thomas (03/23/83)
Hey, folks, there is a net.sf-lovers for discussion of SF (whatever that means - I don't want to get into that now). If we're just going to discuss SF in net.books, there was no reason for its creation. So, please try to post to the appropriate group. Thank you. (Maybe we should change it to net.books.sf?) =Spencer
leichter (04/05/83)
Yes, SF is "books", and some of it is literature of a quite sophisticated sort. I read tons of the stuff, and I certainly have nothing against it. Nevertheless, I think you are being naive and overly defensive in insisting that net.books be yet another forum for discussion of SF. The fact is, any SF reader can distinguish SF from non-SF. Yes, there are books "on the edge", but that's not the point. SF is a genre, like mysteries, spy stories, gothics; SF books follow certain conventions with regard to plot, style, etc. It's difficult to DESCRIBE these conventions - and good writers are always trying to stretch them anyway - but, be honest now, can't youu make the distinction with no trouble at all in the vast majority of cases? (It's clear to me that LeGuin's Hainish books are SF, her fantasies are fantasies, and her recent books are "straight fiction". All of them find their way into the SF collections at book stores, but the distinctions remain just as real.) So...let's try and keep the SF discussions in net.sf-lovers. This "who put you in charge" crap is just that - crap. The whole idea of newsgroups will disintegrate if people INSIST on their freedom to post whatever they damn well please wherever they please. -- Jerry decvax!yale-comix!leichter leichter@yale
donath (04/05/83)
In regards to what belongs in net.books and net.sci-fi: Unless I am very mistaken, I had the impression that net.books was not a forum only for listing books, but discussing them as well. And, as there are genres of literature, so there are genres of criticism. Again, it is hard to differenciate between what is sci-fi-lovers crit. and lit. crit., but I'd say that the latter belongs here, while the former is more involved in comparing a work to other sci-fi works and more science-oriented discussion of the content and belongs in net.sci-fi. judith (yale-comix) ps The first story by Borges I read (I forget the title - "The Library of Babylon (Babel?)") was in a collection of science fiction called Mirrors of Infinity.
dann (04/05/83)
********************************************************************
Those who don't want SF book reviews -- submit some of your own.
I'm just interesting in finding good books to read (or rotten books
to avoid) and I don't really care how you categorize them.
*******************************************************************
Review:
Several books by William Goldman worth reading:
Background: William Goldman wrote the screenplay for Butch Cassidy
and the Sundance Kid, Marathon Man, and Magic.
If you liked these movies, you will like the books
better.
The Princess Bride -- A study of True Love, whatever that is. This is
one of my favorite books (along with the Last
Unicorn, if you must know). It is extremely
funny and depressing; Goldman's style is
phenomenal. It's also a fantasy, but it's
hard to say why exactly.
Marathon Man -- Yes, you saw the movie. The book is better.
Magic -- See above.
Boys and Girls Together -- This one I don't recommend so whole-heartedly.
One of the really depressing books of our
time. Very funny in parts, but ultimately
a downer. The style is not as good as in the
later books.
Just an idle thought, how accurate are books as indicators of mutual
compatibility? Let's face it, if I lend someone a copy of The
Last Unicorn and they return it and say, "enh!" (this happened, by the way)
then my estimate of that person's suitability as friend and lifelong
companion drops by an order of magnitude.
Do other people have similar favorites with which this type of thing
has taken place? Just wondering.
oh well, a book review, a bit of philosophy, and no one will ever see
it because the title is RE: SF in net.books.
SIGH,
dann
decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!danndonn (04/10/83)
References: burdvax.657 yale-com.1184 yale-com.1189 houxa.172
I thought it might be time for my two pence worth.
I think I was the first person on the net to say that it would be nice
to have a net.books. This was in December, and it was in
net.sf-lovers, so many people probably missed it.
Here's the irony. I was participating in a poll on what to do about
the deluge of movie, TV and cartoon trivia in net.sf-lovers. I wanted
to encourage a movement away from such juvenilia and toward discussion
of SF books. I was extremely tired of endless discussions about who
the Other would be in "The Revenge of the Jedi" and how to reconcile
special effects in "Star Trek" with real physics, as were many other
people. Why not make a net.books, I said, and create something that
adults can read without acute embarrassment? The problem in
net.sf-lovers has been somewhat alleviated by the creation of
net.startrek, so my annoyance has lessened to some degree, but I have
continued to say that net.books will be a good thing.
Now, however, I discover that even good SF books are too base for some
people to discuss in net.books:
When net.books started up, I was hoping it would generate
discussion about works of literature. I submit that the vast
majority of SF is no such thing - comic books sans pictures
might be a more accurate description.
"He who makes a beast of himself
gets rid of the pain of being a man."
- Dr. Johnson
I parses 'em as I sees 'em,
Herb Jellinek
This sort of comment is remarkably naive (and incendiary). First of
all, the vast majority of modern fiction in general is of the level of
"comic books without pictures"; it really serves no purpose to
distinguish SF books in this manner. This depressing fact just means
that we must treasure the GOOD books we find all the more. If someone
refuses to read a good book because it has genre content then their
prejudice is their loss, but I don't want it to be my loss as well
when such people scare readers and reviewers away from net.books.
The other observation I want to make is that a number of the 'literary'
writers who were mentioned in various responses have at some point in
their careers concentrated on producing fantastic tales, or SF. Poe is
a good example.
An ironic example is Borges, because he is repeatedly mentioned as
being a worthy topic of discussion in place of SF. Borges is
fascinated by the fantastic, but his writing is too clearly literary to
qualify as mere SF, I presume. Stories like "The Library of Babylon"
are regularly collected in SF anthologies. If we can discuss a writer
who has produced (wonderful) things like "Tloen, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius"
then who is to say that we shouldn't discuss Stanislaw Lem or Gene
Wolfe or Philip Dick?
If fancy and fantasy frighten you then you surely must avoid Borges:
THINGS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
I think of the things that might have been and were not.
The treatise on Saxon mythology that Bede did not write.
The unimaginable work that Dante glimpsed fleetingly
when the last verse of the Comedia was corrected.
History without the afternoon of the cross and the afternoon of the hemlock.
History without the face of Helen.
Man without the eyes which have shown the moon to us.
In the three labored days of Gettysburg, the victory of the South.
The love we do not share.
The vast empire which the Vikings did not wish to found.
The world without the wheel or without the rose.
The judgment of John Donne on Shakespeare.
The other horn of the unicorn.
The fabled bird of Ireland, in two places at once.
The son I did not have.
[from THE BORGES READER, p. 327, without permission; originally from
HISTORIA DE LA NOCHE / HISTORY OF NIGHT (1977).]
I'm willing to settle for a net.books.sf if this sort of material is
unacceptable in net.books. Just don't tell people to go back to
net.sf-lovers; by and large, that is what they are ESCAPING from...
Donn Seeley UCSD Chemistry Dept. RRCF ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdchema!donn
(619) 452-4016 sdamos!donn@nprdcrogers (04/15/83)
Subject: SF in net.books To my mind, the whole discussion is pointless. Most "Literature" (if you wish, "Serious Fiction") I have seen is pretty dull stuff. Admittedly, my exposure to such things has been limited to school English/Lit classes but this is precisely what has turned me off to "Literature" in the first place. To be honest, SF is my main interest in reading, but anymore I pick up a book having nothing to do with the subject as a change of pace. Only recently I have been exposed to other types of books that have interested me. A few months ago I sat and listened to Cyrano DeBergerac(sp?) on a radio presentation, something I never would have thought of a year ago. Yet I still like to read "Stranger in a Strange Land", etc. "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" is VERY MUCH science fiction, but I believe it is also considered "Literature". The story is very enter- taining, futuristic(for the time it was written), and seems to be written very well. "Mysterious Island" is another good story that, while not so overtly SF, is still "Literature" to my mind. "From the Earth to the Moon"/"Round the Moon" is another, although the space vehicle depicted would never have come about with actual technology. To finish on the subject of books, wasn't Shakespeare(sp?) full of ghosts, fairies, elves, and similar spirits that interracted with the characters in the stories in ways other than the familiar horror stories? Seems to me that fairies and elves are appellations of fantasies? I also enjoyed "Lord of the Rings" immensely and have read two of the books in the series twice. One of Jules Verne's stories was made into a movie called "Master of the World", which fascinated me. I have yet to locate the book... Anyway, I feel that SF is not "juvenile". Rather, it aims at those of us who look at the future and see something other than pollution, the Bomb, overpopulation,energy shortages, and such. Or, looking at the problems and seeing possible solutions to them. It is for the dreamers, the people who will be doing these things at some point in the future. At the least, it provides an escape from everyday reality and an excercise for the imagination. I don't know many people who don't need some form of escape(alcohol, drugs, etc.). Reading is the least harmful form of escape and, besides, you might possibly learn something doing it. Net.books is for discussions of books that people consider interesting, and if such a book happens to SF, it should be here. Net.sf is the best place for discussions of movies, comix, memorabilia, etc. Let's not be overly re- strictive in what we do here. Nessus