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: jjfink@skcla.monsanto.com Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu Subject: Re: K.W. Jeter lichter@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (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!!! jjfink@skcla.monsanto.com ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 93 19:05:42 GMT From: dambik@fnalo.fnal.gov (Ed Dambik) Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu 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: pgyger@ul9000.unil.ch Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu Subject: Re: K.W. Jeter dambik@fnalo.fnal.gov (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 pgyger@ulys.unil.ch ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 93 18:48:13 GMT From: kevinb@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Kevin Busby) Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu 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: pgyger@ul9000.unil.ch Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu 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 pgyger@ulys.unil.ch ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 93 10:12:38 GMT From: pgyger@ul9000.unil.ch Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu Subject: Re: K.W. Jeter kevinb@syma.sussex.ac.uk (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 "msk@espresso.rt.cs.boeing.com". Michael has one of the good 'bookshops' through e-mail... Patrick J. Gyger History dpt. University of Lausanne pgyger@ulys.unil.ch ------------------------------ Date: 4 Feb 93 23:06:00 GMT From: atc@deveel.aero.org (A.T. Campbell) Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu Subject: Re: It Came from Schenectady CORMACBW%SLSCVA@snycenva.BITNET (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 atc@deveel.aero.org ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 93 10:45:40 GMT From: jgreen@zeus.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu 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 jgreen@eros.calpoly.edu ------------------------------ Date: 5 Feb 93 22:53:00 GMT From: C_Douglas_BAKER@umail.umd.edu (cb52) Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu 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: dani@netcom.com (Dani Zweig) Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu Subject: Re: Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson C_Douglas_BAKER@UMAIL.UMD.EDU (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 dani@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: 7 Feb 93 03:59:13 GMT From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu Subject: Re: Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson SPOILERS C_Douglas_BAKER@UMAIL.UMD.EDU (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 +1 908 957 2070 att!mtgzy!ecl ecl@mtgzy.att.com ------------------------------ Date: 6 Feb 93 18:55:07 GMT From: al@iris.claremont.edu (no label) Reply-to: sf-lovers-written@Rutgers.Edu Subject: Re: Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson dani@netcom.com (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 al@iris.claremont.edu ------------------------------ End of SF-LOVERS Digest ***********************