ucbesvax.turner@ucbcad.UUCP (06/15/83)
#R:tekmdp:-196500:ucbesvax:1700005:37777777600:463 ucbesvax!turner May 18 14:37:00 1983 Yes, Marquez DID get the Nobel for literature some years ago. Less well-known is that the State Department has refused to give him a visitor's visa, citing probable ties to violent left-wing groups in Latin America (i.e., those trying to bring down regimes that the U.S. props up.) I guess the USSR is the nation that throws out Nobel Laureates, and the U.S. is the one who won't let them in. It's tough at the top. Michael Turner ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner
ucbesvax.turner@ucbcad.UUCP (06/15/83)
#R:ogcvax:-32000:ucbesvax:1700006:37777777600:1030
ucbesvax!turner May 22 23:37:00 1983
I can testify from personal experience that Destroyer novels
are wholly devoid of redeeming social value. They are the purest
of trash--no tangles of international intrigue, as with Ludlum. No
pretensions to taste-making, as with Fleming. They are racist, sexist
and brutal. Even a cursory reading will reveal the basic mercenary intent
of the authors--were it not for a buoyant sense of humor, which is at its
most oblique when directed at the readers themselves (for indulging in
Destroyer novels), these turkeys would not be worth reading at all.
I should know. I read about 15 of them over a Christmas
vacation. Luckily, they were from someone else's collection, or I
would have been forced to actually BUY these scabrous flecks of pulp.
Don't even read ONE! You'll regret it.
Don't Say You Weren't Warned,
Michael Turner
ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner
P.S. The "best" of the series? I don't know. The worst was "Acid Rock".
The first one was OK--even the title was a scream: "Created: The
Destroyer".and@ariel.UUCP (09/04/83)
#R:wxlvax:0:ariel:-1:37777777600:209 ariel!and Jul 28 19:24:00 1983 Yes, Topper is great. When it first came out as a move, I sat thru every performance shown in my local theater. And enjoyed it more each time. Wodehouse and Thorne Smith run neck and neck. Richard Anderson
ricks@tekcad.UUCP (10/22/83)
#R:rdin:-32700:tekcad:23300004:000:470 tekcad!franka Oct 21 08:28:00 1983 The only thing I'm glad about is that there aren't more writers as poor as Rand around. I've never seen such stilted, wooden dialog and one- dimensional characterization in my life. The quality of the book as a piece of writing has very little to do with the philosophy which the book expouses. And, of course the quality of the book as a piece of writing is BAD. Can we drop this whole stupid argument now? This is net.books, not net.politics, Frank Adrian
dan@haddock.UUCP (05/11/84)
#R:sdcrdcf:-102200:haddock:10000001:177600:853 haddock!dan May 9 22:55:00 1984 I can recommend some more humorous books. Besides Mark Twain, some of whose lesser-known stories (such as "The Invalid's Tale") are among the funniest things I've ever read, there's P.G. Wodehouse. While not all his books are that funny, some of them are absolutely hilarious; among my favorites is the collection "Mr. Mulliner Speaking". His novels are generally not as funny as the short stories (there's an exception to this but I can't remember the title at the moment). And whenever I need a quick pickup, there's always "Squad Helps Dog Bite Man", a collection of true news flubs (mostly headlines) from the Columbia Journalism Review. I brought it with me on a business trip once, and the guy sitting next to me on the plane couldn't control his laughter... no matter how many times I read it, it's still funny, which is pretty impressive.
karl@dartvax.UUCP (S. Delage.) (05/12/84)
Other humour besides Mark Twain and Wodehouse, both of whom can
get almost tiring at times, is written by Donald Westlake. Most of
his books are cops-and-robbers stories, but ... grin. I think his
best is Help! I am Being Held Prisoner, but I haven't been
disappointed by a Westlake story yet.
karl@dartmouth --
{cornell,astrovax,decvax,linus,colby}!dartvax!karljeff@ism780.UUCP (05/16/84)
#R:sdcrdcf:-102200:ism780:19200003:000:431 ism780!jeff May 14 14:26:00 1984 About Donald Westlake: As a whole, his work is excellent (DANCING AZTECS is my personal favorite), but there have been occasional clunkers. The prime example of this being TWO MUCH. In most Westlake novels, the hero(ine)(s) are changed in some way for the better by their (usually odd) experiences. In TWO MUCH, though, there is minimal humor, and at the end of the book the narrator is still the greedy scum he was on page 1.
bin@ism780.UUCP (05/16/84)
#R:sdcrdcf:-102200:ism780:19200004:000:151 ism780!bin May 14 14:32:00 1984 I rather like Fran Lebowitz myself. Of course, I've only read "Metropolitan Life". You also have to understand New Yorkers to truely appreciate her.
bin@ism780.UUCP (05/16/84)
#R:rlgvax:-189600:ism780:19200005:177600:851 ism780!bin May 14 14:37:00 1984 I am a member. In fact my recent shipment of five plays is sitting in my car at this exact moment. I highly recommend it if you are a play buff. I was able to get "Agnes of God" through Fireside three months before it was available through Samuel French. The only draw backs are 1) the plays are hard bound and thus impractical for productions - only for reading and 2) they are reading, not playing, copies of the script. This means that thought they have pictures of the performances, the dialogue may differ from the final published versions. For example, Tennessee Williams wrote a different version of "Summer and Smoke" than what is usually done becuase most productions cut the children out of the prologue and add that information in the first three scenes. So, join. And if you do, give them my name and I get a free book. Judy Leedom
Anonymous@inmet.UUCP (05/23/84)
#R:tellab1:-14300:inmet:11900014:177600:1760 inmet!Anonymous May 22 15:48:00 1984 I'd be happy to chat about Castaneda and/or Thompson. My interest in the Castaneda is (currently) pretty much centered around looking at his work as examples of religious/inspirational literature -- much in the same vein as The Bible, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, or even M.C. Richard's "Centering". I find it truly remarkable that works such as these, from such widely different cultures, and from such vastly different periods in time, can all touch, influence, or simply "get to" people in a modern, highly industrialized civilization such as ours. What's up? As for Thompson, and Gonzo Journalism in general, I'd be happy to chat about ANYTING at all. To begin with, I've done the 'required reading'. I too couldn't help but see the parallels between the '72 and '84 campaigns, at least toward the beginning of the campaign. At this point, though, as the end of the primary season approaches, and the wretched specatcle of the convention looms on the horizon, I think things are starting to change. Mondale (the latter-day Muskie) may yet get the the nonination -- but it may happen in the context of a vicious bloodbath on the floor of the convention, the net result of which might be the (ever recurring) alienation of the left-wing of the Democratic party, and a shoo-in for Reagan in November. Shades of '68 -- without George Wallace. Also, there is a genuine piece of gonzo journalism that has come in over the wire (actually it came in way back in March -- but I couln't figure out what to do with it until I saw your note) which I'll post as a response as soon as I can get it onto this machine. It may be of interest to other readers of this notes file/this note, or perhaps to nobody at all except 300 pound Samoan attorneys.
max@bunker.UUCP (Max Hyre) (05/24/84)
[ We're all gonzos on this bus? ]
Would someone please take pity on me, and define the adjective "gonzo"
for me? The best I can do at present is say it's what Hunter S. Thompson
writes, which doesn't really satisfy my analytical passion.
Thanks from
Max Hyre
(Somewhere in the vicinity of decvax!ittvax!bunker!max)lmaher@uokvax.UUCP (12/24/84)
Let me add my whole-hearted recommendation of Lawrence Block's books. There are three series: 5 books about Bernie Rhodenbarr the master burglar, 5 books about Matthew Scudder the alcoholic ex-cop unlicensed detective, and 7 books about Evan Tanner, the Neversleeping spy and lover of lost causes. I've read 5, 3, and 1 of these respectively, and enjoyed them all. He also has a collection of short stories titled _Sometimes They Bite_, which includes some wonderful twist endings, and a Rhodenbarr and Scudder short story (different stories). "I have a very keen sense of property rights. I stole it, therefore it's *mine*." --Carl USMAIL: Dorm 4, Room 45/ Fermilab/ Box 500/ Batavia, IL 60510 BITNET: RIGNEY@FNALVX13 (send a short test message first to make sure it works) SLAC DECNET: FNAL::RIGNEY (if you can reach the node FNAL)
wolpert@hpisla.UUCP (wolpert) (01/14/85)
re: Lawrence Block > "Telling Lies for Fun and Profit: A Manual for Fiction Writers" > (Arbor House, NY, 1981. $13.95). ...also avaliable in paper...B Dalton ordered it for me.
jeff@ISM780.UUCP (02/06/85)
Try "Sherlock Holmes Through Time & Space" which is a collection of Holmes-pastiche short stories in sciencefictional settings. It was published late last year by Bluejay, and was edited by Asimov, Greenburg and Waugh. The cover painting alone is worth the price of admission.
rgh@inmet.UUCP (02/26/85)
The Second College Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary
lacks the appendix on Indo-European roots. The "standard" edition
continues to carry this very useful feature. The college edition
is smaller and has a blue cover, the regular edition has a red
cover. Look before you buy!
Apparently the original editor the the AHD was so upset by that
and other changes in the 2nd College Ed. that he requested his
name be removed from it.
Randy Hudson
{ihnp4,harpo,ima}!inmet!rghmike@hpfclp.UUCP (mike) (05/10/85)
I'm sure there are many persons who will enjoy SUPERFORCE and find it to be exactly what they want to hear. That reality is not objective--that "Modern Science" has shown things to be different depending on how you look at them--that there are no absolutes and there is no truth that can be claimed with absolute certainty--that any ideas about reality are merely loose approximations or incomplete models--that existence is a function of your mind where anything goes--that the concepts of cause and effect are atavistic notions that will only confuse you if you try to understand Davies' modern physics--that reality is replete with contradictions--that A is not A. These are the modern 20th century "scientific" ideas I found in Davies' book. Ken Arndt writes: > **** 'NON-OBJECTIVE REALITY'????? What is that? > What is OBJECTIVE reality? We don't speak any more of objective > or non-objective reality in modern science. It appears that ALL 'reality' > is subjective and from our point of view. By the way, that happened in > philosophy around 1700. A.D. I realize that it is still bandied about > that 'science' is somehow 'hard' and deals with 'facts' while the rest > is just toothpaste. Non-objective reality is exactly what Davies is preaching. He states that the observer and the observed are intimately tied together--that the phenomenon one is observing would be different if one was not there to observe it. By merely examining reality, you change what you are examining--thus your mind can only perceive distortions of reality and that these distortions will be different each time you look. Let anyone who believes this theory prove it to me by means of data not derived by his five senses--senses that "science" has shown can't be trusted because they give us only approximate, subjective perceptions of reality and that they are powerless to find any absolute truth or certainty in the "Modern Physics'" reality. Objective reality rests on the axiom that existence exists. Axioms are arbitrary you say? Let anyone who does not believe this axiom try to prove a theory without using it--that is, by means of non-existence. The axiom implies two corollaries: That something exists that one can perceive. And that a consciousness exists capable of perceiving something. Existence is identity. A is A. Yes, there are still a few of us who speak of objective reality, and who are living in the 20th century, although unfortunately, we are a vanishing breed. One thing I can tell you is that it is damned-near-impossible to communicate with anyone who has never tried to grasp the full meaning of this fundamental axiom. Those who have acquiesced to the point that they are no longer believe that it is possible to know something with certainty have become the destroyers of science, and the haters of any other rational endeavor. It is my opinion that SUPERFORCE ignores the axiom of existence and proceeds to mutilate the concepts by which we interpret an objective reality. By mutilating these concepts, the author is mutilating man's mind. Michael Bishop hplabs!hpfcla!mike-b
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (05/20/85)
>Non-objective reality is exactly what Davies is preaching. He states >that the observer and the observed are intimately tied together--that >the phenomenon one is observing would be different if one was not there >to observe it. By merely examining reality, you change what you are >examining--thus your mind can only perceive distortions of reality and >that these distortions will be different each time you look. Let anyone >who believes this theory prove it to me by means of data not derived by >his five senses--senses that "science" has shown can't be trusted >because they give us only approximate, subjective perceptions of reality >and that they are powerless to find any absolute truth or certainty in >the "Modern Physics'" reality. I haven't read the book, but I must say your challenge sounds unfair. Obviously, nothing can be proved without going to the authority of our senses. That's why solipsism can't be logically falsified, even though no sane person is a thoroughgoing solipsist. But I don't think the New Physics argues for solipsism, only for a less rigid idea of what is meant by "reality" than is traditional. It has been forced to take into account the fact that the observer is always a part of the observation, and that objectivity, though it's a convenient fiction, and a powerful abstraction for analytical purposes, is still ultimately a fiction. No description can be complete that does not include the observer, but no description that includes the observer is "objective". Philosophical conclusions reached from this principle can be wrong, just as conclusions based on older, more mechanistic notions of reality can be wrong. Science is science, and philosophy is philosophy, and one cannot entirely rest its case on the findings of the other. But they can still profitably talk to one another, and I find their dialogue in the 20th century to be most interesting. Don't tune out. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
mike@hpfclp.UUCP (mike) (06/15/85)
Kenn Barry writes: > It [physics] has been forced to take into account the fact that the > observer is always a part of the observation, and that objectivity, > though it's a convenient fiction, and a powerful abstraction for > analytical purposes, is still ultimately a fiction. No description can > be complete that does not include the observer, but no description that > includes the observer is "objective". In one sense I agree with you here. Descriptions are metaphysical models and that are built out of abstractions. Although abstractions have there roots in reality, they are not concrete reality, and hence any desciption can not be precisely true when measured by the concept "complete". To be complete, a description would need to turn into the thing being described, and thus the concept of a model is violated. The main point is that any description can be tested against an objective reality; a reality that functions independent of your mind. If a contradiction is found, it is the description that is in error, not reality. The description will never be perfect, by the definition of our concepts, but you know that there is always an objective way to test it. How good a description is can be measured by how accurately it describes reality. Our senses did not evolve so that they could destort reality for us, nor were our forms of logic and reasoning invented so that they could generate falsehoods. Science is a form of reasoning based on non-contradictory identification, and the creation of concepts out of percepts. Concepts are the metaphysical building blocks of ALL knowledge. Science would not work if things are not what they are, if a thing exists and doesn't exist at the same time, if a thing could exist with no properties, if A is not A. Yet, SUPERFORCE, and several books like it, say that these ideas are the foundation of Quantum Mechanics. I say that these ideas are manifestations of a mind in chaos; a mind that refuses to recognize glaring conceptual contradictions. If you think you have found a contradiction, check your premises, one of them will be wrong. My biggest complaint about SUPERFORCE is that the author runs amok destroying concepts. How does one destroy concepts? -- Anti-concepts. An anti-concept is the negation of a concept and has no connection to reality. The word "nothingness" is an anti-concept. It is the negation of concept "existence". Nothingness does not exist, and yet this anti-concept is spread throughout SUPERFORCE like a black plague. An anti-concept can also be formed by merely putting two or more concepts into a contradictory statement; such a statement is meaningless and confusing. Anti-concepts can and are used to stifle the mind by paradox and contradiction which ultimately arrests any logical train of thought yeilding a rational understanding. In my opinion, anti-concepts, promulgated by "scientists" like Davies, are the greatest single barrier one faces when trying to understand how reality actually works. Paul Davies tells us that "nothing is real", a contradiction in terms; that "it is possible to have effects without causes", a contradiction in terms; "that nothing can be known with absolute certainty", a contradiction in terms. I feel NOTHING but contempt for the author when I read a book like this because the author has only contempt for reality and for man's ability to understand it, and he chooses to share his anti-concepts with a largely uncritical audience. By the way, I'm currently reading IN SEARCH OF SCHRODINGER'S CAT, by John Gribbon, yet another bag of anti-concepts to sort out. The prologue is titled "NOTHING IS REAL". I'm sure I'll get a lot of mileage out of that lucid observation. Michael Bishop hplabs!hpfcla!mike-b
mike@hpfclp.UUCP (mike) (06/29/85)
After reading the various reviews and comments on ATLAS SHRUGGED, and having recently finished reading it for the second time, I have a few remarks to add. > I am also somewhat annoyed by the romanticization of smoking. Obviously this is something Rand (a smoker) was quite infatuated with. At the time of the book's publication, smoking was not generally considered to be destructive behavior, although drinking was. Rand made several comments about drinking in her book (i.e. liquor-soggy brain, a drunken James Taggart, et al). Thus, the romanticization of smoking does not really bother me. I consider it to be simply a cultural facet of the book and an error of knowledge about the effects of smoking by that culture. > The book is about individualism and capitalism. When a person is born > into a system where everybody else ("society") controls how you do things > it can be difficult to know what has been done to you ("brainwashing"). > Atlas shrugged goes to great length to convince you of what is going on, > that is, how you are being controlled. This is taken both on an > individual level and on an economic level. Individualism and Capitalism are the consequences of free, rational minds. Rand's theme was the role of man's mind in existence. This was demonstrated superlatively by pitting those who held a single human life as a standard of value against the collectivests who held the goals of society as a standard of value. In Rand's own words: "Who is to decide what the goals of society are? Blank out." Couple these ideas with Rand's belief that reason is an absolute not to compromised at any cost, and that there are no such existents as collective thoughts, and you begin to see how and why the story crystalized as it did. > Rand greatly simplifies how the world works as to minimize the number > of variables in the story. This is like doing a scientific experiment > where you keep all the variables fixed except the one you are studying. > Rand does this same thing to make her points. Further, she speeds up > the effects (like having everything economically collapse in a year > or two, where it really would take 20 years) as to speed up the story. The economic collapse took twelve years in the book, which seems more than sufficient time to me. I often hear people tell me that the story told by THE FOUNTAINHEAD could conceivably happen, but that the events occuring in ATLAS SHRUGGED are mere fantasy. I usually respond by saying something like: "Have you read today's newspaper?". I agree that a strike by all the producers in the world would be difficult to achieve, and that it would take extraordinary minds to lead it, but I firmly believe that the events that destroyed the productive capacity of the nation, as described in the book, are occuring each and everyday. >> Rand's obvious happiness in killing off all the "worthless" characters >> in this book (which includes over 90% of the general public) makes it >> somewhat difficult for most people to buy into the good points that she is >> making. I don't recall ever seeing 90% or any other figure mentioned in the book as the number of characters "killed off". I don't know why people think Rand held such animosity for the "masses". Her point is that some people are better than others because they have a better mind, are more self-reliant, self-sufficient, and a score of other virtues clearly explained in the book. Each person is an individual to be considered and judged individually. The word "masses" is a collective term and serves only to diminish one's ability for objective discrimination. >> The best way to read >> this book is to skip all the long speeches (particularly in the second half) >> and read it as a science fiction "end of the world" story. Then do your >> philosophizing on your own. This is equivalent to saying the best way to paint a fence is to paint every other board. If you don't like the speeches, why are you reading the book? The speeches are there to exercise your mind and give you the intellectual ammunition you need to survive in this aristocracy-of-pull, looter government, collectivest world. In fact, there is really only one "long" speech; the rest can be read in twenty minutes or less. > It affected me greatly in terms of "energizing" me > in my battle against the world for my livelyhood. Ditto. Michael Bishop hplabs!hpfcla!mike-b
mike@hpfclp.UUCP (mike) (07/11/85)
> Question: Does anyone know why her "philosophy" is called Objectivism?
Rand called her philosophy Objectivism because of her conviction that
reality is objective, and that concepts, those metaphysical building
blocks that compose all of man's knowledge, are derived from
observations of reality (percepts), and the integrations performed by
man's conceptual faculty. Rand regarded concept-formation (the
identification of new knowledge) as a strictly rational, objective
process not to be tainted by whim, desire, or emotion. Further, Rand
believed that all moral, ethical, and political values could be deduced
and tested based on the existence of objective definitions (i.e,
definitions in accordance with reality). One of her later books,
"INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVEST EPISTEMOLOGY", explains how knowledge and
truth is identified and validated by using axiomatic concepts and
non-contradictory reasoning.
Michael Bishop
hplabs!hpfcla!mike-bmer@prism.UUCP (08/30/85)
You shouldn't assume anything based on looks. Also, I've never seen Vega$, which was probably as bad as it sounds, but Urich made a TV movie (the name of which escapes me) in which he was pretty good, I thought. It was particularly interesting because one of his character's good friends was gay and nothing special was made of it. That is, the Urich character asked something about his love life, indicating maleness is some way, but it was just a casual, normal comment. (Not that that has anything to do with Urich's ability, just thought I'd mention it.)
fkr@faust.UUCP (09/04/85)
The Readers International fall book is A RIDE ON THE WHIRLWIND, by
Sepamla (sp?). He is an Azanian writer (also has a book of poetry out
from Three Continents Press, called THE SOWETO I LOVE). As I remember,
WHIRLWIND is about the Soweto uprisings. It will be published in paperback
in the US by Heinemann Educational Books. Heinemann also has 2 novels,
a book of short stories, and a non-fiction book by Bessie Head, who is
wonderful. Other titles from Heinemann which are probably good are THE
MARABI DANCE, by I don't remember who, and THE WILL TO DIE by Can Themba.
These are all part of their African WRiters Series (and are all Azanians).
The books published by RAVAN press (a liberal opposition press in S.
AFrica) are available in the US (a bookstore could order them for you,
they are available through Ohio University Press, which is distributed
by Harper & Row). They have some collections of various writers, as
well as a collection of works by Can Themba (you can write them & ask for
a catalogue). (Heinemann also has some collections of stores, AFRICA
SOUTH is the most recent)
Heinemann also has some poetry available - mostly it is collections,
and they do have a lot of stuff by Dennis Brutus. (they also have a
collection of " South African Peoples Plays". (they also carry
novels by Alex La Guma, but I've heard they aren't that good)
On the white writers, there are a few others that are looked to -
Penguin has an early novel by Athol Fugard, and Master Harold...and the
Boys in available from them too. They also have novels by Andre Brink,
who is a white Afrikaner. There has been recent attention paid to
Breyerbach, who is also an Afrikaner (I guess the adjective is unnecessary).
(Lessings CHILDREN OF VIOLENCE is worth mentioning too).
(I'm sure I'm forgetting something, but that's enough for now)
Frances Rosenrich@hpfcla.UUCP (12/01/85)
"... all thought is the attempt to discover something that
thought cannot think."
Soren Kierkegaard
D Soltis hpfcpe!donsebes@inmet.UUCP (12/31/85)
The Yeats poem in question was collected under more than one
title; one of the ones I remember offhand is "He wishes for the
cloths of heaven". The fail-safe way to find it is go to a library,
and get a complete set of his poems with an index of first lines.
The first line, and the rest of it that I remember, is:
Had I the heavens' immortal cloths
Of the gold and the silver light
The blue and the dim and the dark cloths
Of the night and the light and the half-light
I would lay them at your feet
But I, being poor, have only my dreams
I have lain them at your feet
Tread softly, for you tread on my dreams
-- W.B. Yeats
John Sebes ( ...{ima, decvax!harpo}!inmet!sebes )frankr@inmet.UUCP (01/02/86)
I have not read LEGS, but I recently finished IRONWEED. It was a wonderful read with a gentle sense of fantasy. Despite the sadness and the suffering of the characters , it was a story of redemption. I liked it alot. Franklin Reynolds
hamilton@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU (02/07/86)
>I just saw an announcement for a new Robert Ludlum book: >THE BOURNE SUPREMACY >due February. what? yet another mass-market unix book?