thank You to it. And he hasn't been able to
find a publisher for it since.

The person asking there was also someone who liked them, and the proprietor
proceeded to rip into him... she "only carried them for the money..." :)

Raph

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

Date: 14 Feb 93 19:06:55 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Michael P Collins)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: John Norman & Gor

Raph [e-mail] writes:
> The person asking there was also someone who liked them, and the
> proprietor proceeded to rip into him... she "only carried them for the
> money..." :)

    Isn't that also the reason John Norman wrote them?  I was given to
understand that he was rather contemptuous of his readers.

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

Date: 10 Feb 93 16:51:14 GMT
From: [e-mail] (no label)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson

[e-mail] (Eric Goldstein) writes:
>[e-mail] (Dani Zweig) writes:
>> 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.
>
>I can think of at least one other argument:
>
>"Mars is, as far as we know, a one-of-a-kind object.  It is worthy of
>study, as it has thus far given us enormous scientific insight, and if we
>preserve it for future investigations, it is likely to be a source of yet
>more scientific insight."
>
>Isn't this rational?
>
>I suppose a reply could be something like "we will reap the benefits of
>scientific investigation if we study the results of teraforming" but I
>would think that if our goal is to advance science, we should wait until
>we understand mars as we have found it, before we destroy it.  Of course,
>other goals might be more appealing.
>
>(I haven't read Robinson's book, and I hope that is ok.  I am only
>responding to Dani Zweig's claim.)

It is a very rational argument, and it is one of the strongest arguments
that Ann Clayborne has, and one she makes several times throughout the
book.  Although I *might* be in favor of terraforming, I think that any
effort to do so would have to take this argument into consideration.  It
would be a stronger argument if there were *any* signs of life, but even as
a dead planet Mars is a fascinating and unique place.

Spoiler Warning!!!

I am very glad that Ann Clayborne is alive and kicking at the end of the
book.  She is an interesting character, and a terrific foil for Sax.  It
will be interesting to see how she responds now that it has become clear
that terraforming, or at least some sort of artificial change, is
inevitable.  Pure emotional or no, I think many of her arguments are good
ones, and I wonder what she is going to strive for now.  I like the fact
that the point of view is switched between the characters, as Robinson does
a terrific job of "coloring" each view, making it seem like we are truly
seeing things from a fresh perspective each time.  I look forward to seeing
more of Ann's view in the coming books.  Although she is not particularly
likeable, she holds strong convictions - convictions which are unique to
her.

On the other hand, I am *pissed* (American meaning) that Arkady is
deceased.  :-)

Michael L. Medlin
[e-mail]

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

Date: 11 Feb 93 05:35:20 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Simon Marchant)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson

>>...From the American edition (which has the map sans airbrushing) it is
>>quite clear that the names on the map, and the map itself are mirror
>>images - e.g Olympus Mons is on one page of the map but the name "Olympus
>>Mons" is in the mirror image position on the other page. Useful map?
>>Maybe.
>
>No offense intended, but I'm entirely baffled by this.  Try again?

The labels on the map do not correspond to the appropriate geographical
locations (most definitely reducing the map's usefulness).  To be precise,
the names are in mirror image positions to the corresponding geographical
features.  If you look at a copy of the map, say at Olympus Mons (on the
left page, near the top left-hand corner), you'll be fairly disappointed by
the rendition of the solar system's largest volcano. If you look on the
right hand page, near the top right hand corner, just below the label
Elysium Planitia, you see something that looks surprisingly like a very
large mountain.  That is Olympus Mons.  Now, repeat this process for every
other geographical feature on the planet.

Simon
[e-mail].

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

Date: 11 Feb 93 23:25:58 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Mark Dakins)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: Mars Atlases (was Re: Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson)

>A "current" martian atlas would be absolutely *incredible* as a companion
>to the series.  I would also like to know if one exists.  The description
>was generally good enough for me to visualize certain areas, but an atlas
>would give more of a sense of scope and scale.  If I find one, I will
>immediately pick up _RM_ and re-read it from page one.

Sky Publishing, PO Box 9111, Belmont, MA 02178-9111
800 253-0245
has a 39 by 40 inch poster based on the current NASA/USGS data. $7.95
and a 12 inch globe (with many less named features but, it looks
nice) $84.95

Willmann-Bell, PO Box 35025, Richmond, Virginia 23235
804 320-7016
has (a lot of things, including) MARS AND ITS SATELLITES, A Detailed
Commentary On The Nomenclature. 2nd Editions 1982, by Blunck,
9.25"x6.25", 200 pages, $19.95  "... In this study the author has
traced the origin and meaning of the nomenclature from its beginning
to the latest modifications of the International Astronomical
Union.  ... it is fully current (as of 1982, MCD) and supplemented
with the latest maps of Mars (as of 1982, MCD)..."

Finally, there is a new book:
MARS, ed Hugh H. Keffer, Bruce M. Jakosky, Conway W. Snyder, Mildred
S. Mathews.  "Comprehensive treatment of the results of modern
spacecraft exploration of the planet Mars.  Includes six detailed
maps of Mars prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey. 1300pp 3bc."
The above is from the current Astronomy Book Club catalog.  They want
$50.00 for it if you are a member but, if you are interested you
might ask Willmann-Bell about it; I am sure that if they do not have
it that they will soon.

Hope some of you find this stuff of interest.  Email if you have
further questions.

Mark Dakins

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

Date: 10 Feb 93 13:16:30 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Andrew Clayton)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: Orbitsville Judgement

Currently reading the third Orbitsville book, by Bob Shaw.

It's started out slowish, and looks like it's going to be heavily centered
around religious nutters.  Just what I don't need. :-(

Anyone got any good opinions on this book? Or should I just pitch it, and
start on Gerrold's _A Season for Slaughter_?

David Andrew Clayton
Canberra, Australia
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: 10 Feb 93 17:31:10 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Amy Rebecca Ewing)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: Dan Simmons' Hyperion

I recently just finished the Hyperion series and all I can say is, "Wow!"
I was very impressed with the incredibly intricate and diverse plotlines.
What about some of Simmons' other works? How do they fare? I've seen a
collection of short stories but the rest of his stuff seems to be more
horror oriented (I have no problem with that.)

Brian
[e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Feb 93 16:00:00 GMT
From: [e-mail] (mary k)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Simmons

Dan Simmons' short story collection, PRAYER FOR BROKEN STONES is
magnificent, the best short story collection of recent memory. Also, the
description by Harlan Ellison about how he discovered Simmons in a writer's
workshop, followed by Simmons' recounting of the event is worth the price
of the book itself.  Also, his award-winning SONG OF KALI is an
unforgettable description of an evil place.

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

Date: 4 Feb 93 21:57:18 GMT
From: [e-mail] (David W. Levine)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Vernor Vinge (Fire upon the deep setting)

(SPOILERS for "A Fire Upon the Deep" and "The Blabber"  lurk beyond...)

[e-mail] (Matt Austern) writes:
>[e-mail] (Dani Zweig) writes:
>> "The Blabber" takes place about one thousand years after AFutD.  To be
>> more precise, AFutD, which was written later, was placed about a
>> thousand years before Blabber.  The author realized that there were some
>> inconsistencies between the two, but wasn't willing to ruthlessly mould
>> the novel to be completely consistent with the story.  The story, btw,
>> is (among things) a relatively unabashed homage to "The Star Beast".
>
> A thousand, eh?  It's clear from "The Blabber" that it has to take place
> at least 500 years after A Fire Upon the Deep, but I didn't see any
> obvious way to date it more precisely than that.
>
> (Actually, I was a trifle puzzled whether a character in "The Blabber"
> was supposed to be the same person as the character in A Fire Upon the
> Deep who had the same name: a lot of time has passed between the two
> stories, after all!  It's also noteworthy that this character doesn't
> refer, in "The Blabber," to any of the events in A Fire Upon the Deep,
> but does refer to a completely different struggle.  How many
> galaxy-shaking fights can one person reasonably expect to engage in?)

Well, given that "The Blabber" is a short Novella, written well before a
AFutD, the two backgrounds merge fairly well. In the end note for the
story, Vernor mentions that this is a setting he wants to you, that he
wants to explain what Ravna and Tines are running from, and all sort of
related issues.  AFutD is an exploration of that, and it looks like the
hinted conflict in "The Blabber" came out rather differently than he
speculated therein. The two settings are awfully close. There are some
messy time related issues (Trying to explain how some/any/all of the Events
that Pham describes with the timing of the Colony in "The Blabber" for one
overlap reasonably well in time)

I looked at a couple of things closely. In both stories, Vinge implies that
the boundary between the bottom of the beyond and the slow zone is pretty
fuzzy.  For example, Ravna and the SjK security fleet see the last of the
bandwidth decay after the SjK ship can't jump. (or so it seems on a close
reading) The fact the OOB II has a "Slowness detected warning, execute Back
Jump" message built in, also sort of implies this. The functioning Ansible
would also seem to imply that the boundary is pretty vague. (I.e. can shove
a few bits through at FTL speeds even after losing the abilty to jump)

An amusing speculation as to the nature of the slow zone, aimed at the same
level of psuedo-science that Vinge uses. The slow zone could have at its
center nothing more than a massive Ultra-Wave noise generator. Up close it
disrupts everything so much thought isn't even possible. Further away,
attempts to send or sense ultra-wave get drowned out by the noise source,
until the lower beyond, where you can punch through the noise and ... What
powers this?  Why those huge black holes you find lurking in the center of
Galaxies, of course. Loads of power. Now all you need to do is shield or
nullify the noise in some way and instant beyond.

David W. Levine
IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
[e-mail]

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

Date: 4 Feb 93 13:50:31 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Mech Eng Student)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: Re:Vernor Vinge's "The Peace War"

[e-mail] (Joseph Brenner) writes:
> Just re-read "The Peace War", the first novel in a volume issued by Baen
> books as _Across Realtime_.  Vernor Vinge is okay, sometimes... doesn't
> have the flash of a Gibson, but he does manage to provide enough
> novelistic weight to carry his premises (character's are okay, plot is
> interesting, imagery is decent, even striking in places)... but what
> about those premises, huh?  You got this lone genius working at Livermore
> who comes up with this boffo idea for generating these weird little
> semi-permanent, impenetrable force fields they call "bobbles".  Some
> idealistic/power hungry forces in the bureaucracy at Livermore decide to
> try and save the world (bobbling nuclear weapons, and so on) and end up
> (a) taking over the world (b) crushing all heavy industry for fear it
> could be used to make weapons.  The "Tinkers" (read "Hackers") in the
> outback continue making technical advances in secret, until they outstrip
> the capabilities of the stultified bureacracy of "The Peace Authority".
> Ultimately, the same lone genius (now in hiding) with the help of an
> apprentice genius make some advances in bobble technology.  They learn to
> project bobbles using radically less energy, though their techniques are
> slower, and the size of the bobbles limited, and so on.

     I was under the impression that Mr. "In charge of the Peacers" (I
forget his name) was in on the project as well and actually had a hand in
the bobble generator's creation.

> And I give Vinge some points for picking a fairly creative piece of
> fantastic technology to write about, rather than sticking to the usual
> cliched things like faster-than-light travel.

   I have to agree with you on that point and also bring up the fact that
he didn't just stick to a bobbler being a device for taking things
temporarily out of action by cutting them off from time for a few years.
The idea of the laser shield and turbine wrecking swarms of tiny bobbles
was very ingenious as was the interstellar nuclear drive postulated in
"Marooned in Realtime" (Drop a nuclear bomb behind you, Bobble up, detonate
the bomb: the result is that your bobble goes shooting off across the sky
at very fast, though still subluminal, speeds, with the added advantage of
a lack of time sense.  It may take thousands of years but by the time you
get there you're only a week or so older)

> Okay then, how about this business of a conspiracy within a government
> lab to take over the world?  A bit much?  Well, maybe not...  If you
> start taking the nanotech scenarios seriously, this sort of thing starts
> looking really tempting.  If you hit on a really big technical advance,
> what should you do with it?  Would you tell your bosses how to make the
> next atom bomb, and hope they did the right thing with it?  Maybe the way
> to preserving world stability is to get to the next break through first,
> and use it before the "bad guys" do, whoever you think the bad guys might
> be.  (This probably isn't a *good* way to go, but it might be the *only*
> way...).  So the villains are believable to me.
>
> And the heroes?  Is it really possible to beat the big, slow, government
> labs, with clever, cheap experiments performed by small groups of
> individuals on their own?  I don't know.  Maybe it's worth thinking about
> though... before you decide to try and get rich quick by writing yet
> another piece of video game software.

   You have to take into account the fact that Wili is no ordinary genius,
to steal an idea from ST:TNG, he's the scientific equivalent of Mozart.
The guy was doing things when he was 12 that most folk couldn't even do at
their prime.  And the peacer labs weren't just "slow" they were stagnated.
They had the attitude "We are the folk who came up with `The BOBBLE'.  We
have complete supremacy over the world apart from a few upstarts.  Why do
we need to research?  Wili also had one of the most powerful supercomputers
at his beck and call as well as all the initial work done over a period of
50+ years by the guy who really invented the bobble.  The scenario doesn't
strike me as too difficult.  I find the heroes believable.

Roderick Easton
Edinburgh University
Scotland

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

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