sf-lovers (07/16/82)
>From JPM@Mit-Ai Fri Jul 16 10:39:51 1982
SF-LOVERS Digest Friday, 16 Jul 1982 Volume 6 : Issue 16
Today's Topics:
SF Books - John W. Campbell Memorial Award &
Forward's Next Book & Crystal Singer,
SF TV - HHGttG, SF Music - Theme Songs,
SF Topics - Hard SF & SF Ghetto & Brain Use,
Humor - Brain Use & Genderless Video Games,
SF Movies - Star Trek & Star Wars,
Spoiler - Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 13 Jul 82 11:44-PDT
From: mclure at SRI-UNIX
Subject: some awards
Hoban Receives Award for ''Riddley Walker''
LAWRENCE, Kan. (AP) - Russell Hoban, a writer of children's books
and science fiction, was named winner Saturday of the John W. Campbell
Memorial Award for the best science fiction novel of 1981.
Hoban, an American who lives in London, was cited for his novel
''Riddley Walker'' about life in a futuristic world 2,000 years after
a nuclear holocaust.
Neil Barron of Vista, Calif., a book company representative and
former librarian, was named the 1982 winner of the Pilgrim Award for
outstanding scholarship in science fiction. He was cited for his
contributions to science fiction bibliography and criticism.
The awards were presented at the annual meeting of the Science
Fiction Research Association held in conjunction with the University
of Kansas Intensive English Institute of the Teaching of Science
Fiction.
The Campbell award is named for the late John W. Campbell, who was
editor of Astounding Science Fiction and its successor, Analog, for 34
years. The Pilgrim Award is sponsored by the research association.
------------------------------
Date: 14 July 1982 1001-EDT
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Subject: Bob Forward's next book
I believe that it will be serialized in Analog starting in December,
or maybe he said November.
------------------------------
Date: 14 Jul 1982 10:42:57-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: errors in CRYSTAL SINGER
Sigh. I suppose I'll have to go read the foolish thing now, and I
don't have full access to the MITSFS or the inclination to buy another
book.
Anne McCaffrey was an opera singer and director in Boston back when
anybody who tried to do opera in Boston was considered crazy (i.e.,
even before Sarah Caldwell). She may not have the academic or
technological background (I know she was a Cliffie but not her major
(don't think it was music)) but she probably has a lot more practical
experience than any newly-minted BS (BS?!? in music?!?!? (yes, I know
that probably means from MIT; my point stands)).
Now if you confined your disparagements to her knowledge of, say,
the physics of music, that might be more believable.
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jul 1982 07:40:59-PDT
From: decvax!duke!uok!uokvax!mwm at Berkeley
Subject: Crystal Singer
I finished Crystal Singer not to long ago (about a week), and I didn't
notice the parallel in plot line. But it's been a LONG time since I
looked at Dragon<gort> or The Ship Who Sang. Once it was pointed out,
yes, I have to admit that it's there. I think that the plot is more
along the lines of `adapting to a new environment,' as opposed to
`paying back one's dues' or `achieving in one's profession.' I guess
its all in how you look at it.
mike
------------------------------
Date: 13 July 1982 05:37-EDT
From: "Richard H.E. Smith, II" <QUIDLY at MIT-AI>
Subject: Villiers in Asimov/Panshin
Contrary to someone's comment in SFL V7#1, the Villiers who gets
killed in Asimov's story "The Dying Night" has the first name Romero,
so there is no conflict with Panshin's character Anthony Villiers. I
don't have a copy of the Panshin right here, so I can't check the
dates... the Asimov story first appeared in F&SF in July '56.
[ This message is in reference the contribution that originally
referenced a message in volume 5, issue 63, describing Anthony
Villiers as a character in a series by Alexei Panshin. -- Jim ]
------------------------------
Date: 14 Jul 1982 0852-PDT
From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin)
Subject: HHGttG in St. Louis
For anybody interested, Hitchhiker[etc] is carried in the St. Louis
area and on related cable systems at 11 PM Sunday nights on KETC
(Channel 9). An obvious plot to reduce Monday-morning productivity
below its already-low level by depriving us poor addicts of sleep...
Will
------------------------------
Date: 9 Jul 1982 09:38:56-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: hard sf suggestions
One of the problems with hard SF is that it can become dated so
easily. Consider (since it's not on your list) the Venus Equilateral
stories of George O. Smith, harking back (as a recent reviewer put it)
to when precision adjusting tools for electronics included hammers,
12" wrenches, and welding torches.
You can also try digging 1940's and 50's issues of ASTOUNDING out
of your local library, or out of the MITSFS if you're in Boston, or
the Ackerman collection if you're in LA, or . . . . The market for and
interest in hard SF has died off (although that same reviewer notes
that it was never very coherent---in the 40's, for instance, Hubbard
and van Vogt were central figures \in/ \ASTOUNDING/!). Other George O.
Smith is tolerable.
------------------------------
Date: 13 July 1982 05:34-EDT
From: "Richard H.E. Smith, II" <QUIDLY at MIT-AI>
Subject: Authors who aren't SF-authors
I heard on the radio the other day that Indianapolis was holding a
giant Vonnegut festival, and the guest-of-honor refused to attend.
He's supposed to have said something like "seems like the kind of
thing you do when an author is dead...".
The festival also honored Kurt Vonnegut (the non-SF-author) 's parent
and grandparent, both of which were architects who contributed to Indy
in some noticeable fashion.
I guess SF isn't the only thing that Vonnegut denies... seems to me
he's picked on Hoosiers in at least one of his books.
------------------------------
Date: 13 Jul 1982 2148-PDT
From: Henry W. Miller <MILLER at SRI-NIC>
Subject: Movie songs, etc.
During the All Star game last summer, the soundtrack for "Star
Trek - The Motion Picture" was used.
-HWM
------------------------------
Date: 07/09/82 11:57:33
From: JGA@MIT-MC
Subject: 10% of brain
When someone says to you (in a serious manner), "Did you know that the
average person only uses 10% of their brain?", the correct response is
to look them straight in the eye, and say (in an even more serious
tone of voice):
"Of course. The other 90% is the operating system."
Practice this in front of the mirror a couple of times first - one
little giggle can destroy all credibility.
John.
------------------------------
Date: 11 July 1982 01:00-EDT
From: Andrew Scott Beals <BANDY at MIT-AI>
Subject: Genderless Video Games
Q: How do PacMan games communicate with each other?
A: In PacKets.
------------------------------
Date: 8 Jul 82 1:28:10-EDT (Thu)
From: the Boris <craig.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
Subject: Trek and Star Wars.
Why was Star Trek I bad, Star Trek II OK, but Star Wars great?
Star Trek started as a TV series. The secret of a TV series is to
establish a Formula which allows entertaining fare to be produced by
technically competent but less than inspired people. Trek has a (by
now) well developed universe, set of characters, and a good notion of
what makes a good story. If the formula is followed, entertaining
fare will result. Star wars, on the other hand, was made by Lucas.
Star Trek I was very, very, bad because it violated the
formula. It dragged - Trek was built on pace and action. It violated
character - at the start of the movie, Kirk acted like a jerk. Kirk
is the eternal Hero, and he makes a very poor anti-hero. Also, they
were recycling a past script - no one really wanted to see NOMAD
again. Finally, the film just wasn't very well made. The Earth was
seconds from destruction, and the director STILL couldn't get us us
the slightest bit upset or apprehensive. When I saw the movie, I paid
$1.50 at the Campus movie house, and didn't feel I was getting a
particularly good deal.
Star Trek II was a reasonable film. Now don't get me wrong -
I'm not complaining. Most Science Fiction films are Horrid (e.g. The
Thing, The Black Hole, etc.). Trek II worked, and I look forward to
shelling out $4 ($6? $10? $100 if the economy ...) every year or two
to see another Trek Episode. The movie worked because it followed the
Trek formula: Bad guys get the upper hand. Kirk outsmarts them. Good
guys win. And, along the way, we see the characters being people, not
cardboard imitations. Of course, there was some sloppy film making.
I won't go into the technical things - space battles, scale, and that
sort of stuff, or into dramatic things - Scotty carrying a dead
crewman to the bridge. Sure, it could have been better. But the movie
followed the Trek formula faithfully, and was technically competent
enough to not lose us. It gave us what we expected.
Star Wars was a great film. There is only one reason for
this: George Lucas is a genius. No formula can substitute for
excellence. Lucas is not a literary marvel; he could have stolen the
plot out of any of (all of?) a hundred different books. He is a
master of film. The movie moves: it is full of action, and the
characters pop into focus instantly. How long does it take us to
recognize Darth Vadar as an Evil Heavy? All of two seconds? And
every time we turn around there is something unexpected or somehow
marvelous: Sand-crawlers? Taverns with 50,000 flavors of aliens? THE
DEATH STAR! Finally, Star Wars was well edited - it has no time to
waste on gratuitous anything. Lucas would have cut the gratuitous
shot of Scotty carrying the dead crewman onto the bridge. The result
is a movie which demands, gets, and rewards your constant, undivided
attention.
I look forward to more Star Trek movies. The formula works.
As long as competent people follow the formula, and don't try to be
geniuses when they're not, we will continue to get reasonable,
watchable films that don't leave us feeling cheated. But don't expect
another Star Wars, because you won't get it - genius is, after all, a
rare commodity.
------------------------------
Date: 14 Jul 1982 05:18:43-PDT
From: harpo!floyd!rjs at Berkeley
Subject: Roddenberry and Star Trek In V6 #1 of SF-LOVERS Digest
George Otto asked about the involvement of Gene Roddenberry in Star
Trek: The Wrath of Khan. At Balticon 13 (April '82), prior to a
showing of Star Wreck: The Commotion Picture the creator of this video
tape editing spoof showed some slides of the then upcoming ST:TWoK.
During this preview, she said that Roddenberry's only involvement with
ST:TWoK was to receive a royalty. He did, however, reserve the right
to pull his name from the movie if he didn't approve of the final
product. Thus his appearance as Executive Consultant in the credits
simply indicates his approval of the movie as a whole.
Marcia Snyder / rjs (harpo!floyd!rjs)
------------------------------
Date: 14 July 1982 21:47-EDT
From: Phillip C. Reed <PCR at MIT-MC>
Subject: Star Trek - TWOK Non-Spoiler
I was talking with some friends about the Koborashi Maru (sp?)
test, and Kirk's "cheating", when somebody pointed out that based on
the evidence, Kirk must have gotten into Star Fleet Academy on a
football scholarship.
...phil
------------------------------
Date: Friday, July 16, 1982 3:51AM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING!
All of the remaining messages in this digest discuss some plot details
in the movie and the book Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Some
readers may not wish to read on.
------------------------------
Date: 12 Jul 1982 15:35:31-PDT
From: decvax!duke!mcnc!idis!mi-cec!rwg at Berkeley
Subject: Re: Chekov in ST2 (slight spoiler - haven't you seen it YET?)
It's been pointed out already that the novel fills in many of
the movie's gaps: Chekov had to go outside because beaming was
impossible inside (the atmospheric conditions were such that it would
be "iffy" even in the open). When Chekov sees Khan's people, he
indeed screams to be beamed up, but the ship gets little more than
static.
Besides, if Reliant's crew heard Chekov shout "Beam us up,
Enterprise!," they may have been too confused to act in time (yes,
picky picky picky...).
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 8 July 1982 15:32-EDT
From: Vince Fuller <VAF at CMU-20C>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING - comment on ST-II TWOK
I suggest that you read the novel ST-II for an answer for this and
other apparent inconsistencies. The reason given in the book is that
the sand and turbulence in the atmosphere of Ceti Alpha (or Alpha
Ceti) V made transporter use marginal even in the open, and definitely
impossible from within a closed structure.
(sorry if this has already been answered earlier)
--vaf
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 8 July 1982 15:42-EDT
From: Vince Fuller <VAF at CMU-20C>
Subject: STII:TWOK
Again, you should take a look at the novel version. In the novel, the
bridge crew is decimated so one additional, experienced albeit injured
officer, is a great help. Also, I believe Chekov is explicitly
referred to as a Commander in the book.
--vaf
------------------------------
Date: 9 July 1982 00:18-EDT
From: "James Lewis Bean, Jr." <BEAN at MIT-MC>
Subject: Tears in Mr. Saavik's eyes
I saw one at the funeral..
------------------------------
End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************