|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday 10-26-2000 9:00 P.M. EDT
Time Enough For Love #3
Return to Index
Subject: Re: Time Enough For Love
Date: 10/15/2000
Author: BPRAL22169 <bpral22169@aol.com>
>Having risked his all to help
>the society that expelled him, he had demonstrated pro-societal behavior
While I quite agree with you, it is nevertheless true that Heinlein said: they were wrong.
Heinlein deeply believed in the power of personal growth. Maybe we're seeing him disagree with Wells. Wells in _A Modern Utopia_ had the society's incorrigibles isolated on islands according to type (i.e., alcoholics on one island; sexual criminals on another, etc.), but they were only put there until the judgment of
incorrigibility was made (remember, Wells was British with the British sense of the iron-curtain of class sensibilities). Young offenders under 25 were also isolated but the implication was they could be educated out of it.
Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/27/2000 2:36:22 PM Opening "System Log 10/27/2000"
RAH-AIM Notice of Meetings 10-26 & 28-00 TEFL II
Subject: RAH-AIM Notice of Meetings 10-26 & 28-00 TEFL II
From: agplusone@aol.com (AGplusone)
Date: Thu, Oct 19, 2000 3:42 PM
Message-id: <20001019184225.07999.00000852@ng-cs1.aol.com>
The Robert A. Heinlein Reading Group
Notice of Meetings
http://members.aol.com/agplusone/rahmain.htm
Date: Thursday, October 26, 9 PM to midnight, ET, and Saturday, October 28, 2000, 5 to 8 PM, ET.
Topic: Part Two discussions with the novel _Time Enough For Love_. Chat Cohosts: David Wright, Sr (dwrighsr@allnet.com) and Jane Davitt (ddavitt@netcom.ca), Will Reich (willreich_77@my-deja.com), "Bert" (labert@fast.net), and Bill Patterson (bpral22169@aol.com).
Those who've read the logs of the chats for last Thursday and Saturday [see our archives at http://www.alltel.net/~dwrighsr/heinlein.html (Thursday's link is "AIM 10-16-2000 TEFL" and Saturday's link is "AIM 10-14-2000 TEFL")] already know that in our next meetings next we will continue with the novel _Time Enough For Love_ as two weeks has proven not time enough to do more than scratch the surface. Although Jane (arrival of baby permitting) and Dave Wright will continue to share hosting duties, three other frequent participants have agreed to help on some aspects they particularly wish to discuss and begin their leadoff posts for this excursion. Will Reich will be discussing the frequent criticisms he, and others, find levied against Heinlein writings that perhaps begin with this work;"labert" sociological aspects he sees or questions inherent in this novel; and Bill Patterson the concept of "World As Myth" he sees picked up or resumed most remarkably in this novel. It's suggested that, concerning this last point, the short story "'--All You Zombies--'" that first appeared in the magazine Fantasy & Science Fiction, March 1959, be reviewed.
Additionally, I'd point out there's a recent thread concerning the structure of this unusual novel started by a new participant on AFH, entitled "Subject: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kyger@my-deja.com
Date: Tue, Oct 17, 2000 4:14 PM" that you might consider.
Note: "'--All You Zombies--'" is collected most recently in _The Fantasies of Robert A. Heinlein_ (TOR, 1999, ISBN 0-312-87245-3, a hardbound collection) and you might consider picking up a copy as it contains all of what previously was collected in Waldo and Magic, Inc. and The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag.
Please remember to help them out by your thoughts in posts before the meetings. As always, there is more than just the 'story' to talk about this one of Heinlein's works.
For information on how to participate in the chats, download software from http://www.aol.com/aim/home.html/and read the directions on David Wright's website: http://www.alltel.net/~dwrighsr/heinlein.html
Until next Thursday and Saturday, or unless I see you on this thread, good reading, good eating and good loving ... all possible if you make time enough.
--
David M. Silver
"I expect your names to shine!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Notice of Meetings 10-26 & 28-00 TEFL II
From: ddavitt ddavitt@netcom.ca
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 2:34 PM
Message-id: <39F20BFF.CC50B43@netcom.ca>
AGplusone wrote:
>
>Topic: Part Two discussions with the novel _Time Enough For Love_.
>
I just read The Tale of The Adopted Daughter ( working my way through story by story...). It's probably one of the most popular pieces of Heinlein's writing and certainly evokes a lot of emotion for various reasons. Few thoughts on some details rather than the story itself......
Phyllis Briggs-Sperling is the, "first woman to win the Ira Howard Memorial Century Medal for contributing one hundred registered offspring to the Families. Took her less than two centuries but Phyllis was a girl of simple tastes, the other being pencil and paper and time to think about geometry."
With a hundred kids to change, feed and cuddle I'm surprised she had time to think
about _anything_....I did some maths....less than 2 centuries is too vague but if
we assume 180 child bearing years ( since I hope she waited till at least 15 to
have her first baby) then that's a baby every 20 months or so. Assume some multiple
births of course but then she would need some breaks for menopause and
rejuvenation. I'm not sure it's possible but I can see why it took a while for that
particular award to be given. Also, I often wondered how long it was between Dora's death and the start of TEFL.
I can't remember if it was ever sorted out but Buck was born on Earth on 3031;
assume that's about the same as Dora's date of birth, I think she would have lived
until about 80, which brings us to 3111. Lazarus was born in 1912 and is 23
centuries old at the start of TEFL I think, making it 4212 ( approximately).
Therefore, it's about 1100 years after. The numbering of years altered but that
should be about right; I'm open to corrections :-) This strikes me as being
incredible; a thousand years and he can still cry over the memory of her
loss.....it has to have been a pivotal moment in his life and yet I'm not sure we
see that it's had that much effect on him. Is he mellowed by his life with Dora? Is
he less sure that long life is preferable to short? Can anyone point to a change
that we can see in Lazarus that's directly attributable to Dora?
One last point....I could be suffering a knee jerk reaction but does anyone else
think Lazarus is sincere when he says,
"Dora wasn't subject to menstrual cramps, and neither of us told the girls to
expect them. Being myself convex instead of concave, I refrain from commenting on
the theory that such pains are a conditioned reflex; I don't think I'm entitled to
an opinion - you might ask Ishtar."
And then again you might not.....grr....morning sick free pregnancies, no cramps,
babies born in the middle of card games....grr...
Jane
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Notice of Meetings 10-26 & 28-00 TEFL II
From: agplusone@aol.com (AGplusone)
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 11:26 AM
Message-id: <20001026142631.07598.00000089@ng-fi1.aol.com>
>Until next Thursday and Saturday, or unless I see you on this thread, good
>reading, good eating and good loving ... all possible if you make time enough.
I have to anticipate a possibility I may be late tonight, Thursday, October 26,
for the chat. My sister is arriving from Colorado and we have to perform a
final filial duty since my mother's remains are going to be sent east today to
be buried alongside her parents and predeceased brothers and sisters. If I am
late there is a likelihood I may not arrive at all this evening as my immediate
family's getting together may turn out to be a wake (we are part Irish, after
all). My mother died in the hospital early Monday morning, hopefully under
sufficient medication that she didn't realize the fight was over.
Frances Katherine Flocker Silver Ahern
August 6, 1920 - October 22, 2000
Third [child] of a family of eleven children of Dominick Floceri, an immigrant
to the United States from Reggio, Calabria, Italy and his wife, Mary Agnes Mee
[MacNaMee] Flocker, of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, she was born in Kenosha,
Wisconsin, raised and educated in parochial schools of that city and graduated
St. James High School with academic honors in 1935, at age 15.
Daughter of a factory worker, with eight younger chlldren to raise, she
immediately left home and went to work, higher education not being an option.
Six years later, on June 15, 1941, she married Benjamin R. [Berel] Silver,
himself the son of immigrants to the United States from Poland and Russia, and
had three children of that marriage. Widowed sixteen years later, she raised
them to maturity.
A working mother almost all her married life, and self-supporting after her
children were grown, she was self-reliant, responsible, and sometimes stubborn
to an extreme about morality and honesty. She supported herself and her family
by employment predominantly in the hotel and restaurant industry, employed in
virtually ever task in that trade from waitress to owner of a small dinner
house. She trained her daughter as a bookkeeper; and the daughter became an
accountant, specializing in audits in the hotel and restaurant industry. Her
elder son was a lawyer, her younger is a teacher. Both sons served honorably in
the military and naval services of their country during Vietnam, as their
father and uncles did during World War II.
She devoted her life to her family, although she did occasionally please
herself as she was entitled to do.
And in 1945, while they waited in California for her husband and her brothers
to return home from the Pacific, she taught her three-year-old first child
David to read, as she believed literacy and learning through reading was the
relief of the tediums and pains of life.
Thank you, mother.
She is survived by two sisters, two brothers, three children, two
grandchildren, and numerous cousins, nieces and nephews.
--
David M. Silver
AGplusone@aol.com
"I expect your names to shine!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Notice of Meetings 10-26 & 28-00 TEFL II
From: jenomalley@aol.com (JenOMalley)
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 11:51 AM
Message-id: <20001026145147.04887.00000574@ng-cp1.aol.com>
[snipped notice of probable absence and obiturary notice to preserve available space on archives website]
I couldn't snip that....My heartlfelt condolences to you and yours...
JenO.
To a Life Well Lived.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Notice of Meetings 10-26 & 28-00 TEFL II
From: agplusone@aol.com (AGplusone)
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 12:40 PM
Message-id: <20001026154040.29499.00000922@ng-cs1.aol.com>
>JenO.
>To a Life Well Lived...
Thank you, Ms O'Malley,
The good sisters who taught the daugter of someone named Mary Agnes MacNaMee
and she, herself, wouldn't have had it any other way, although she was annoyed
a bit about having to spend the last few months in a bed.
I did forget to mention one thing: It goes without saying that between Dave
Wright, Jane Davitt, Labert, Will Reich (if he tears himself away from his
beloved Yankees), and Bill Patterson to cohost and guide the discussion you'll
all do fine tonight and I look forward to reading the log if I do not make it.
For the next meetings, the ones two weeks off (not this coming Saturday, which
is a repeat), the topic will be "Women in Heinlein" co-hosted by Jane Davitt
and Randi Patterson who each have promised not to leave any blood on each
other. Stephanie Vickers (Merfilly) had promised to help them out, but in light
of Ebon's illness probably cannot. Any of the rest of you would be very helpful
and welcome to Jane and Randi, especially if Eleanor's younger sister arrives
before the fortnight is out. E mail them with your offers please, and please
copy me so I can make out the scorecards.
See you all next when I see you ...
--
David M. Silver
AGplusone@aol.com
"I expect your names to shine!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Notice of Meetings 10-26 & 28-00 TEFL II
From: William Dennis williamdennis@flink.com
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 8:40 PM
Message-id: <39F8F917.7B573F44@flink.com>
JenOMalley wrote:
>
[snipped notice of probable absence and obiturary notice]
>
>I couldn't snip that....My heartlfelt condolences to you and yours...
>
>JenO.
>To a Life Well Lived.....
Oh, man, David. I am so sorry.
Your mom was a Hell of a woman David. She sounds like a woman RAH would
have written about.
--
William Dennis II
http://www.ournet.md/~libertarian
http://www.ournet.md/~coolwebpages
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Notice of Meetings 10-26 & 28-00 TEFL II
From: ddavitt ddavitt@netcom.ca
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 12:58 PM
Message-id: <39F88CE2.5581F398@netcom.ca>
David, my sympathy on your loss. I'm glad it ended peacefully for your mother and I
can imagine how much you'll miss her. She sounds like a wonderful woman. I'm very
sorry.
Jane
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Condolences
From: "Bryan R. Stahl" brstahl@sprynet.com
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 3:31 PM
Message-id: "AGplusone" [snipped notice of probable absence and obiturary notice]
David,
Please accept my condolences. I know that words will never
help in a real sense, but it's all we can offer. Please know that
we're here for any help we can give.
--
Bryan
"for to him that is pitiless the deeds of pity
are ever strange and beyond reckoning." - Tolkien
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Notice of Meetings 10-26 & 28-00 TEFL II
From: merfilly8@aol.com (Stephanie Vickers)
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 9:51 PM
Message-id: <20001027005131.02817.00000994@ng-cl1.aol.com>
>From: agplusone@aol.com (AGplusone)
[snipped notice of probable absence and obiturary notice]
David, I wish I had seen this earlier in the day. My condolences to you, and a
warm hug from our family to yours.
Filly
http://hometown.aol.com/merfilly8/myhomepage
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out
of focus."
--Mark Twain
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Notice of Meetings 10-26 & 28-00 TEFL II
From: "Mac" nur99-NoGreenEggs-and-SpamPlease@teleport.com
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 2:58 AM
Message-id: Please accept condolences.
Your mother's name defintely shinned !!
---mac
*********************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGplusone wrote in message
[snipped notice of probable absence and obiturary notice]
Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
Subject: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
From: kyger@my-deja.com
Date: Tue, Oct 17, 2000 4:14 PM
Message-id: <simh6$hq7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
I'm posting this (and two other msgs) in the a.f.h. group at the behest of
Bill Patterson, who I've known since late 1974. I've been a Heinlein fan
since early 1964, when I was eight going on nine. These posts are with
respect to the ongoing discussion in the online AIM Heinlein Reading Group,
currently discussing TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE.
I haven't been able to participate much before now, due to press of family
and business (I am lobbyist scum for a space company founded by Pete Conrad,
and I have a 11 month old baby boy, a four year old girl, and a 17 year old
stepdaughter) (i.e., I don't have any life of my own anymore... I read the posts and discussion logs afterwards as they get put up on the
website, and then generally call up Bill Patterson and bore him to death
arguing over points that have already been covered...
Bill finally got fed up enough with me to force me to actually write up some
of my points in time to -actually- participate in a timely discussion..!
Here's my first point.
*******************************
I first read TEFL when it came out in 1973; I had bought two copies of the
book - one for me, and one as a graduation present for my then-girlfriend.
(I finished my first reading of TEFL during her graduation ceremonies, which
were incredibly boring, as were mine a few days later.) I've read it about
ten time since then over the years (at least).
Throughout most of these readings I always took away from TEFL what I'd
always had - great book; nice collection of interlocked stories; nice stfnal
take on the Arabian Nights. In other words, a "mere" surface take.
This book is much more than that, of course. It is, upon more years of
reading and reflection (dare I say it?) literature. It is an integrated
whole, not just interlocked parts, with every part reinforcing every other
part. It is as well thought out, and crafted with as much care, as SIASL.
Why isn't this as acknowledged a point for TEFL?
TEFL *is* highly structured, and the structure is complex, and it is as
obvious as...er....the nose on one's face. (If one is looking in a mirror, of
course! ...TEFL is a *musical* composition. Of great complexity. (Among many other
things all at once too, of course.)
Take a look at the Table Of Contents, fa ghu's sake. There are Chapter
titles in this book that are literal bars of music. What more hints does one
need - a smack upside the head?!
There it has all sat, at the very front of the book, for almost thirty years
now, in utter plain view - a score for the "plan" of the book. Robert
Heinlein, once again, must be astounded at how -easy- it is to put something
over on all us marks..! I first mentioned this observation to Bill Patterson back in 1975. Alas, I
don't have enough musical background (i.e., total ignorance) to, first of
all, read music. (There was a time I could. That would have last been about
1973. It's all gone now.) So I don't know what the bars of music are
supposed to sound like (and thus what the "titles" are for those particular
Chapters). I also don't have any knowledge about forms of music - the plan
is there in plain musical notation and form for those that do have this
background. Certainly this is an area of human endeavor that Robert
Heinlein, (mostly) self taught polymath, clearly had knowledge of. He was a
cultured man, and prided himself on being so. He -worked- at it. His musical
knowledge shows up here and there in casual mentions all through his work.
Clearly the musical structure of TEFL is something that he must have
carefully considered...
We have an advertising motto at the company I work for (Universal Space
Network): "We make it all look easy." And to make that motto true, we all of
us work our leeetle rear ends off. Heinlein, too, has always made it look
easy. And as the years go by, and as we delve closer into what he actually
wrote, it becomes obvious upon some closer examination that the depth of
thought and work that went into every thing he wrote - especially in the
later years - is deep and devious.
So - does anyone with -any- sort of musical knowledge want to comment on
TEFL's "score?" The orchestration? Is this a symphony, or an opera, or a
concerto, or what?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
From: agplusone@aol.com (AGplusone)
Date: Tue, Oct 17, 2000 11:56 PM
Message-id: <20001018025637.09943.00000409@ng-cg1.aol.com>
kyger@my-deja.com asks:
>So - does anyone with -any- sort of musical knowledge want to comment on
TEFL's "score?" The orchestration? Is this a symphony, or an opera, or
>a concerto, or what
One of the nice things I've found in Jim Gifford's _Robert A. Heinlein: A
Reader's Companion_ is a full listing of what they are. I've always known they
were American Army bugle calls, but not which ones specifically all of them
were. It's obvious that the one at Coda III is Taps, perfectly appropriate to
the content of the chapter in which Ted Bronson is "killed." I'm not a
musician, but that's one I learned to play on the Japanese bugle my uncle
brought home from the Pacific--the only tune I can play.
At page 197 of RAH:ARC are the following:
Da Capo V "To Arms" or "Call to Arms" (if you've a copy
of John Wayne's "Rio Grande," the black and white one in which Wayne plays the
Cavalry Colonel and Maureen O'Hara plays his estranged wife, who travels to
Texas to rescue her son who has enlisted in his father's regiment after busting
out of West Point, you can hear it played when the Apaches attack to break out
the captives being held by the cavalry.)
Da Capo VI "Mess Call" (I can't recall whether this one is
played in any of the Wayne cavalry epics. It's the one that you might recognize
if you remember the unofficial words: "Porky, porky, porky, without a bit of
lean. Soupy, soupy, soupy, without a bit of bean.")
Da Capo VII "Fix Bayonets" (a call I've never heard
performed). Gifford notes it may be a risque joke.
Coda I Coda II Coda III Coda IV "Reveille" used to wake you up in the morning
and herald the raising of the flag for a new day. ("You can't get 'em up, you
can't get 'em up, you can't get 'em up in the morning. .... "). At West Point
they play a truly awesome jazzed up version of this thing known as "Hellcats
Reveille" which is designed to (1) get you out of bed in a shot, and (2) keep
you apprised of how much time you've got to get dressed and into proper
formation -- i.e., it's timed. After you hate it the first twenty or so times
it's played blasting you out of your dreams, if you're a little weird, as I am,
you learn to love it.
If, and I suspect you're right, Heinlein has hidden meaning in clear sight, I
hope this helps. Thanks also to Jim and his sources for the proper
identification and order.
--
David M. Silver
AGplusone@aol.com
"I expect your names to shine!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
From: chris@keristor.dircon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 4:27 PM
Message-id: <slrn8v49i6.sn.chris@ccserver.keris.net>
On 18 Oct 2000 06:56:37 GMT, AGplusone
<agplusone@aol.com>wrote:
>One of the nice things I've found in Jim Gifford's _Robert A. Heinlein:
>A Reader's Companion_ is a full listing of what they are. I've always
>known they were American Army bugle calls, but not which ones
>specifically all of them were. It's obvious that the one at Coda III is
>Taps, perfectly appropriate to the content of the chapter in which Ted
>Bronson is "killed." I'm not a musician, but that's one I learned to
>play on the Japanese bugle my uncle brought home from the Pacific--the
>only tune I can play.
Several of them confused me for quite a time, because the American bugle
calls are not always the same tunes as the British ones of the same
name. Reveille, for instance, is quite different (and is often confused
by name with "Rouse").
>Da Capo VI "Mess Call" (I can't recall whether this
>one is played in any of the Wayne cavalry epics. It's the one that you
>might recognize if you remember the unofficial words: "Porky, porky,
>porky, without a bit of lean. Soupy, soupy, soupy, without a bit of
>bean.")
I know it as "Come to the cookhouse door, boys". Same tune, different
(unofficial) words.
>Da Capo VII "Fix Bayonets" (a call I've never heard
>performed). Gifford notes it may be a risque joke.
One I didn't know at all.
>Coda II >It's what you've heard a thousand times when they take the flag down at
>sunset. Used to hear it in school all the time, and I think this still
>play this on all U.S. military posts when the flag comes down at 5 PM.
>(Even if it is just a recording.)
I hadn't heard this one until I was visiting a USAF base, I don't know
if it's used (either by that name or the tune) in the UK military.
>Coda III >funerals and also at 10 PM every evening to mean "lights out" in
>military barracks. (E.g. "Day is done. Gone the sun. ... etc.").
Probably the most well-known of the bugle calls among non-military
people in Britain, it's often used here by the Scouts and Guides at camp
as well as at the Cenotaph "Remembrance Day" service (which here is held
on the Sunday closest to November 11th).
>Coda IV "Reveille" used to wake you up in the
>morning and herald the raising of the flag for a new day. ("You can't
>get 'em up, you can't get 'em up, you can't get 'em up in the morning.
As I found out the hard way, it is not a good idea to play this at 7am
at an SCA camp where most of the members are US military >If, and I suspect you're right, Heinlein has hidden meaning in clear
>sight, I hope this helps. Thanks also to Jim and his sources for the
>proper identification and order.
Indeed, and thanks for posting them. I really must get round to
ordering RAH:ARC...
Chris C
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
From: dehede011@aol.com (Dehede011)
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 10:25 PM
Message-id: <20001022012503.02681.00000284@ng-ck1.aol.com>
Thank you for identifying them. I can pick them out on my guitar by sight
reading. By ear I only know two of those tunes; one of them is Reveille, the
other isn't.
Dehede.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
From: Mike Dworetsky mike@platinum198.u-net.com
Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 4:24 AM
Message-id: <39F2CE65.E1E5A418@platinum198.u-net.com>
Chris Croughton wrote:
>
>>Coda III "Taps" used for military
>>funerals and also at 10 PM every evening to mean "lights out" in
>>military barracks. (E.g. "Day is done. Gone the sun. ... etc.").
>
>Probably the most well-known of the bugle calls among non-military
>people in Britain, it's often used here by the Scouts and Guides at camp
>as well as at the Cenotaph "Remembrance Day" service (which here is held
>on the Sunday closest to November 11th).
>
"Taps" used in the USA and "Last Post" used in UK and some European
countries for the same sorts of ceremonies are, I think, not the same
tune.
--
Mike Dworetsky
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
From: chris@keristor.dircon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 12:32 PM
Message-id: <slrn8v94hq.u89.chris@ccserver.keris.net>
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:24:21 +0100, Mike Dworetsky
<Mike@platinum198.u-net.com>wrote:
>>Probably the most well-known of the bugle calls among non-military
>>people in Britain, it's often used here by the Scouts and Guides at camp
>>as well as at the Cenotaph "Remembrance Day" service (which here is held
>>on the Sunday closest to November 11th).
>
>"Taps" used in the USA and "Last Post" used in UK and some European
>countries for the same sorts of ceremonies are, I think, not the same
>tune.
'Taps' is definitely the same tune (same words as well) in both
countries, "Last Post" is different. However, it's used at a different
time. We have Taps at sundown (and the lowering of the flag) and then
often nothing at "lights out" (this may depend on which service, I know
more about Navy and Scouting use). For funerals, we don't use Taps but
do use "Last Post". I suspect that this is the cause of some confusion.
(Usage almost certainly does depend on which branch of the military as
well, and in some cases smaller sections. For instance, on active Navy
vessels the lowering of the flag at sundown will generally just use
'Still' on a bosun's whistle (a single note held for 8 beats) rather
than Taps. Shore bases, while still Navy, may be different as may
vessels at anchor.)
Chris C
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
From: jenomalley@aol.com (JenOMalley)
Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 7:38 PM
Message-id: <20001022223835.18498.00000669@ng-fs1.aol.com>
>As I found out the hard way, it is not a good idea to play this at 7am
>at an SCA camp where most of the members are US military >of them apparently got confused and thought they were back in boot camp,
Ooooh....mean trick. I'da found you...and you wouldn't have liked it.... JenO.
Actually, Drill Sgt, I am having fun!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
From: chris@keristor.dircon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 12:33 PM
Message-id: <slrn8v94jv.u89.chris@ccserver.keris.net>
On 23 Oct 2000 02:38:35 GMT, JenOMalley >>As I found out the hard way, it is not a good idea to play this at 7am
>>at an SCA camp where most of the members are US military >>of them apparently got confused and thought they were back in boot camp,
>
>Ooooh....mean trick. I'da found you...and you wouldn't have liked it.... Oh, they found me It did its job, though, got them out of bed Chris C
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
From: jenomalley@aol.com (JenOMalley)
Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 9:19 PM
Message-id: <20001024001933.06228.00001156@ng-bg1.aol.com>
>>Ooooh....mean trick. I'da found you...and you wouldn't have liked
>it....<eg>
>
>Oh, they found me >
>It did its job, though, got them out of bed >
>Chris C
Was this at Pennsic, by any chance? I heard something about somebody doing
bugle calls.....
JenO.
Stick Jock on Board
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
From: chris@keristor.org (Chris Croughton)
Date: Tue, Oct 24, 2000 11:17 AM
Message-id: <slrn8vbkhg.mci.chris@ccserver.keris.net>
On 24 Oct 2000 04:19:33 GMT, JenOMalley
<jenomalley@aol.com>wrote:
>>>Ooooh....mean trick. I'da found you...and you wouldn't have liked
>>it.... >>
>>Oh, they found me >>
>>It did its job, though, got them out of bed >
>Was this at Pennsic, by any chance? I heard something about somebody doing
>bugle calls.....
No, I'd learnt by then. It was at a local SCA camp in Flintheath (East
Anglia, in England); at the time almost all of the SCA members in
Britain were either US military or dependants (with a few US civilians
working here, and myself as the only 'native'). It's changed a lot now,
with a lot of the US bases closing and more British people joining the
SCA.
I was at Pennsic in '89, the only time I've been, and didn't hear any
bugle calls there.
Chris C
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
From: jenomalley@aol.com (JenOMalley)
Date: Tue, Oct 24, 2000 5:46 PM
Message-id: <20001024204627.28325.00000696@ng-mg1.aol.com>
>Was this at Pennsic, by any chance? I heard something about somebody doing
>>bugle calls.....
>
>No, I'd learnt by then. It was at a local SCA camp in Flintheath (East
>Anglia, in England);
Oh okay....For a minute I was worried...
JenO.
So I swing a sword...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
From: bpral22169@aol.com (BPRAL22169)
Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 7:26 AM
Message-id: <20001018102649.06352.00000131@ng-bg1.aol.com>
>TEFL is a *musical* composition. Of great complexity.
Actually, this is the subject of the second bit of correspondence I had with
RAH while he was still alive. I pointed out that the book was structured like
a rondo -- a piece with a repeating structure, like ABACADACABA
The music in the Table of Contents is bugle calls -- Reveille, Retreat, Mess
Call.
Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
From: reillocnl@my-deja.com
Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 10:45 PM
Message-id: <t37m5$dmh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <20001018102649.06352.00000131@ng-bg1.aol.com>,
bpral22169@aol.com (BPRAL22169) wrote:
>>TEFL is a *musical* composition. Of great complexity.
>
>Actually, this is the subject of the second bit of correspondence I
>had with RAH while he was still alive.
Reminds of my younger son, again. Comes home and says his friend, Wade'
father can talk to the dead. Then he gets all pissy when I tell him
there's no trick to that at all; it's getting the dead to talk back.
>I pointed out that the book was structured like
>a rondo -- a piece with a repeating structure, like ABACADACABA
>
>The music in the Table of Contents is bugle calls -- Reveille,
Retreat, Mess Call.
>Bill
>
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Time Enough For chat
From: tomluna@my-deja.com
Date: Sun, Oct 15, 2000 5:16 AM
Message-id: <sc76d$aod$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
I hope to discuss Time Enough For Love with
reading group tonight. "Excerpts from the
notebooks of Lazarus Long" have been reliable
channel markers for me through lots of changes.
Along with applying the scientific method to
everyday situations- See "Guest of Honor Speech,
3rd World Science Fiction Convention, Denver,
1941", from "Requiem". Hot Jets!- Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Time Enough For chat
From: agplusone@aol.com (AGplusone)
Date: Sun, Oct 15, 2000 1:04 PM
Message-id: <20001015160418.25734.00004563@ng-fi1.aol.com>
>
>I hope to discuss Time Enough For Love with
>reading group tonight. "Excerpts from the
>notebooks of Lazarus Long" have been reliable
>channel markers for me through lots of changes.
>Along with applying the scientific method to
>everyday situations- See "Guest of Honor Speech,
>3rd World Science Fiction Convention, Denver,
>1941", from "Requiem". Hot Jets!- Tom
>
Hi, Tom,
The above post came through on my server this morning on Sunday, at 5:16 AM. We
met to discuss Time Enough For Love yesterday and last Thursday, so we missed
you--that's the bad news. The good news is: we decided last Thursday to meet
again on TEFL for two more meetings, because we felt we hadn't scratched more
than the surface. Those meetings will be two weeks from yesterday and last
Thursday, regular times, October 26 and 28, so we hope to see you then.
--
David M. Silver
AGplusone@aol.com
"I expect your names to shine!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Book discussions
From: pheb@mailbox.bellatlantic.net
Date: Thu, Oct 19, 2000 6:53 PM
Message-id: <39EFA689.2EA1DC16@mailbox.bellatlantic.net>
Hi, David --- thanks for the update on the book discussions.
I'll miss Time Enough for Love, as I'm in the pre-Farnham's
Freehold camp; I think his famous style change came with
that book. I'd love to participate in discussion of the
early ones, including the much-neglected Star Beast.
Phebe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: Gaeltach gaeltach@fan.net.au
Date: Thu, Oct 19, 2000 9:37 PM
Message-id: <39EFCC26.868DFEB2@fan.net.au>
pheb@mailbox.bellatlantic.net wrote:
<snip>
>I'll miss Time Enough for Love, as I'm in the pre-Farnham's
>Freehold camp; I think his famous style change came with
>that book. I'd love to participate in discussion of the
>early ones, including the much-neglected Star Beast.
Just wait for the wheel to come round again Phebe, although there is
usually plenty of opportunity to tie in earlier works with his later
ones at the discussions.( I'm also not sure how long the wheel takes for
one full revolution?) Like yourself, I am also a big fan of his earlier
stories, however I must admit that his "World as Myth" series has grown
on me with time. I would also mention that after Farnham's Freehold came
tMiaHM, which still has at least one foot firmly placed in Heinlein's
earlier style.
Sean
gaeltach@fan.net.au
***************
.... and now for something completely different:
Too fall apart, I trap all afoot.
****************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: bpral22169@aol.com (BPRAL22169)
Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 7:20 AM
Message-id: <20001020102029.03741.00000276@ng-fd1.aol.com>
I don't think there is such a thing as a "style change" in Heinlein, at least
not after Stranger. He tried to make every book very different from the books
that preceded it, and succeeded in that aim. You can make a case for there
being a break of some kind at ST and Stranger, because he was getting out of
the juveniles biz-- but the case is not strong, because he had always been
writing "for adults" during the juveniles period. However, starting with
Stranger, everything was suddenly a lot more complex -- i.e., he was no longer
writing for "SF-reader adults," but just for adults, period. And gradually
that worked its way into a huge audience of non-SF-readers. The case for the
"break" at that point has to do with his abandoning genre conventions entirely.
Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: kyger@my-deja.com
Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 12:55 PM
Message-id: <8sq7vd$nfs$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <20001020102029.03741.00000276@ng-fd1.aol.com>,
bpral22169@aol.com (BPRAL22169) wrote:
>I don't think there is such a thing as a "style change" in Heinlein,
at least
>not after Stranger. He tried to make every book very different from
the books
>that preceded it, and succeeded in that aim. You can make a case for
there
>being a break of some kind at ST and Stranger, because he was getting
out of
>the juveniles biz-- but the case is not strong, because he had always
been
>writing "for adults" during the juveniles period. However, starting
with
>Stranger, everything was suddenly a lot more complex -- i.e., he was
no longer
>writing for "SF-reader adults," but just for adults, period. And
gradually
>that worked its way into a huge audience of non-SF-readers. The case
for the
>"break" at that point has to do with his abandoning genre conventions
entirely.
>Bill
>
Bill (et alia) ---
Here's what I think about this topic. (Whoopee... <grin>)
The break isn't a stylistic break, although that is a possible *symptom*
of what happened. And, IMHO, what happened was that...
...Heinlein stopped writing for "the market(s)" (whatever the heck that
is) and started to *write only for himself.* I.e., he wrote what he
wrote the way he wanted it to be written because only *he* wanted to do
so.
And then trusted that he'd be fiancially secure enough to be able to
either take a hit, and/or the book would make money.
By then he'd had published enough of a back catalog, all kept in print,
that them royality checks kept on comin' every quarter. He also was
making investments (I assume), and he'd have those to be able to help
keep him and Virginia in groceries. (Plus, Virginia, it seems to me, is
and always has been one heck of a businessman. Wasn't any way that
they'd lose money, it seems to me, if she were doing the financial work
-- and I assume that she was.) (SA, you needn't answer...it's none of
our business anyway...)
Anyway, that's my theory. A-hem. <grin>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: Gaeltach gaeltach@fan.net.au
Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 7:41 PM
Message-id: <39F10273.C607ADF@fan.net.au>
Bill wrote:
>I don't think there is such a thing as a "style change" in Heinlein, at least
>not after Stranger. He tried to make every book very different from the books
>that preceded it, and succeeded in that aim. You can make a case for there
>being a break of some kind at ST and Stranger, because he was getting out of
>the juveniles biz-- but the case is not strong, because he had always been
>writing "for adults" during the juveniles period. However, starting with
>Stranger, everything was suddenly a lot more complex -- i.e., he was no longer
>writing for "SF-reader adults," but just for adults, period. And gradually
>that worked its way into a huge audience of non-SF-readers. The case for the
>"break" at that point has to do with his abandoning genre conventions entirely.
......Which makes me wonder about Podkayne of Mars, which was written and published
in 1962. Sure, it was the very first of his novels (not short stories) to be
wriiten in the female first person, but for all intents and purposes it is a
"juvenile" novel. And he wrote this after both ST and Stranger, but before Glory
Road, Farnham's Freehold and tMiaHM. I wouldn't like to suggest that after Stranger
he was unsure of his future direction or "style", however PoM does seem to me to be
an anomaly (and to a lesser extent also Glory Road), if we consider what came
after. As far as "style change", I guess if he was trying to make every book very
different from preceding books, then this could be regarded as a style change in
itself, and I think that most people accept that a change took place (but might
disagree as to when it actually happened).
Sean
gaeltach@fan.net.au
***************
.... and now for something completely different:
Too female, lame foot.
***************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: Randi randi_pattersen.spambane@spambane.hotmail.com
Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 9:43 PM
Message-id: <MPG.145acd0a12f46fbb98969d@news.rdc1.az.home.com>
Gaeltach (gaeltach@fan.net.au) arranged the electrons thusly...
>
>
>Bill wrote:
>
>>I don't think there is such a thing as a "style change" in Heinlein, at least
>>not after Stranger. He tried to make every book very different from the books
>>that preceded it, and succeeded in that aim. You can make a case for there
>>being a break of some kind at ST and Stranger, because he was getting out of
>>the juveniles biz-- but the case is not strong, because he had always been
>>writing "for adults" during the juveniles period. However, starting with
>>Stranger, everything was suddenly a lot more complex -- i.e., he was no longer
>>writing for "SF-reader adults," but just for adults, period. And gradually
>>that worked its way into a huge audience of non-SF-readers. The case for the
>>"break" at that point has to do with his abandoning genre conventions entirely.
>
>......Which makes me wonder about Podkayne of Mars, which was written and published
>in 1962. Sure, it was the very first of his novels (not short stories) to be
>wriiten in the female first person, but for all intents and purposes it is a
>"juvenile" novel. And he wrote this after both ST and Stranger, but before Glory
>Road, Farnham's Freehold and tMiaHM. I wouldn't like to suggest that after Stranger
>he was unsure of his future direction or "style", however PoM does seem to me to be
>an anomaly (and to a lesser extent also Glory Road), if we consider what came
>after. As far as "style change", I guess if he was trying to make every book very
>different from preceding books, then this could be regarded as a style change in
>itself, and I think that most people accept that a change took place (but might
>disagree as to when it actually happened).
I don't think Heinlein started writing more complex stories
all of a sudden; the juveniles were every bit as complex to
children as his adult novels were to grown-ups. Heinlein knew
his audience. As far as breaking with convention goes, I really
don't think that there was much of a convention left in science
fiction by the early Sixties. Van Vogt and Sturgeon had
already started the revoloution that Ellison, Aldiss, Brunner,
Haldeman and Heinlein finished. I think what you both are trying
to characterize is a change in Heinlein's marketing strategy. I
doubt he was ever uncertain about anything he did; what Sean is
sensing as uncertainty in the direction his writing was to go was
probably just Heinlein testing which way the market wind was
blowing. Heinlein was nothing if not shrewd. The kids who
bought his stories in the Fifties would be adults in the Sixties,
and when one has a loyal following, one sticks with them. _GR_
was Heinlein trying (and succeeding) to capitalize on the sudden
popularity of _LotR_ among people who no doubt enjoyed Heinlein's
juveniles when they were kids. I'm not sure I can fit _PoM_ into
this hypothesis, but I may not need to. It is entirely possible
_PoM_ was practice for _IWFNE_.
-Randi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: bpral22169@aol.com (BPRAL22169)
Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 11:13 PM
Message-id: <20001021021324.02799.00000133@ng-cl1.aol.com>
>..Which makes me wonder about Podkayne of Mars
I have a theory that Podkayne was a gesture of appreciation to Putnam's for
taking on the risk of Stranger -- there was no way of telling whether it would
have had any market at all. Putnam's wanted the Scribner's juvenile line;
Heinlein gave them a quasi-juvenile. I say "quasi" because it's really not
addressed to teenagers -- it's addressed to parents, particularly young
parents, it seems to me.
Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: agplusone@aol.com (AGplusone)
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 12:35 AM
Message-id: <20001021033510.23246.00001373@ng-ch1.aol.com>
Randi, Sean, and Bill P have been conversing about the early sixties novels,
and Randi noted:
>what Sean is
>sensing as uncertainty in the direction his writing was to go was
>probably just Heinlein testing which way the market wind was
>blowing. Heinlein was nothing if not shrewd. The kids who
>bought his stories in the Fifties would be adults in the Sixties,
>and when one has a loyal following, one sticks with them. [snip following]
I've always looked at _Starship Troopers_, _Glory Road_, and _Double Star_
(1956, four years before the 1960s) as a unit, the "immature adults" I call
them, aimed at the 'kids who bought his stories in the Fifties,' that 'loyal
following.' I'd happily add _Podkayne of Mars_ to this batch, since it does the
same thing--aimed as it is at young adults, not an euphemistic term for
juveniles, who are still looking for full maturity. _Double Star_ fits in there
when you consider actually some of the early juveniles were written in the late
Forties and, by 1956, older readers were adults.
--
David M. Silver
AGplusone@aol.com
"I expect your names to shine!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: Randi randi_pattersen.spambane@spambane.hotmail.com
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 8:47 AM
Message-id: <MPG.145b5a3d67ccdb0098969e@news.rdc1.az.home.com>
AGplusone (agplusone@aol.com) arranged the electrons thusly...
>Randi, Sean, and Bill P have been conversing about the early sixties novels,
>and Randi noted:
>
>>what Sean is
>>sensing as uncertainty in the direction his writing was to go was
>>probably just Heinlein testing which way the market wind was
>>blowing. Heinlein was nothing if not shrewd. The kids who
>>bought his stories in the Fifties would be adults in the Sixties,
>>and when one has a loyal following, one sticks with them. [snip following]
>
>I've always looked at _Starship Troopers_, _Glory Road_, and _Double Star_
>(1956, four years before the 1960s) as a unit, the "immature adults" I call
>them, aimed at the 'kids who bought his stories in the Fifties,' that 'loyal
>following.' I'd happily add _Podkayne of Mars_ to this batch, since it does the
>same thing--aimed as it is at young adults, not an euphemistic term for
>juveniles, who are still looking for full maturity. _Double Star_ fits in there
>when you consider actually some of the early juveniles were written in the late
>Forties and, by 1956, older readers were adults.
Hmmm. Yes. That would be consistent. What an interesting
idea: An author that acknowledges that his audience will grow
and mature. I wonder if anybody has attempted an analysis of an
author's work by proceding from the assumption that her target
audience remained the same, changing only in age or maturity?
Hemingway would be an excellent author to analyze from that
standpoint. Kerouac too, and maybe even Fitzgerald. Thanks,
David; I think I just found a thesis for my American Lit term
paper. :)
-Randi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: Ogden Johnson III ojiii@home.com
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 12:47 PM
Message-id: <8ks3vs0mdu20sa960pq2jc29g89atqrotv@4ax.com>
Randi <randi_pattersen.spambane@spambane.hotmail.com>wrote:
[Snip good stuff preceding]
>standpoint. Kerouac too, and maybe even Fitzgerald. Thanks,
>David; I think I just found a thesis for my American Lit term
>paper. :)
If you build it around RAH [and get a good grade on it ;->], be sure
to submit it to BPRAL22169 {aka Bill Patterson} for The Heinlein
Journal. <VBG>
OJ III
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: Randi randi_pattersen.spambane@spambane.hotmail.com
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 4:00 PM
Message-id: <MPG.145bc00cba0c498f9896a1@news.rdc1.az.home.com>
Ogden Johnson III (ojiii@home.com) arranged the electrons
thusly...
>Randi <randi_pattersen.spambane@spambane.hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>[Snip good stuff preceding]
>
>>standpoint. Kerouac too, and maybe even Fitzgerald. Thanks,
>>David; I think I just found a thesis for my American Lit term
>>paper. :)
>
>If you build it around RAH [and get a good grade on it ;->], be sure
>to submit it to BPRAL22169 \{aka Bill Patterson\} for The Heinlein
>Journal. <VBG>
>
>OJ III
Yeah, right. :) /Randi deploys claws and takes a swipe in
OJIII's general direction.
-Randi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: Ogden Johnson III ojiii@home.com
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 8:03 PM
Message-id: <uql4vscft30jmemia34gejducp36rqk2s5@4ax.com>
Randi <randi_pattersen.spambane@spambane.hotmail.com>wrote:
>Ogden Johnson III (ojiii@home.com) arranged the electrons
>thusly...
>>Randi <randi_pattersen.spambane@spambane.hotmail.com>wrote:
>>>standpoint. Kerouac too, and maybe even Fitzgerald. Thanks,
>>>David; I think I just found a thesis for my American Lit term
>>>paper. :)
>>If you build it around RAH [and get a good grade on it ;->], be sure
>>to submit it to BPRAL22169 {aka Bill Patterson} for The Heinlein
>>Journal. <VBG>
>Yeah, right. :) /Randi deploys claws and takes a swipe in
>OJIII's general direction.
Hey! I was serious. Ask Jane. She did both a short informal one and
a longer, formal paper for Issue 6. Good pieces, both. The longer
one has me seriously looking for Rudyard Kipling HBs that I've left
too long unread.
OJ III
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: agplusone@aol.com (AGplusone)
Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 12:58 AM
Message-id: <20001022035814.08042.00001391@ng-cs1.aol.com>
OJ, III:
>Hey! I was serious. Ask Jane. She did both a short informal one and
>a longer, formal paper for Issue 6. Good pieces, both. The longer
>one has me seriously looking for Rudyard Kipling HBs that I've left
>too long unread.
I thought OJ was serious, too, Randi. You don't have to agree with Bill to get
published in The Heinlein Journal, simply write a well-reasoned paper on the
subject -- part of the fun of such Journals is the arguments back and forth.
One reason I asked for a copy was in the event I felt it was worth publishing
... if I did I'd have conveyed (and will convey) that assessment to both you
and Bill.
--
David M. Silver
AGplusone@aol.com
"I expect your names to shine!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: agplusone@aol.com (AGplusone)
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 12:58 PM
Message-id: <20001021155836.19482.00000952@ng-fi1.aol.com>
Randi Patterson:
>What an interesting
>idea: An author that acknowledges that his audience will grow
>and mature. I wonder if anybody has attempted an analysis of an
>author's work by proceding from the assumption that her target
>audience remained the same, changing only in age or maturity?
>Hemingway would be an excellent author to analyze from that
>standpoint. Kerouac too, and maybe even Fitzgerald. Thanks,
>David; I think I just found a thesis for my American Lit term paper.
My pleasure. Send me a copy of the paper (as an attachment to e mail if you
wish). I've enjoyed reading other writings by you and would appreciate reading
it.
--
David M. Silver
AGplusone@aol.com
"I expect your names to shine!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: Randi randi_pattersen.spambane@spambane.hotmail.com
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 4:09 PM
Message-id: <MPG.145bc230439498319896a2@news.rdc1.az.home.com>
AGplusone (agplusone@aol.com) arranged the electrons thusly...
>Randi Patterson:
>
>>What an interesting
>>idea: An author that acknowledges that his audience will grow
>>and mature. I wonder if anybody has attempted an analysis of an
>>author's work by proceding from the assumption that her target
>>audience remained the same, changing only in age or maturity?
>>Hemingway would be an excellent author to analyze from that
>>standpoint. Kerouac too, and maybe even Fitzgerald. Thanks,
>>David; I think I just found a thesis for my American Lit term paper.
>
>My pleasure. Send me a copy of the paper (as an attachment to e mail if you
>wish). I've enjoyed reading other writings by you and would appreciate reading
>it.
Ok.
-Randi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: ddavitt ddavitt@netcom.ca
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 2:08 PM
Message-id: <39F205C6.BD5B1B25@netcom.ca>
Randi wrote:
>
>
> Hmmm. Yes. That would be consistent. What an interesting
>idea: An author that acknowledges that his audience will grow
>and mature. I wonder if anybody has attempted an analysis of an
>author's work by proceding from the assumption that her target
>audience remained the same, changing only in age or maturity?
>Hemingway would be an excellent author to analyze from that
>standpoint. Kerouac too, and maybe even Fitzgerald. Thanks,
>David; I think I just found a thesis for my American Lit term
>paper. :)
>
>-Randi
The Harry Potter books are doing that; the first book had a hero of 11 and was
written in a style which was attractive to 11 year olds (well, a lot of other age
groups liked it too!). Subsequent books, with the hero ageing a year each book, have
been written in a progressively more mature style. By the time the final book is
reached ( I think it's a projected seven parter) they will be aimed at 18 year olds.
Should be interesting....
Of course the author can still scoop up new 11 year old readers who can read the
series at their leisure and stop if the books get too adult for them, though I have
to say I can't see this happening much.
Jane
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: chris@keristor.dircon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 4:13 PM
Message-id: <slrn8v48pi.sn.chris@ccserver.keris.net>
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 17:08:22 -0400, ddavitt
<ddavitt@netcom.ca>wrote:
>Randi wrote:
>
>> Hmmm. Yes. That would be consistent. What an interesting
>>idea: An author that acknowledges that his audience will grow
>>and mature. I wonder if anybody has attempted an analysis of an
>>author's work by proceding from the assumption that her target
>>audience remained the same, changing only in age or maturity?
>>Hemingway would be an excellent author to analyze from that
>>standpoint. Kerouac too, and maybe even Fitzgerald. Thanks,
>>David; I think I just found a thesis for my American Lit term
>>paper. :)
>>
>>-Randi
>
>The Harry Potter books are doing that; the first book had a hero of 11
>and was written in a style which was attractive to 11 year olds (well,
>a lot of other age groups liked it too!). Subsequent books, with the
>hero ageing a year each book, have been written in a progressively more
>mature style. By the time the final book is reached ( I think it's a
>projected seven parter) they will be aimed at 18 year olds. Should be
>interesting....
Several series for children have done that, especially authors who wrote
one (main) series like Arthur Ransome ("Swallows and Amazons") and
Malcolm Saville (the earlier books; at some point he decided not to
'age' the characters any further which spoilt it), but I can't think of
authors offhand who have done it further into adulthood of their
readers, for instance 30 years later writing about the characters as new
grandparents. I'm sure that someone (apart from RAH) has done so and
I'm just blanking on the memory.
>Of course the author can still scoop up new 11 year old readers who can
>read the series at their leisure and stop if the books get too adult
>for them, though I have to say I can't see this happening much.
It seems quite a probable thing to happen, unless you meant that the
stopping was what you couldn't see happening much. I agree that most
kids I know who read aren't too bothered about reading books designed
for adults, although they may find some subjects uninteresting or skip
parts they don't understand.
Chris C
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: "Andrew Foley" anfoley@ibm.net
Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 5:48 AM
Message-id: <39f2e2d3_4@news2.prserv.net>
Chris Croughton wrote in message ...
<snipped some discussion of the "ageing" of children's book series
characters>
>Several series for children have done that, especially authors who wrote
>one (main) series like Arthur Ransome ("Swallows and Amazons") and
>Malcolm Saville (the earlier books; at some point he decided not to
>'age' the characters any further which spoilt it), but I can't think of
>authors offhand who have done it further into adulthood of their
>readers, for instance 30 years later writing about the characters as new
>grandparents. I'm sure that someone (apart from RAH) has done so and
>I'm just blanking on the memory.
Outside of children's books, some detective novel series have different
approaches. Ed McBain's 87th Precinct books barely age the characters, so
that in the first book, Cop Hater, the cops are just a few years out of
military service in WWII, whereas in later books the same cops seem to have
done their military service in Vietnam. (Presumably, if the series
continues much longer, they'll begin to claim to have been young soldiers in
the Gulf War.) Lead character Steve Carella has twin children, who were
born in the late 1950s, yet are still, even now, only about ten years old.
To his credit, Ed McBain/Evan Hunter is well aware of this problem, and in
one book has Carella have the feeling that an awful lot of years seem to
have gone
by, and that the twins should really be in their thirties.
Whereas, in Robert B Parker's Spenser novels, Spenser really ages. (Robert
Urich is way too young for the part in the TV series/TV movies.) The
first-person narration doesn't specifically state Spenser's age, but he does
mention that he did his military service in the Korean War, which would make
him in his early 40s in the first books, and would have him approaching his
70th birthday round about now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: mwstone@aol.com (mike stone)
Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 5:59 AM
Message-id: <20001023085937.02699.00000648@ng-ck1.aol.com>
>From: "Andrew Foley" anfoley@ibm.net
>Chris Croughton wrote in message ...
>
><snipped some discussion of the "ageing" of children's book series characters>
>
>>Several series for children have done that, especially authors who wrote
>>one (main) series like Arthur Ransome ("Swallows and Amazons") and
>>Malcolm Saville (the earlier books; at some point he decided not to
>>'age' the characters any further which spoilt it),
Quite a lot of _British_ juvenile sf has done this. Frex, Patrick Moore did a
series about the colonisation of Mars, whose hero Maurice Gray, is 16 in the
first book and in his 30s by the last one
Similarly, Angus MacVicar's "Lost Planet" series begin with a 16-yr-old hero,
Jeremy Grant who finishes up as a "Space Agent" in his 20s iirc. I think
something similar happens to Chrsi Godfrey, hero of Hugh Walters "Blast-off at
Woomera" et seq who was 17 when we first met him
Fimally, there is the much-maligned "Kemlo" series by EC Eliot. His exact age
is never given, but in the first book, "Kemlo and the Crazy Planet" he appears
to be about 14. By the last one (I think it was called "Kemlo and the Masters
of Space") he comes over more like an 18-year-old. If so, he has had a very
eventful four years
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England
"The English people are like the English beer.
Froth on top, dregs at the bottom, the middle excellent" - Voltaire
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: chris@keristor.dircon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 11:20 AM
Message-id: <slrn8v90bo.u89.chris@ccserver.keris.net>
On 23 Oct 2000 12:59:37 GMT, mike stone <Mwstone@aol.com>wrote:
>Quite a lot of _British_ juvenile sf has done this. Frex, Patrick Moore
>did a series about the colonisation of Mars, whose hero Maurice Gray,
>is 16 in the first book and in his 30s by the last one
I've only ever found the first two books in that series. However, in
his other series about the colonisation of the moon it is similar, the
young people age normally.
>Similarly, Angus MacVicar's "Lost Planet" series begin with a 16-yr-old
>hero, Jeremy Grant who finishes up as a "Space Agent" in his 20s iirc.
Possibly even a little older, although IIRC it isn't stated.
>I think something similar happens to Chrsi Godfrey, hero of Hugh
>Walters "Blast-off at Woomera" et seq who was 17 when we first met him
And in the last books is in his 40s, I think, director of the space
agency and sending kids out to do the work while he flies a desk.
>Fimally, there is the much-maligned "Kemlo" series by EC Eliot. His
>exact age is never given, but in the first book, "Kemlo and the Crazy
>Planet" he appears to be about 14. By the last one (I think it was
>called "Kemlo and the Masters of Space") he comes over more like an
>18-year-old. If so, he has had a very eventful four years
And the even more maligned Captain W.E. Johns (of 'Biggles' fame) space
series, where they definitely age although that's about the only thing
remotely believable about the books (his 'science' is totally screwy,
and I knew it when I first read them as an early teenager; I'm still
rereading them and collecting them, though, because they were fun in
spite of the errors). For that matter Biggles and co. age through the
series.
One reason I mentioned Arthur Ransome specifically is that, unlike most
of the others, the internal chronology is completely consistent.
Everything happens in the school holidays (or round them) and it's
almost trivial to draw up a timeline of which holidays the books
describe, including the holidays which are just mentioned ("Peter Duck",
for instance, is a story which the kids made up with "Captain Flint"
over the winter holiday after "Swallows and Amazons"; this is shown in
"Swallowdale" where they refer back to both the real holiday and to the
story). That always made that series especially real to me; in
contrast, the Enid Blyton "Famous Five" series was very difficult for me
to swallow because there was no such sense of chronology (and there was
so much action that it would have taken the kids 20 years to have all
those adventures, without even having time to go to school between
them!).
Offhand, the only non-British authors I can think of who 'age' their
characters over a series are Diane Duane (in the "Young Wizards" series)
and Anne McCaffrey (if that counts with a 2500 year timeline!). Surely
there must be more?
Chris C
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: mwstone@aol.com (mike stone)
Date: Tue, Oct 24, 2000 7:27 AM
Message-id: <20001024102701.02736.00000823@ng-ck1.aol.com>
>From: chris@keristor.dircon.co.uk (Chris Croughton)
>>I think something similar happens to Chrsi Godfrey, hero of Hugh
>>Walters "Blast-off at Woomera" et seq who was 17 when we first met him
>And in the last books is in his 40s, I think, director of the space
>agency and sending kids out to do the work while he flies a desk.
The first kid was introduced whilst Godfrey himself was still flying. He was
called something Hale, but the first name escapes me.
This was a common way of handling the situation - bring in a new young hero for
reader identification, as the original one began to get too old. In Patrick
Moore's "Mars" series, a teenager named Richard Rawn ("Prawn" to one of his
elders) appears in a later book to fill the niche vacated by Maurice Gray. I
can't remember if the same happened in the Lunar series (I was ageing myself by
then, and starting to drift away from the juveniles) but I shouldn't be
surprised if it did
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England
"The English people are like the English beer.
Froth on top, dregs at the bottom, the middle excellent" - Voltaire
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: chris@keristor.org (Chris Croughton)
Date: Tue, Oct 24, 2000 10:51 AM
Message-id: <slrn8vbj11.mci.chris@ccserver.keris.net>
On 24 Oct 2000 14:27:01 GMT, mike stone
<Mwstone@aol.com>wrote:
>>And in the last books is in his 40s, I think, director of the space
>>agency and sending kids out to do the work while he flies a desk.
>
>The first kid was introduced whilst Godfrey himself was still flying. He was
>called something Hale, but the first name escapes me.
Tony Hale, and he was introduced in about the 4th book (the first one
with all three of the others together, I think, the one setting up a
lunar base). Chris Godfrey didn't retire until a lot later, Tony
accompanied the others on flights to (at least) Saturn and Uranus, as
well as several by himself ("Terror by Satelite" and one involving a
murder on Mars, as I recall).
>This was a common way of handling the situation - bring in a new young
>hero for reader identification, as the original one began to get too
>old. In Patrick Moore's "Mars" series, a teenager named Richard Rawn
>("Prawn" to one of his elders) appears in a later book to fill the
>niche vacated by Maurice Gray.
Ah, I never got that far.
>I can't remember if the same happened in
>the Lunar series (I was ageing myself by then, and starting to drift
>away from the juveniles) but I shouldn't be surprised if it did.
I don't think so, but since I don't have all of that series (and can't
guarantee if I even read all of them) it could have been done.
I suspect that there are only two real ways of dealing with that
problem, either accept that your audience is going to get older along
with the characters and move to more 'adult' themes, or introduce new
young people to retain the interest of the young readers. Either is
valid, in my opinion, which one is chosen is a matter of stylistic
preference.
Chris C
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: Gaeltach gaeltach@fan.net.au
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 6:17 AM
Message-id: <39F19754.B8F799F7@fan.net.au>
Randi wrote:
>I'm not sure I can fit _PoM_ into this hypothesis, but I may not need to. It is
>entirely possible
>_PoM_ was practice for _IWFNE_.
I think Bill's theory about _PoM_ being a gesture of appreciation to Putnam's is closer
to the mark, and perhaps explains the "anomaly". I just can't see any real connection or
genesis from _PoM_ to _IWFNE_.
Sean
gaeltach@fan.net.au
***************
.... and now for something completely different:
Evil era stack cats are live.
***************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: Randi randi_pattersen.spambane@spambane.hotmail.com
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 8:54 AM
Message-id: <MPG.145b5c513806565198969f@news.rdc1.az.home.com>
Gaeltach (gaeltach@fan.net.au) arranged the electrons thusly...
>
>
>Randi wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure I can fit _PoM_ into this hypothesis, but I may not need to. It is
>>entirely possible
>>_PoM_ was practice for _IWFNE_.
>
>I think Bill's theory about _PoM_ being a gesture of appreciation to Putnam's is closer
>to the mark, and perhaps explains the "anomaly". I just can't see any real connection or
>genesis from _PoM_ to _IWFNE_.
Yes, at the time I couldn't see any *real* connection
either; I was just trying to find a place for something that
didn't quite fit in my theory. However, David managed to fit
_PoM_ in neatly by applying my hypothesis about Heinlein's
audiences in the Fifties to Heinlein's audiences in the Forties.
Check his reponse to my post.
-Randi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: reillocnl@my-deja.com
Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 10:38 PM
Message-id: <t3780$d9k$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <20001020102029.03741.00000276@ng-fd1.aol.com>,
bpral22169@aol.com (BPRAL22169) wrote:
>I don't think there is such a thing as a "style change" in Heinlein,
at least
>not after Stranger. He tried to make every book very different from
the books
>that preceded it, and succeeded in that aim. You can make a case for
there
>being a break of some kind at ST and Stranger, because he was getting
out of
>the juveniles biz-- but the case is not strong, because he had always
been
>writing "for adults" during the juveniles period. However, starting
with
>Stranger, everything was suddenly a lot more complex -- i.e., he was
no longer
>writing for "SF-reader adults," but just for adults, period. And
gradually
>that worked its way into a huge audience of non-SF-readers. The case
for the
>"break" at that point has to do with his abandoning genre conventions
entirely.
>Bill
>
Bill, are you in, like, denial or what? The old lech started selling
sex. Further, where in the hell did you come up with "abandoning genre
conventions entirely"(?) Name the ones he "abandoned" and see if your
long list and your short list don't have just that one word on them:
sex.
Now, you can write about wanting to screw your minor daughter(s) but
you can't sell books to a juvenile market that have that content.
There's a term for that and publishers shy away from committing crimes.
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: Gaeltach gaeltach@fan.net.au
Date: Tue, Oct 24, 2000 2:58 AM
Message-id: <39F55D3F.D974F316@fan.net.au>
reillocnl@my-deja.com wrote:
>Bill, are you in, like, denial or what? The old lech started selling
>sex.
I know this is adressed to Bill but .......This is way too simplistic and
therefore quite wrong. Do you honestly believe that Heinlein's later works
were only selling sex? Perhaps you do, but if that were the case I doubt if
he would have been as successful as he was. Sure, sex sells, and good sex
sells even better. But IMO Heinlein didn't write good sex, but he did write
good stories. If anyone were to read Heinlein purely for the sexual content
I think they would be sadly disappointed. However, you wouldn't be
disappointed if you were looking for a wide variety of topics, from
politics to relationships, from leadership to medicine, from survival to
economics etc. etc...... All contained in fantastic futuristic multiverses
where almost anything was possible. But *all* you say is he "started
selling sex". Take off the blinkers if that is all you can see.
Sean
gaeltach@fan.net.au
***************
.... and now for something completely different:
Sex at noon taxes.
***************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: reillocnl@my-deja.com
Date: Tue, Oct 24, 2000 8:12 AM
Message-id: <t48so$7ij$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <39F55D3F.D974F316@fan.net.au>,
Gaeltach <gaeltach@fan.net.au>wrote:
>
>
>reillocnl@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>Bill, are you in, like, denial or what? The old lech started selling
>>sex.
>
>I know this is adressed to Bill but .......This is way too simplistic
and
>therefore quite wrong. Do you honestly believe that Heinlein's later
works
>were only selling sex? Perhaps you do, but if that were the case I
doubt if
>he would have been as successful as he was. Sure, sex sells, and good
sex
>sells even better. But IMO Heinlein didn't write good sex, but he did
write
>good stories. If anyone were to read Heinlein purely for the sexual
content
>I think they would be sadly disappointed. However, you wouldn't be
>disappointed if you were looking for a wide variety of topics, from
>politics to relationships, from leadership to medicine, from survival
to
>economics etc. etc...... All contained in fantastic futuristic
multiverses
>where almost anything was possible. But *all* you say is he "started
>selling sex". Take off the blinkers if that is all you can see.
>
>Sean
>gaeltach@fan.net.au
>***************
>.... and now for something completely different:
>Sex at noon taxes.
>***************
>
Okay. That's cool. Take out the sex and tell me how much saleable
content or, for that matter, length you've got left. Lemme see...there
goes all of TEFL, half of NOTB, all of TSBTS and even all of JACOE. I'm
leaving ISFNE out of this because it's just laughable.
Now, as for whether the sex was good sex. You say it wasn't, I didn't
say, I'll say now it was lousy, unimaginative, Puritanical sex that
derived it's tittilation from the forbidden. Missionary position, oh-
yes-now-now-mommy stuff that took 300 pages to set up the first time
and wasn't worth the effort if the sex was all there was.
Next, those good stories you mention. Tell me one of them without the
sex, please. Huh? They're about people and people have sex so the sex
has to stay? Okay. Tell me one where the sex isn't the whole point and
the business about "politics to relationships, from leadership to
medicine, from survival to economics" aren't just little imbedded
lectures between the most recent copulation and the next.
Don't get me wrong. I like Heinlein's work. I've read all the fiction
he's written. I'll read some of it again. Craft-wise he was pretty
sound and I've seldom read anybody who could make the technical details
necessary for a tale and weave them into the storyline in a way that
would make me want to keep reading them--most of the time.
You know people, though. They're quick to criticize something they
can't do themselves and they always want more than they deserve.
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: chris@keristor.org (Chris Croughton)
Date: Tue, Oct 24, 2000 11:11 AM
Message-id: <slrn8vbk79.mci.chris@ccserver.keris.net>
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:12:33 GMT, reillocnl@my-deja.com
<reillocnl@my-deja.com>wrote:
>Okay. That's cool. Take out the sex and tell me how much saleable
>content or, for that matter, length you've got left. Lemme see...there
>goes all of TEFL, half of NOTB, all of TSBTS and even all of JACOE. I'm
>leaving ISFNE out of this because it's just laughable.
Wrong (except for IWFNE, possibly). Unless by 'sex' you mean everything
involving a male-female relationship, in which case you can reduce
almost any book about adults in the same way (almost anything on the
bestseller list, certainly).
>Now, as for whether the sex was good sex. You say it wasn't, I didn't
>say, I'll say now it was lousy, unimaginative, Puritanical sex that
>derived it's tittilation from the forbidden. Missionary position, oh-
>yes-now-now-mommy stuff that took 300 pages to set up the first time
>and wasn't worth the effort if the sex was all there was.
"EF, or FF?"
Exactly, the sex did not sell the books because it wasn't particularly
well written sex. In fact, there was very little graphic sex at all,
mostly it was the same sort of level as on TV where the camera fades to
gray just before you see anything. That's why your whole thesis of "he
was just selling sex" doesn't hold water. No way would the books have
sold at all just for the sex.
(It's revealing just which aspects of the sex and relationships in his
books people pick on. It reveals more about the person who complains
than about the author...)
>Next, those good stories you mention. Tell me one of them without the
>sex, please. Huh? They're about people and people have sex so the sex
>has to stay? Okay. Tell me one where the sex isn't the whole point and
>the business about "politics to relationships, from leadership to
>medicine, from survival to economics" aren't just little imbedded
>lectures between the most recent copulation and the next.
TNotB, tCWWTW. I'm hard pushed to remember any sexual scenes in either
(as opposed to relationships). Oh, there's the bit where Hazel is in
the bath with Lazarus in tNotB. OK, tSBtS has a fair bit (which is why
it's one of my less favourites, I think there's too much 'waffle' and
not enough 'meat'). Job has an amount, but again it's mostly not at all
explicit.
Your emphasis on sex reminds me of I girl I knew years ago who refused
to read Fred Hoyle's books because of "all the sex" - there was (in the
book about which she was complaining) one scene where the protagonist
met a girl at a party and they went back to her flat. That was it, no
statement even of whether he slept on the couch or whatever.
>Don't get me wrong. I like Heinlein's work. I've read all the fiction
>he's written. I'll read some of it again. Craft-wise he was pretty
>sound and I've seldom read anybody who could make the technical details
>necessary for a tale and weave them into the storyline in a way that
>would make me want to keep reading them--most of the time.
He was good at that, certainly. The best? I can't comment, I can't
think of anyone noticably better at that aspect of the craft...
>You know people, though. They're quick to criticize something they
>can't do themselves and they always want more than they deserve.
I don't understand this comment in context. Since it's you criticising
the quality of the sex in the books, is this meant to imply that you
can't do it yourself? Surely not Chris C
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: reillocnl@my-deja.com
Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 11:17 AM
Message-id: <t7842$nhu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <slrn8vbk79.mci.chris@ccserver.keris.net>,
chris@keristor.org (Chris Croughton) wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:12:33 GMT, reillocnl@my-deja.com
><reillocnl@my-deja.com>wrote>
>>Okay. That's cool. Take out the sex and tell me how much saleable
>>content or, for that matter, length you've got left. Lemme
>>see...there
>>goes all of TEFL, half of NOTB, all of TSBTS and even all of JACOE.
>>I'm
>>leaving ISFNE out of this because it's just laughable.
>
>Wrong (except for IWFNE, possibly). Unless by 'sex' you mean
>everything
>involving a male-female relationship, in which case you can reduce
>almost any book about adults in the same way (almost anything on the
>bestseller list, certainly).
>
Pick one. Pick TEFL since that's the next pick for discussion, leaf
through it and mentally recast the stories without the inclusion of
sexuality. Is there any point to any of them then? For that matter, is
there any point to the book then since the whole thing's a set up to
get Woody (great nick, no, considering the context?) into the bed on
Benton Boulevard boffing the beautiful babe who bore his body before?
There are plenty of mentions in the posts on these boards about the
politics and economic theories of RAH but make no mistake, he was as
much a determinist as Engels and Marx--only the feature on which he
lighted to explain human behavior was sex, not economics. Frankly, I'm
attracted to it. It's more basic than greed and more universal. Most
greed's probably motivated by the goal of obtaining economic advantage
in order to acquire sexual favor or desirability. I think he actually
hit on something but just didn't articulate it as fully as he could
have in the form of an organized, non-fiction thesis. He did what he
could which was support the proposition by fictional example.
>>Now, as for whether the sex was good sex. You say it wasn't, I didn't
>>say, I'll say now it was lousy, unimaginative, Puritanical sex that
>>derived it's tittilation from the forbidden. Missionary position, oh-
>>yes-now-now-mommy stuff that took 300 pages to set up the first time
>>and wasn't worth the effort if the sex was all there was.
>
>"EF, or FF?"
>
You know what the old pragmatist would say. "FF unless you need to EF
so we can FM."
>Exactly, the sex did not sell the books because it wasn't particularly
>well written sex. In fact, there was very little graphic sex at all,
>mostly it was the same sort of level as on TV where the camera fades
>to
>gray just before you see anything. That's why your whole thesis
>of "he
>was just selling sex" doesn't hold water. No way would the books have
>sold at all just for the sex.
That's a little naive, Chris. You know as well as I do that he had to
stay mainstream to keep selling. Further, you're presuming he knew how
to write a good sex scene but just didn't. I don't think he knew how to
do it because he wasn't a particularly good writer when it came to
crafting believable scenes showing the way that actual people--not
demigods with agendas and prepared lectures--behave when they're in an
informal setting. It just wasn't his way, his style, it wouldn't have
fit the pace of his work, and it wouldn't have sold. Invariably, when
he throws a couple of characters together in the comfort of a dwelling
place's living room for dinner and light conversation the reader winds
up getting a discourse on morality, politics or religion. That's what
his readers wanted and that's what they got: escapism from the reality
that the last time they had friends over for dinner maybe .001% of the
conversation was anything remotely like that.
>
>(It's revealing just which aspects of the sex and relationships in his
>books people pick on. It reveals more about the person who complains
>than about the author...)
>
I've got an elipsis key around here someplace and I'm not afraid to use
it, if I can find it... Oh, yeah. There it is... Now what was that
bullshit? Oh, yeah... I'm superior because I can "accept" screwing your
mother, father, daughters, sons and any other relative who's available.
Right... Good key, that...
>>Next, those good stories you mention. Tell me one of them without the
>>sex, please. Huh? They're about people and people have sex so the sex
>>has to stay? Okay. Tell me one where the sex isn't the whole point
>>and
>>the business about "politics to relationships, from leadership to
>>medicine, from survival to economics" aren't just little imbedded
>>lectures between the most recent copulation and the next.
>
>TNotB, tCWWTW. I'm hard pushed to remember any sexual scenes in
>either
>(as opposed to relationships). Oh, there's the bit where Hazel is in
>the bath with Lazarus in tNotB. OK, tSBtS has a fair bit (which is
>why
>it's one of my less favourites, I think there's too much 'waffle' and
>not enough 'meat'). Job has an amount, but again it's mostly not at
>all
>explicit.
I didn't include "Cat." I don't like it and probably won't ever read it
again. "Beast" is all about sex--when it's not setting up the, what do
you call it here? Reality as fiction or something like that? That
elaborate mechanism for plausible deniability of charges that the old
man's just gone wanker happy. Someone suggest that there's a deep game
afoot. That "666" isn't six to the sixth to the sixth but rather "sick,
sick, sick" and a giggle from the grave. Job? Crap. I read it once.
Lost it. Bought another copy, read it and immediately gave it away.
I'm from Missouri, Chris. Literally. I lived in Kansas City for awhile
and worked for years a block from the house on Benton Blvd. where the
Smiths were supposed to have lived. I lived on Rockhill Road two blocks
from Maureen's last residence. I grew up in Joplin. I got enough goddam
biblethumping, come to Jesus, don't look now but there's a rapture
about to happen bullshit (and am still, in Kansas, close enough to
experience its effects--remember us and the teaching of evolution?--
just by looking out the window) to give everyone in this ng all the
fundamentalist party-line evangelism she or he could take and still
have enough left over to pitch a tent and speak in tongues. Job stinks.
>
>Your emphasis on sex reminds me of I girl I knew years ago who refused
>to read Fred Hoyle's books because of "all the sex" - there was (in
>the
>book about which she was complaining) one scene where the protagonist
>met a girl at a party and they went back to her flat. That was it, no
>statement even of whether he slept on the couch or whatever.
>
My emphasis? I didn't write the damn books. Bubbly Boy did that. Hey,
you still know that "girl?" See what she thinks about a little group
incest spread out over four novels.
Maybe I should make clear that I'm not bothered by the Heinlein sex. I
don't give a rats ass who he shows his characters FF or EF (gotcha) or
whether they're related by blood, marriage or not. To deny that he was
obsessed is what gets me. Sure, you think my concentration on the sex
disregards his forwarding such valuable human skills as memorizing
tables of natural logarithms in order to be able to mentally calculate
the number of nanoseconds before your next haircut (cough) or how to
properly outfit a traveling party for a six-month trek across hostile
wilderness taking into account the necessity that you might have to
munch on your favorite mule and still wind up crawling back in disgrace
with only half your limbs and chalk it up to another ruby slipup. Okay,
those are nice, interesting science-fictiony--sort of--things to read
and I expect them to be there. Expect him to put them there. He wrote
like that and I liked it. Still do. Don't tell me, though, that the sex
was just another one of those. You're fooling you, not me.
>>Don't get me wrong. I like Heinlein's work. I've read all the fiction
>>he's written. I'll read some of it again. Craft-wise he was pretty
>>sound and I've seldom read anybody who could make the technical
>>details
>>necessary for a tale and weave them into the storyline in a way that
>>would make me want to keep reading them--most of the time.
>
>He was good at that, certainly. The best? I can't comment, I can't
>think of anyone noticably better at that aspect of the craft...
>
Asimov.
>>You know people, though. They're quick to criticize something they
>>can't do themselves and they always want more than they deserve.
>
>I don't understand this comment in context. Since it's you
>criticising
>the quality of the sex in the books, is this meant to imply that you
>can't do it yourself? Surely not >
Yes, regretfully. I can't get it up anymore and I could never get it up
over a Heinlein novel. I'll ask mom why that is.
You know, don't you, that that, up there--not the "get it up crap"--
was my deference to others' opinions and RAH's writing skills, right?
This is discussion and criticism. I can criticize but I can't write as
well, yet, as he did. I won't wind up writing just like he did, either,
because I'm not him. My commentary suggests that I'm entitled to more
than he gave but I don't deserve any more than there is. I'm sorry I
don't have a snide ellipsis with which to leave you... I'm such a liar.
>Chris C
>
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: princeofbaja@aol.comjunkbloc (PrinceOfBaja)
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 12:23 AM
Message-id: <20001026032301.02936.00000131@ng-fk1.aol.com>
LCN muttered, quite mistakenly:
<snip>
>That's a little naive, Chris. You know as well as I do that he had to
>stay mainstream to keep selling.
This is a purely bullshit argument. In the 50's, there were many "mainstream"
novels being written that had much more sex in them than anything RAH wrote 20
years later. Ever hear of a little tome titled "God's Little Acre"? That one
was not unusual, and was even made into a movie in the same time period. I
happen to have been around, and quite literate, in those days, so what I'm
saying is certainly not hearsay or speculation, but gleaned from personal
experience.
Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: agplusone@aol.com (AGplusone)
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 10:24 AM
Message-id: <20001026132459.07332.00000083@ng-fi1.aol.com>
Steve observed, replying to Mr. Collier, who said:
>>That's a little naive, Chris. You know as well as I do that he had to
>>stay mainstream to keep selling.
>
>This is a purely bullshit argument. In the 50's, there were many "mainstream"
>novels being written that had much more sex in them than anything RAH wrote
>20 years later.
Quite correct. In my high school, it was a mark of 'sophistication' among some
to carry the best-selling and readily recognizable from its cover paperback
novel _Peyton Place_ atop your schoolbooks from class to class my junior year,
which was in the late 1950s. There were quite a few other popular novels less
well-publicized but just as obsessed with sex at Mrs. Metalious' opus was. I
know, I probably read every one of them, as I was just as obsessed with sex as
any other teenaged boy. Thoughtout that period, I read RAH--adult and juvenile
works, old and new, over and over again.
Had someone suggested that I was attracted to RAH because of his portrayal of
sex in his works during that period, I'm sad to say I'd have laughed in that
someone's face and rattled off a list of 'favorites' in which sex is far more
obvious a focus. "Sexy" is, of course, in the mind of the beholder. But if you
see sex as a predominate theme in Heinlein's works during that period, then
perhaps you should question whether your perceptions should be grouped with
those of dear Miss Dalgliesh, who seems to have been so hypersensitively
attuned to "sex" as to have seen it as a predominate theme in Red Planet,
referring to the manner in which the little bouncer Willis participated in the
reproduction of his species.
The situation changes in 1961 of course with SiaSL, which deliberately set out
to *satirize* mid-century viewpoints on sex (and religion), but by the time
SiaSL had beome a popular favorite in the middle and late Sixties Terry
Southern among others were themselves writing far more salacious [and much
poorer IMO] satires on the same subjects -- we have all read the almost
forgotten but then sensationally popular Southern's _Candy_, haven't we? To say
Heinlein "went along" with that "mainstream" is, to put it mildly, a
misperception of the popular literature of the era. More likely I think, some
popular writers came along and then went along with Heinlein's lead in a
'genre' many didn't read started taking up subjects he had raised in a
restrained manner to discuss and carrying on the conversation to excess, not in
itself a bad thing, but something quite different in emphasis and quality of
thought than what Heinlein was doing. All you need do is consider the extensive
discussion in TEFL concerning the classical aspects of love (agape, eros, etc.)
and ask whether that was 'mainstream' for the times. If it was it was buried so
deep in the sand that I never saw it beneath the white water of the
ejaculations of far too many more 'popular' writers.
--
David M. Silver
AGplusone@aol.com
"I expect your names to shine!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: pheb@mailbox.bellatlantic.net
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 2:03 PM
Message-id: <39F89D64.F0A54F94@mailbox.bellatlantic.net>
AGplusone wrote:
>
>Quite correct. In my high school, it was a mark of 'sophistication' among some
>to carry the best-selling and readily recognizable from its cover paperback
>novel _Peyton Place_ atop your schoolbooks from class to class my junior year,
>which was in the late 1950s.
Good Heavens, what a liberal high school you went to. I had to read Peyton Place
literally in the closet, and I was very shocked indeed, I can tell you. But hey,
one must find these things out some way!
[:-)
Phebe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: Randi randi_pattersen.spambane@spambane.hotmail.com
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 8:19 PM
Message-id: <MPG.14629b4db33b07b39896ad@news.rdc1.az.home.com>
pheb@mailbox.bellatlantic.net (pheb@mailbox.bellatlantic.net)
arranged the electrons thusly...
>AGplusone wrote:
>
>>
>>Quite correct. In my high school, it was a mark of 'sophistication' among some
>>to carry the best-selling and readily recognizable from its cover paperback
>>novel _Peyton Place_ atop your schoolbooks from class to class my junior year,
>>which was in the late 1950s.
>
>Good Heavens, what a liberal high school you went to. I had to read Peyton Place
>literally in the closet, and I was very shocked indeed, I can tell you. But hey,
>one must find these things out some way!
>
I used to dangle a Harold Robbins novel out of the back
pocket of my jeans just to provoke a response. Interestingly,
most teachers said if I was going to read that kind of trash, I
should try X, where X ran from Jacqueline Susann to D. H.
Lawrence to (since my appetite for SF was well known to most of
them) Theodore Sturgeon and (gasp) Robert Heinlein.
-Randi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: reillocnl@my-deja.com
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 6:17 PM
Message-id: <tal3r$h7j$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <20001026132459.07332.00000083@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
agplusone@aol.com (AGplusone) wrote:
>Steve observed, replying to Mr. Collier, who said:
>
>>>That's a little naive, Chris. You know as well as I do that he had
to
>>>stay mainstream to keep selling.
>>
>>This is a purely bullshit argument. In the 50's, there were
many "mainstream"
>>novels being written that had much more sex in them than anything
RAH wrote
>>20 years later.
>
>Quite correct. In my high school, it was a mark of 'sophistication' among some
>to carry the best-selling and readily recognizable from its cover paperback
>novel _Peyton Place_ atop your schoolbooks from class to class my junior year,
>which was in the late 1950s. There were quite a few other popular novels less
>well-publicized but just as obsessed with sex at Mrs. Metalious' opus was. I
>know, I probably read every one of them, as I was just as obsessed with sex as
>any other teenaged boy. Thoughtout that period, I read RAH--adult and juvenile
>works, old and new, over and over again.
>
>Had someone suggested that I was attracted to RAH because of his portrayal of
>sex in his works during that period, I'm sad to say I'd have laughed in that
>someone's face and rattled off a list of 'favorites' in which sex is far more
>obvious a focus. "Sexy" is, of course, in the mind of the beholder.
>But if you
>see sex as a predominate theme in Heinlein's works during that period, then
>perhaps you should question whether your perceptions should be grouped with
>those of dear Miss Dalgliesh, who seems to have been so hypersensitively
>attuned to "sex" as to have seen it as a predominate theme in Red Planet,
>referring to the manner in which the little bouncer Willis participated in the
>reproduction of his species.
>
>The situation changes in 1961 of course with SiaSL, which deliberately set out
>to *satirize* mid-century viewpoints on sex (and religion), but by the time
>SiaSL had beome a popular favorite in the middle and late Sixties Terry
>Southern among others were themselves writing far more salacious [and much
>poorer IMO] satires on the same subjects -- we have all read the almost
>forgotten but then sensationally popular Southern's _Candy_, haven't we? To say
>Heinlein "went along" with that "mainstream" is, to put it mildly, a
>misperception of the popular literature of the era. More likely I think, some
>popular writers came along and then went along with Heinlein's lead in a
>'genre' many didn't read started taking up subjects he had raised in a
>restrained manner to discuss and carrying on the conversation to excess, not in
>itself a bad thing, but something quite different in emphasis and quality of
>thought than what Heinlein was doing. All you need do is consider the extensive
>discussion in TEFL concerning the classical aspects of love (agape, eros, etc.)
>and ask whether that was 'mainstream' for the times. If it was it was buried so
>deep in the sand that I never saw it beneath the white water of the >ejaculations of far too many more 'popular' writers.
>--
>David M. Silver
>AGplusone@aol.com
>"I expect your names to shine!"
>
Well I'm glad you boys agree with me, Steve and Dave. You're writing
mainstream scifi in the '50's you do rocketships and that's as phallic
as you get. You're not saying RAH wrote some mainstream non-scifi I
don't know about are you?
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: princeofbaja@aol.comjunkbloc (PrinceOfBaja)
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 1:33 AM
Message-id: <20001027043336.11026.00000057@ng-fp1.aol.com>
>Well I'm glad you boys agree with me, Steve and Dave. You're writing
>mainstream scifi in the '50's you do rocketships and that's as phallic
>as you get. You're not saying RAH wrote some mainstream non-scifi I
>don't know about are you?
>
>LNC
In the first place, neither of us is a "boy," or has been for years. Unfounded
condescension is a ploy of those who have nothing else of merit to say.
Secondly, wouldn't a story about space exploration be a bit awkward without
space ships and "rocketships?" Rocket research was all the thing then. I
suppose you believe that Goddard was only living out his sexual fantasies in
his work, eh?
Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: reillocnl@my-deja.com
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 2:44 AM
Message-id: <tbiqo$87i$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <20001027043336.11026.00000057@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
princeofbaja@aol.comjunkbloc (PrinceOfBaja) wrote:
>
>In the first place, neither of us is a "boy," or has been for years.
>Unfounded
>condescension is a ploy of those who have nothing else of merit to
>say.
>
So, like, that "baja" isn't the one in North American where folks know
that guys call guys "boy," colloquially, sometime, eh, Steve? Wherever
your baja is tell the folks there that in the Heinlein novels, when the
2,000-year-old guy was referred to as "buddy boy," they weren't
condescending, okay? I presume you're less than 2,000? Good.
>Secondly, wouldn't a story about space exploration be a bit awkward
>without
>space ships and "rocketships?" Rocket research was all the thing
>then. I
>suppose you believe that Goddard was only living out his sexual
>fantasies in
>his work, eh?
Over there, in that baja, they've got a keen sense of irony, I see, but
aren't too big on content. There a point here, dude, or are you
agreeing but don't know it?
>
>Steve
>
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: dwrighsr@alltel.net
Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 12:30 PM
Message-id: <t7ccu$ri6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <t7842$nhu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
reillocnl@my-deja.com wrote:
>In article <slrn8vbk79.mci.chris@ccserver.keris.net>,
>chris@keristor.org (Chris Croughton) wrote:
>>On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:12:33 GMT, reillocnl@my-deja.com
>><reillocnl@my-deja.com>wrote:
(snip of a long post)
LNC
If you think that all of TEFL, IFWNE, TNOTB and TSBTS are nothing badly
written sex novels, If I have understood you correctly, then I really
feel sorry for you, but heck, its your life. Live it the way you want
and see what you want to see. Especially, I cannot for the life of me
see how you can consider *all* 300 pages of TEFL nothing but leading up
to getting LL into bed with Maureen. Amazing!
As for me, *ALL* mention of sex could have been eliminated from the
books and I would have enjoyed them just as much. But then, I'm just a
person who enjoys a story which *I* consider well told, so what do I
know?
My second favorite section of TEFL, 'The Man Who Was Too Lazy To Fail'
has no explicit mention of sex whatsoever. Of course, there had to have
been some, after all, David Lamb got his girlfriend pregnant, but *the
reader* saw none of it.
David Wright
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: ddavitt ddavitt@netcom.ca
Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 12:53 PM
Message-id: <39F73A2E.717ADA84@netcom.ca>
dwrighsr@alltel.net wrote:
>
>If you think that all of TEFL, IFWNE, TNOTB and TSBTS are nothing badly
>written sex novels, If I have understood you correctly, then I really
>feel sorry for you, but heck, its your life.
I can safely say that if you lads think Heinlein has sex in his books then
you'd get your socks knocked off by some of the bodice rippers I've read
:-))) Compared to even the mildest of those there is no sex in Heinlein at
all.......there's certainly no reticent, " and that's all anyone will know
about our wedding night" in those books I can tell you!
Jane
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: reillocnl@my-deja.com
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 10:37 AM
Message-id: <t9q4r$qts$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <t7ccu$ri6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
dwrighsr@alltel.net wrote:
>In article <t7842$nhu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>reillocnl@my-deja.com wrote:
>>In article <slrn8vbk79.mci.chris@ccserver.keris.net>,
>>chris@keristor.org (Chris Croughton) wrote:
>>>On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:12:33 GMT, reillocnl@my-deja.com
>>><reillocnl@my-deja.com>wrote:
>
>(snip of a long post)
>
>LNC
>
>If you think that all of TEFL, IFWNE, TNOTB and TSBTS are nothing
>badly
>written sex novels, If I have understood you correctly, then I really
>feel sorry for you, but heck, its your life. Live it the way you want
>and see what you want to see. Especially, I cannot for the life of me
>see how you can consider *all* 300 pages of TEFL nothing but leading
>up to getting LL into bed with Maureen. Amazing!
DW, where did I say anything but the sex was written badly? What, you
think I slogged through thirty some odd books by one guy just in case
someday there'd be a place to come and whine about what a crappy writer
he was--so bad I had to read that much to prove it to myself?
Now, he's not the greatest writer I've ever read; his hero, Sam
Clemens, has my vote there. He writes well, though. Believable,
likeable characters, sound storylines with satisfactory resolutions,
good pace, technical accuracy and attention to detail (sometimes too
much) in the science, humor a notch above homespun but seldom jaded,
clean prose uncluttered with extraneous description for the sake of
attempting to evoke more of an aesthetic response than the genre can
bear. You fill in anything you think I've missed. He wrote well, not
great but well.
As for the entire point of TEFL being to pop LL in the sack with
Maureen, yeah, what about it? You ashamed of it or something? It starts
with poor old broken down Woody without a reason to go on and everybody
pining away over how if we lose the Senior who'll write us anymore? It
winds its way through this and that anecdote, each one of them a lesson
in how sex mends and what else it does (like, explain the entirety of
human history) and lands in Kansas City in time for the Zimmerman note
to enable Bunky to be in bed with mom. Here's a little hypothesis for
you: RAH was stuck for an ending of this novel. Sure, there's sex and
then there's sex with your mother. What do you do after you've shown
your guy getting what he wanted and what you wanted him to get but you
still believe that not everbody's as "open minded" as you are, your
profuse explanations about "consenting adults," contraceptive
precautions and not changing history, notwitstanding? Kill his ass.
It's the only thing you can do. He done sinned. You know that last
letter to Laz and Lor? I'd have made it say "pecavi."
It's no big deal that the whole point of the book was what it was
unless there's a reason to be ashamed of it and, face it, you're as
ashamed and guilty feeling as the old coot himself was; that's why he
offed himself at the end of TEFL.
It's ironic, dude, don't you think, that a guy here can ask, "FF or EF"
and everybody knows instantly what that means but you can scour each
and every post in this newsgroup and nobody, not a single one of the
prudes will spell out that first F? Yet, they'll seemingly freely
swallow their explaining to each other that it's an okay F, even for
little sister, and the big boy didn't say it, why should we? The last
irony is, of course, that if you were to walk down Benton Boulevard
right now the most frequently uttered imprecation cum endearment (in
come subcultures) is a twelve-letter word that sussinctly sums up the
nature of the biological and final interpersonal relationship between
Woodrow Wilson and Maureen Smith. A fine lot of rugged,
individualistic, daring freethinkers this is. Not a motherfucker in the
lot of you.
>
>As for me, *ALL* mention of sex could have been eliminated from the
>books and I would have enjoyed them just as much. But then, I'm just a
>person who enjoys a story which *I* consider well told, so what do I
>know?
>
Not squat so far, Dave. At least you haven't shown it. You've displayed
your recollection and expressed some unsupported opinions. You just
made the air-headed remark that removing the sex would make you happy
with the resulting prose. You've got no theories, no real opinions
other than "I like it," and are occupying bandwidth without an apparent
purpose. You seem to be a nice enough guy but a little repressed.
>My second favorite section of TEFL, 'The Man Who Was Too Lazy To Fail'
>has no explicit mention of sex whatsoever. Of course, there had to
>have
>been some, after all, David Lamb got his girlfriend pregnant, but *the
>reader* saw none of it.
>
Like, yawn. Make that lamer book-length and see how many copies it
sells. It does raise an interesting point, though: how Lamb engineered
his retirement. This isn't sex for a change but it's just as
stigmatizing as wanting to do mom although not criminal. Remember Tom
Eagleton on the McCarthy ticket in '72? Remember why he had to quickly
withdraw and Shriver stepped in? Remember Eagleton was from Missouri?
RAH knew that even the hinting that you'd once talked to somebody about
whether counseling might be beneficial for third parties would brand
you a headcase. Why would he let Lamb take this route? My theory (you
knew I had one) is that he was laughing through his hat at the entire
community of mental health professionals, showing how easily they could
be fooled--if you were lazy enough to put your mind to it. The
corollary is, of course, he had nothing but contempt for something he
thought wasn't subject to empirical analysis. Now, to me, that's
intellectually lazy; but I won't expand on it now.
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: pheb@mailbox.bellatlantic.net
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 2:08 PM
Message-id: <39F89E8E.AE0A0F47@mailbox.bellatlantic.net>
reillocnl@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>It's ironic, dude, don't you think, that a guy here can ask, "FF or EF"
>and everybody knows instantly what that means but you can scour each
>and every post in this newsgroup and nobody, not a single one of the
>prudes will spell out that first F?
I have absolutely no idea what these acronyms stand for, or the other
permutations. I hope to continue in this ignorance indefinitely.
Phebe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: Stanislaw Kansiewicz StanMann@texas.net
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 2:11 PM
Message-id: <39F8C352.D6A8CC86@texas.net>
pheb@mailbox.bellatlantic.net wrote:
>
>reillocnl@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>
>>It's ironic, dude, don't you think, that a guy here can ask, "FF or EF"
>>and everybody knows instantly what that means but you can scour each
>>and every post in this newsgroup and nobody, not a single one of the
>>prudes will spell out that first F?
>
>I have absolutely no idea what these acronyms stand for, or the other
>permutations. I hope to continue in this ignorance indefinitely.
>
>Phebe
I don't know either, and was starting to get the slightest bit curious.
Stan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: ddavitt ddavitt@netcom.ca
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 2:32 PM
Message-id: <39F8A2DA.C4F1F9B5@netcom.ca>
Stanislaw Kansiewicz wrote:
>pheb@mailbox.bellatlantic.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>I have absolutely no idea what these acronyms stand for, or the other
>>permutations. I hope to continue in this ignorance indefinitely.
>>
>>Phebe
>
>I don't know either, and was starting to get the slightest bit curious.
>
>Stan
Well, I'll tell you with a spoiler space for Phebe :-)
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
It's "E.F or F.F" and it's just "Eat first or fuck first?" I don't recall
anyone ever asking me that exact question but when Dora answers, "both", I
flash on pineapple yoghurt...but that's another story.....&lr;bg>
No mystery about it; it's one of the FAQ's on Jim Gifford's page. No prudery
involved either; when used correctly (as another word for sexual intercourse) I
don't think anyone on the group would raise an eyebrow. OTOH, if a poster uses
it as an insult there might be a comment or two as we tend to be polite and
proud of our extensive vocabulary; lots more challenging to attack without once
using a swear word :-)
Jane
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: chris@keristor.org (Chris Croughton)
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 11:56 AM
Message-id: <slrn8vgvic.6ls.chris@ccserver.keris.net>
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:53:18 -0400, ddavitt
<ddavitt@netcom.ca>wrote:
>I can safely say that if you lads think Heinlein has sex in his books then
Please leave most of us out of the "you lads" >you'd get your socks knocked off by some of the bodice rippers I've read
>:-))) Compared to even the mildest of those there is no sex in Heinlein at
>all.......there's certainly no reticent, " and that's all anyone will know
>about our wedding night" in those books I can tell you!
And that goes for some written in the 50s, not just the modern ones.
Now, as far as I can see there is no point to those apart from the
sex...
Chris C
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: princeofbaja@aol.comjunkbloc (PrinceOfBaja)
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 1:35 AM
Message-id: <20001027043533.11026.00000058@ng-fp1.aol.com>
>And that goes for some written in the 50s, not just the modern ones.
>Now, as far as I can see there is no point to those apart from the
>sex...
>
>Chris C
Which isn't automatically a "bad thing," right?
Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: reillocnl@my-deja.com
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 2:49 AM
Message-id: <tbj2t$8hf$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <20001027043533.11026.00000058@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
princeofbaja@aol.comjunkbloc (PrinceOfBaja) wrote:
>>And that goes for some written in the 50s, not just the modern ones.
>>Now, as far as I can see there is no point to those apart from the
>>sex...
>>
>>Chris C
>
>Which isn't automatically a "bad thing," right?
>
>Steve
>
So, Chris comes back and says, "right," and you say, "then even if the
whole point of some latter-day Heinlein novels was sex, that wouldn't
automatically be a bad thing, right?" Then Chris says, "I suppose
that's right..."
You're welcome, Bob. You opened their eyes but they still had to be
dragged from underneath the bed. No charge.
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: Gaeltach gaeltach@fan.net.au
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 5:38 AM
Message-id: <39F9774C.F18281A5@fan.net.au>
reillocnl@my-deja.com wrote:
<snip Steve to Chris>
>So, Chris comes back and says, "right," and you say, "then even if the
>whole point of some latter-day Heinlein novels was sex, that wouldn't
>automatically be a bad thing, right?" Then Chris says, "I suppose
>that's right..."
>
>You're welcome, Bob. You opened their eyes but they still had to be
>dragged from underneath the bed. No charge.
So? That's that? ...... and I thought there was a discussion going on
about the emphasis of sex in Heinlein's last novels? But apparently you
deem it necessary to put words in other's mouths and declare victory. Thus
far you have been most prolific in espousing your view that "the whole
point of some latter-day Heinlein novels was sex". While I disagree, I see
this as a defendable POV, with no need for jerky half-witticisms that you
obviously gain lots of pleasure from. You admit that Heinlein did not write
good "sex" (I assume you mean sex scenes, rather than discussion about
relationships in general), yet show remorse at having to read 300 pages to
get to a sex scene. I might add, you do this while showing great admiration
for other aspects of these *same* novels, and go to great pains to declare
yourself a big Heinlein fan. Ok, have it both ways if you want, but I can't
see how you can stand by your prime statement, and ignore the plethora of
other ideas/plots/scenarios which have nothing to do with sex at all (and
which you have stated admiration for). Others here (including myself) have
encouraged you to remove your sex-blinkers to see a wider picture, and have
given you ample examples to back up such a position. Sure, no one denies
that sex was not a factor, but to claim that it was "the whole point" needs
to be backed up with more than selective memory and smugness. To me, your
recent spree here seems like a good way for you to entertain yourself, at
the expense of intelligent discussion. I think you have lots to offer this
newsgroup. I just haven't seen it yet.
Sean
**************
.... and now for something completely different:
Eros? Sis is sore.
**************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: pheb@mailbox.bellatlantic.net
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 10:37 AM
Message-id: <39F9BEA8.FE207A97@mailbox.bellatlantic.net>
Gaeltach wrote:
>I thought there was a discussion going on
>about the emphasis of sex in Heinlein's last novels?
>
>**************
>.... and now for something completely different:
>
>Eros? Sis is sore.
>**************
Loved this last palindrome.
Well, I'd like to say something on the subject of sex in late Heinlein. I think
it's a very important issue (apart from it being a VERY popular one!) because
of the amazing breadth of the change in his fiction from about Farnham's
Freehold on.
The early work was inspirational for young people, and sincerely so: Heinlein
was genuinely benign in his plot-clothed advice. It was good advice, and we
took it, and we were better for it.
We haven't taken advice from the later novels: if we had, we'd be in jail!
Now, some of the sex is playing with limits to the imagination, and that was
Heinlein's business, it was what he was supposed to do as a scifi writer. The
question of mating with distant decendants, the issue of how long marriage
should last given immortality -- those are legitimate scifi questions and I
have pondered them occasionally through the years since he raised the
questions. There are a lot of sexual politics issues Heinlein raised, too, such
as the "place" of women and our proper functions; given the focus on just that
of the entire feminist movement, it's fair that Heinlein explored these ideas
from his very different perspective.
But some of the sex doesn't seem to go into any of the above categories. It is
frankly pederasty and close-relative incest. What in the world was going on
here? I assume a kink, a kick in his gallop, since the pederasty surfaced as
early as Door Into Summer and Glory Road. I also assume he never acted on this
sexual taste. The close-relative incest was purely late-stage Heinlein, and my
opinion is one I've recently stated, that he just didn't have the family
experience to develop emotional inhibitions to writing that, so he just ---
did! Why, I don't know. That's the question.
Could it have been the neurological illness that laid him low for a year? Brain
damage very certainly can (it doesn't always, but it *sure* can) disinhibit
people sexually. I spent years working in the National Head Injury Foundation
and that is my favorite explanation. I think the quality of writing generally
suffered, too, after the neurological problem, as well as there being a lot of
obsessive and unusual sex in his books. But he kept a lot of his audience
anyway, because he was --- Heinlein.
Or maybe he simply backed the wrong horse! Sex freed up incredibly in the 60s,
oh, yeah, and maybe he supposed certain perversions would free up (hopefully
favoring ones he liked, perhaps) ---- but he guessed wrong! It was
homosexuality that freed up, not incest or child sex.
At least not here in the U.S. I just read in the Economist that in Cambodia,
where the Khmer Rouge murder of some two million people has totally destroyed
all traditional family structure, that children are routinely abandoned and
thus there is a thriving market in pedophile tourism, far larger than
Thailand's sex tourism, because you can get children of any age to do anything
with. So there IS a market for such appetites, Heinlein was right, but it just
didn't develop that way here in the U.S. and now his books with those topics
are an embarrassment, because of course the opposite happened --- much more
attention in criminal law has been given to both incest and child sex and so
his ideas have become countercultural.
He should have backed homosexuality. His late books would have sold better
these days.
Phebe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: merfilly8@aol.com (Stephanie Vickers)
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 12:59 PM
Message-id: <20001027155927.06368.00001465@ng-bg1.aol.com>
>He should have backed homosexuality. His late books would have sold better
>these days.
>
>Phebe
I don't believe it was about "selling books". His later books merely explored,
to logical conclusion, the concept of ridding one's self of all non-productive
taboos. I still say they're damn fine books too.
Filly
http://hometown.aol.com/merfilly8/myhomepage
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out
of focus."
--Mark Twain
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: reillocnl@my-deja.com
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 1:55 PM
Message-id: <tcq4l$a4c$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <39F9BEA8.FE207A97@mailbox.bellatlantic.net>,
pheb@bellatlantic.net wrote:
>Well, I'd like to say something on the subject of sex in late
Heinlein. I think
>it's a very important issue (apart from it being a VERY popular one!)
because
>of the amazing breadth of the change in his fiction from about
Farnham's
>Freehold on.
>
>The early work was inspirational for young people, and sincerely so:
Heinlein
>was genuinely benign in his plot-clothed advice. It was good advice,
and we
>took it, and we were better for it.
>
>We haven't taken advice from the later novels: if we had, we'd be in
jail!
>
How do they let you stay in here? You make too much sense.
>Now, some of the sex is playing with limits to the imagination, and
that was
>Heinlein's business, it was what he was supposed to do as a scifi
writer. The
>question of mating with distant decendants, the issue of how long
marriage
>should last given immortality -- those are legitimate scifi questions
and I
>have pondered them occasionally through the years since he raised the
>questions. There are a lot of sexual politics issues Heinlein raised,
too, such
>as the "place" of women and our proper functions; given the focus on
just that
>of the entire feminist movement, it's fair that Heinlein explored
these ideas
>from his very different perspective.
Yeah, his perspective (which is the subject of my forthcoming tempest
for this electronic teapot: why did Roberta A. Heinlein want so badly
to be Roberta Heinlein?)
>
>But some of the sex doesn't seem to go into any of the above
categories. It is
>frankly pederasty and close-relative incest. What in the world was
going on
>here? I assume a kink, a kick in his gallop, since the pederasty
surfaced as
>early as Door Into Summer and Glory Road. I also assume he never
acted on this
>sexual taste. The close-relative incest was purely late-stage
Heinlein, and my
>opinion is one I've recently stated, that he just didn't have the
family
>experience to develop emotional inhibitions to writing that, so he
just ---
>did! Why, I don't know. That's the question.
Beats the hell out of me why he'd go nuts like that but it's not hard
to see why he stayed that twisted. It's the "old guy" phenomenon. I'm
an old guy and I know how this works. You women can turn 65 and decide
to get a new hairstyle. You can turn 75 and don't think a thing about
going out and buying new cloths that are this year's fashion. Turn 90
and decide you've waited long enough for that tattoo. Take a guy and
the minute he turns, say, 30, he's frozen in a particular
historical/philosophical/emotional era: the one he was in when he hit
that age.
So, Bob gets this really wild hair (hare?), acts on it and the rest is
history because he can't change it. What's a talented guy to do? Why,
pretty it up the best he knows how and sell it. He makes it fit right
in and here, decades after TEFL there are people grimly defending
perversion.
>
>Could it have been the neurological illness that laid him low for a
year? Brain
>damage very certainly can (it doesn't always, but it *sure* can)
disinhibit
>people sexually. I spent years working in the National Head Injury
Foundation
>and that is my favorite explanation. I think the quality of writing
generally
>suffered, too, after the neurological problem, as well as there being
a lot of
>obsessive and unusual sex in his books. But he kept a lot of his
audience
>anyway, because he was --- Heinlein.
That he was and he probably wouldn't be--it's certainly not possible to
think of him otherwise--if he didn't have all the strange, abberant sex
in his later works.
>
>Or maybe he simply backed the wrong horse! Sex freed up incredibly in
the 60s,
>oh, yeah, and maybe he supposed certain perversions would free up
(hopefully
>favoring ones he liked, perhaps) ---- but he guessed wrong! It was
>homosexuality that freed up, not incest or child sex.
I think you're forgetting here how hard a sell that is, what an immense
risk that would have been--career-wise--how there's so much human
history of persecution and where the boy grew up.
Sure, he writes examples all over the place. From Ishtar and Galahad's
first discussion and their agreement that it would matter to either of
them if they were the same sex but they're sure glad their not. To
a "Notesbooks" quote Jane put up a couple of days ago to Jake's account
of a college tennis match with a little this and that between sets. He
tips his hat but it's gratuitous and cursory. I don't think he guessed;
he knew what dog would hunt if you gave him his nose.
>At least not here in the U.S. I just read in the Economist that in
Cambodia,
>where the Khmer Rouge murder of some two million people has totally
destroyed
>all traditional family structure, that children are routinely
abandoned and
>thus there is a thriving market in pedophile tourism, far larger than
>Thailand's sex tourism, because you can get children of any age to do
anything
>with. So there IS a market for such appetites, Heinlein was right,
but it just
>didn't develop that way here in the U.S. and now his books with those
topics
>are an embarrassment, because of course the opposite happened ---
much more
>attention in criminal law has been given to both incest and child sex
and so
>his ideas have become countercultural.
Sorry, I think this is a little off the wall and flawed for this place.
If your point's that he was a real, no-holds-barred pervert I'm
doubtful you'll find a lot of supporters here. I don't even think he
was that and that his appetites were satisified by writing about these
practices and selling lots of copies.
>
>He should have backed homosexuality. His late books would have sold
better
>these days.
>
Can't go with you there, Phebe. Maybe there'd be a niche market but
he'd have had to sacrifice immediate sales and nobody's about to do
that.
>Phebe
>
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: reillocnl@my-deja.com
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 1:10 PM
Message-id: <tcnes$7ra$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <39F9774C.F18281A5@fan.net.au>,
Gaeltach <gaeltach@fan.net.au>wrote:
>
>
>So? That's that? ...... and I thought there was a discussion going
>on
>about the emphasis of sex in Heinlein's last novels? But apparently
>you
>deem it necessary to put words in other's mouths and declare victory.
You saw it as a victory? I appreciate your encouragement; however, I
can only see it as articulation of the logical extention of the premise
proposed by another group member. You see it as all that conclusive,
enough to foam at the mouth like a rabid dingo choking on jerky, half-
witticisms and dangling his prepositions for all the world to see? I
only see it as the mildest of suggestions that the thesis I suggest has
overt support and while I follow that statement with an abstract prayer
for relief, simultaneously refusing compensation, the post taken as a
whole is hardly that worthy of such powerful emotional display since
it's conceded to be mere syllogism.
>Thus
>far you have been most prolific in espousing your view that "the whole
>point of some latter-day Heinlein novels was sex". While I disagree,
>I see
>this as a defendable POV, with no need for jerky half-witticisms that
>you
>obviously gain lots of pleasure from.
Now here, down-under dude, you express dislike for my writing style or
my style of argument or both and I believe that a theory based on that
foundation can't stand when you build on top of it a case that writing
style--Heinlein's--is what's at issue. You're trying to boil it down to
form over substance and I don't think you can successfully separate
them. Somebody around here pointed out elsewhere that an egg is merely
a chicken's way of making another chicken (in essence, it was shifted
forward or back by one step but said the same thing) and the reminder's
appropriate here that you can't any more separate mind and body than
you can form and substance and produce a valid literary criticism.
>You admit that Heinlein did not write
>good "sex" (I assume you mean sex scenes, rather than discussion about
>relationships in general), yet show remorse at having to read 300
>pages to
>get to a sex scene. I might add, you do this while showing great
>admiration
>for other aspects of these *same* novels, and go to great pains to
>declare
>yourself a big Heinlein fan. Ok, have it both ways if you want, but I
>can't
>see how you can stand by your prime statement, and ignore the plethora
I'll get to your main point in a minute but wanted to inquire at this
time: plethora to whose disadvantage? Yours or mine? I believe you
intend this to mean "whole lot of," when, if fact, what you're saying
is "there are so many that I am hampered by their abundance." I don't
think you're drowning in examples of non-sex themes but rather they're
neatly arrayed, organized by volume and page, ready and accessible to
draw and fire at your will. It's not like they're spilling all over you.
>of
>other ideas/plots/scenarios which have nothing to do with sex at all >
>(and
>which you have stated admiration for). Others here (including myself)
>have
>encouraged you to remove your sex-blinkers to see a wider picture,
>and have
>given you ample examples to back up such a position. Sure, no one
>denies
>that sex was not a factor, but to claim that it was "the whole point"
>needs
>to be backed up with more than selective memory and smugness. To me,
>your
>recent spree here seems like a good way for you to entertain
>yourself, at
>the expense of intelligent discussion. I think you have lots to offer
>this
>newsgroup. I just haven't seen it yet.
>
Sean, baby, chickie, sweetheart, did I say the entire output of the man
was nothing but a series of inept sex books? All the posts are here, go
look. Briefly, I said starting with SIASL he changed his focus to sex.
I tracked it through IWFNE (which I think I abbreiviated "ISFNE" since
the form of "to be" used with the first person ought to be "shall" and
not "will" but the generally accepted translation of the 23rd Psalm
does say "will"), discount that work as almost pure crap and a failed
experimental approximation. To TEFL, the best example of the thing he
was looking to create and my favorite, adult Heinlein book. Factored
TCWHTW and Friday as apologies, JACOE as a product of contemplation of
mortality tinged by the habit he'd acquired of including sex as a main
theme, mentioned NOTB as another exemplar of sex-driven-RAH-scifi and
ended with TSBTS, Woody and mom's final reunion. Maybe you haven't seen
it.
Now, as for the faultiness of my memory, yeah it's not what it used to
be but it was never that I could quote lengthy passages from HSWT in my
cutesy Yoda-motherthing voice on demand. I just never wanted to do
that, dude, any more than I wanted to memorize the Uniform Commecial
Code's Article 9 provisions (American law having to do with secured
transactions) to be able to calculate the final filing date required
for agricultural equipment transported to a state other than the
original state of perfection of secured party's interest.
You're just flat reading me wrong, mistaking irony for affirmative
assertion. I'll allow that that's probably pretty easy to do, given the
manner in which I've presented some of my arguments; however, it's not
crystalline brilliance of persuasion at which I'm shooting. This is pop
fiction not high literature or academic philosophy. There's probably
the reason I'm obtaining nearly universal disagreement here. I'm
stepping on sombodies' notions of how life ought to be lived as
articulated by the sublime oracle of that worldview and maybe even on
somebodies' livelihoods. Sorry--but not very--if that's what's going on.
He was a good, entertaining writer with some interesting ways of
expressing ideas he'd gathered and reassembled into a body of fiction
that, generally, hangs together in a coherent fashion. However. The
however, for me, is (1) some of it was just crap (fucking your mothers
and fathers and daughters and sons is indefensible and if you want to
start a nice, new thread to give it the old Canberra try, I'll be there
to watch and scrape you up); (2) some of it was cruel, intolerant and
sexist; (3) much of it was in a haughty didactic style only made
tolerable by the folksy sincerity of the narrator(s); and, (4) unlike
you, I'm here where we know the boy, know he's just another good ol'
boy who done good but he's still just like us and we know none of us
are nuthin' special.
>Sean
And now for something off topic, my auditory palindrome of the day:
knitting
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: jenomalley@aol.com (JenOMalley)
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 7:15 AM
Message-id: <20001027101511.22218.00000265@ng-cp1.aol.com>
>>And that goes for some written in the 50s, not just the modern ones.
>>Now, as far as I can see there is no point to those apart from the
>>sex...
>>
>>Chris C
>
>Which isn't automatically a "bad thing," right?
>
>Steve
:::Snicker:::: It's mind candy. When you don't really want to have to think
about what you're reading, and have some spare time...
JenO.
Soldier Grrrl
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: chris@keristor.org (Chris Croughton)
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 11:54 AM
Message-id: <slrn8vgveo.6ls.chris@ccserver.keris.net>
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:17:49 GMT, reillocnl@my-deja.com
<reillocnl@my-deja.com>wrote:
>Pick one. Pick TEFL since that's the next pick for discussion, leaf
>through it and mentally recast the stories without the inclusion of
>sexuality. Is there any point to any of them then?
Yes. The whole section on rejuvenating LL and trying to interest him in
living stands without the sex (that between Galahad and Ishtar is
irrelevant to that part of the story). The conversations with Ira about
the society and how it's deteriorating don't have any sex. Nor does the
tale of David Lamb (except for that which would be in any tale about the
military; if it contained no mention of sex it would be very
unrealistic, as would be any wartime story). "The Tale of the Adopted
Daughter" is a love story, what do you expect? "The Tale of the Twins
Who Weren't" is a 'Pygmalion' type story, in the main, about bringing up
a pair of slaves to become free people; again, the sex is irrelevant to
the point of the story which is a political or sociological one (with a
bit of medical tech stuff in there), except that it is a normal part of
the life of adult humans.
Of course, the book as a whole has the theme of 'love', in many
different forms, and about how it is not the same as 'sex'. So there is
inevitably going to be sex in the book...
>For that matter, is there any point to the book then since
Since you're assuming that the answer is "no, there's no point to the
stories"? Assuming your own answer isn't particularly clever...
>the whole
>thing's a set up to get Woody (great nick, no, considering the
>context?) into the bed on Benton Boulevard boffing the beautiful babe
>who bore his body before?
I have no idea what meaning you're attaching to 'Woody', since neither
that nor the full name (Woodrow) are part of my cultural background (the
only example I can think of is "Woody Woodpecker" from the cartoon
series, which doesn't seem to fit).
But no, that isn't the 'point' of the book. In fact it's a scenario
which, had it been absent, would have changed the main story almost not
at all. LL didn't expect to get to go to bed with his mother, right up
to when it happened, and long before that he had decided - for love - to
go to war.
>There are plenty of mentions in the posts on these boards about the
>politics and economic theories of RAH but make no mistake, he was as
>much a determinist as Engels and Marx--only the feature on which he
>lighted to explain human behavior was sex, not economics. Frankly, I'm
>attracted to it. It's more basic than greed and more universal. Most
>greed's probably motivated by the goal of obtaining economic advantage
>in order to acquire sexual favor or desirability. I think he actually
>hit on something but just didn't articulate it as fully as he could
>have in the form of an organized, non-fiction thesis. He did what he
>could which was support the proposition by fictional example.
It may be correct, or as correct as any of those theories. But a
determinist? I don't think so, his writings seem to reflect the
opinions of Jubal Harshaw who was torn between determinism, free will
and solipsism while admitting that there might be some outside force.
>>>Now, as for whether the sex was good sex. You say it wasn't, I didn't
>>>say, I'll say now it was lousy, unimaginative, Puritanical sex that
>>>derived it's tittilation from the forbidden. Missionary position, oh-
>>>yes-now-now-mommy stuff that took 300 pages to set up the first time
>>>and wasn't worth the effort if the sex was all there was.
>>why your whole thesis of "he
>>was just selling sex" doesn't hold water. No way would the books have
>>sold at all just for the sex.
>
>That's a little naive, Chris. You know as well as I do that he had to
>stay mainstream to keep selling.
I know that by that time he /didn't/ have to write juvenile novels with
no mention of sex to sell. When was "Lady Chatterley's Lover"
published? D.H. Lawrence's "Sons and Lovers"? There were plenty of
book far raunchier by that time.
>Further, you're presuming he knew how
>to write a good sex scene but just didn't.
Where did I presume that? I have no opinion on whether he could have
written a 'good' sex scene (for some subjective value of 'good', which
will vary a lot depending who's reading it).
>I don't think he knew how to
>do it because he wasn't a particularly good writer when it came to
>crafting believable scenes showing the way that actual people--not
>demigods with agendas and prepared lectures--behave when they're in an
>informal setting. It just wasn't his way, his style, it wouldn't have
>fit the pace of his work, and it wouldn't have sold. Invariably, when
>he throws a couple of characters together in the comfort of a dwelling
>place's living room for dinner and light conversation the reader winds
>up getting a discourse on morality, politics or religion. That's what
>his readers wanted and that's what they got: escapism from the reality
>that the last time they had friends over for dinner maybe .001% of the
>conversation was anything remotely like that.
A discourse? I'd say a discussion (from the point of view of those at
the dinner table). I don't know about your friends, but the last time I
was at the dinner table with some of my friends the subjects did range
between politics, morality, religion and several other subjects, and I
don't find this at all uncommon. (Actually, it probably is uncommon in
the population as a whole, but I'm talking about people who read - and
write - for fun.)
>>(It's revealing just which aspects of the sex and relationships in his
>>books people pick on. It reveals more about the person who complains
>>than about the author...)
>>
>I've got an elipsis key around here someplace and I'm not afraid to use
>it, if I can find it... Oh, yeah. There it is... Now what was that
>bullshit? Oh, yeah... I'm superior because I can "accept" screwing your
>mother, father, daughters, sons and any other relative who's available.
>Right... Good key, that...
What are you on about? Or should it be "what are you on?"
>I didn't include "Cat." I don't like it and probably won't ever read it
>again. "Beast" is all about sex--when it's not setting up the, what do
>you call it here? Reality as fiction or something like that? That
>elaborate mechanism for plausible deniability of charges that the old
>man's just gone wanker happy. Someone suggest that there's a deep game
>afoot. That "666" isn't six to the sixth to the sixth but rather "sick,
>sick, sick" and a giggle from the grave. Job? Crap. I read it once.
Well, since you've just declared two of them to be not to your taste and
thus eliminated them, it doesn't exactly leave much to work on does it?
That's your opinion, though, I daresay there are books you like which I
think are 'crap' or not worth reading.
>Lost it.
Ah, yes. It shows.
>Bought another copy, read it and immediately gave it away.
Your choice.
>I'm from Missouri, Chris. Literally.
Can one be from Missouri metaphorically? Fascinating concept...
>I lived in Kansas City for awhile
>and worked for years a block from the house on Benton Blvd. where the
>Smiths were supposed to have lived.
Fictionally.
>I lived on Rockhill Road two blocks
>from Maureen's last residence.
Fictional
>I grew up in Joplin. I got enough goddam biblethumping, come to Jesus,
>don't look now but there's a rapture about to happen bullshit (and am
>still, in Kansas, close enough to experience its effects--remember us
>and the teaching of evolution?-- just by looking out the window) to
>give everyone in this ng all the fundamentalist party-line evangelism
>she or he could take and still have enough left over to pitch a tent
>and speak in tongues. Job stinks.
In your opinion. I suspect that many of thos bible-bashers would agree
with you.
>>Your emphasis on sex reminds me of I girl I knew years ago who refused
>>to read Fred Hoyle's books because of "all the sex" - there was (in
>>the book about which she was complaining) one scene where the
>>protagonist met a girl at a party and they went back to her flat.
>>That was it, no statement even of whether he slept on the couch or
>>whatever.
>>
>My emphasis? I didn't write the damn books.
Your emphasis. You are the one reading them as only being about sex.
If you weren't so obsessed then perhaps you might actually see the
stories.
>Bubbly Boy did that. Hey, you still know that "girl?" See what she
>thinks about a little group incest spread out over four novels.
No, I don't. She wouldn't have gone near the books, to her anything
with any sex (unless God approved it) was eternal damnation. Asking her
about some of the scenes in the Bible was fun...
>Still do. Don't tell me, though, that the sex
>was just another one of those. You're fooling you, not me.
If you like.
>>He was good at that, certainly. The best? I can't comment, I can't
>>think of anyone noticably better at that aspect of the craft...
>Asimov.
I thought of Asimov and Clarke (two of my favourite SF writers), but I
don't think that they were actually any better at merging tech stuff
seamlessly with a story. Both of them had a tendency to make the tech
dominant and marginalise the characters, which Heinlein didn't (with the
exception of a couple of the early juveniles). Overall, I wouldn't like
to say that any of the three was better, they all had good stories.
>Yes, regretfully. I can't get it up anymore and I could never get it up
>over a Heinlein novel. I'll ask mom why that is.
I don't think I've ever got it up over a novel, words don't turn me on
in that way.
>You know, don't you, that that, up there--not the "get it up crap"--
>was my deference to others' opinions and RAH's writing skills, right?
It was? If that's what you meant, thanks for the explanation.
>This is discussion and criticism. I can criticize but I can't write as
>well, yet, as he did. I won't wind up writing just like he did, either,
>because I'm not him. My commentary suggests that I'm entitled to more
>than he gave but I don't deserve any more than there is.
'Entitled to'? I don't believe that anyone is entitled to more than the
paper they buy. If you don't like it, don't buy it, or sell it to
someone else.
Chris C
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: reillocnl@my-deja.com
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 6:02 PM
Message-id: <tak7v$gdq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <39F8A2DA.C4F1F9B5@netcom.ca>,
ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>wrote:
>Stanislaw Kansiewicz wrote:
>
>>pheb@mailbox.bellatlantic.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>I have absolutely no idea what these acronyms stand for, or the
other
>>>permutations. I hope to continue in this ignorance indefinitely.
>>>
>>>Phebe
>>
>>I don't know either, and was starting to get the slightest bit
curious.
>>
>>Stan
>
>Well, I'll tell you with a spoiler space for Phebe :-)
>
>s
>p
>o
>i
>l
>e
>r
>s
>p
>a
>c
>e
>It's "E.F or F.F" and it's just "Eat first or fuck first?" I don't
recall
>anyone ever asking me that exact question but when Dora answers, "both", I
>flash on pineapple yoghurt...but that's another story.....&lr;bg>
>No mystery about it; it's one of the FAQ's on Jim Gifford's page. No prudery
>involved either; when used correctly (as another word for sexual intercourse) I
>don't think anyone on the group would raise an eyebrow. OTOH, if a poster uses
>it as an insult there might be a comment or two as we tend to be polite and
>proud of our extensive vocabulary; lots more challenging to attack without once
>using a swear word :-)
>
>Jane
Oh the fuck they wouldn't raise an eyebrow. I can just imagine the
flurry of emails exploring the netcopping possibilities after one of my
most recent posts. You know, it didn't take 300+ pages to build up to
that single apposite expletive either?
It's hard to believe anybody here has to ask about FF/EF. Okay, maybe
some really young subscribers or the abysmally dense. That it's
necessary to have it as a FAQ doesn't clear up which group requires its
spelling out. By way of clarification and reminder, you'll notice the
first mention was not mine.
With respect to discourse without profanity, I'm not all for it and
I'll use it once in a while. Overindulgence is laziness and although
we've been recently reminded that it's possible to be too lazy to fail,
that was just hyperbole for the sake of characterization.
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: Stanislaw Kansiewicz StanMann@texas.net
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 7:35 PM
Message-id: <39F90F13.3591FD1F@texas.net>
reillocnl@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>In article <39F8A2DA.C4F1F9B5@netcom.ca>,
>ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>wrote:
>>Stanislaw Kansiewicz wrote:
>>
>>>pheb@mailbox.bellatlantic.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have absolutely no idea what these acronyms stand for, or the
>other
>>>>permutations. I hope to continue in this ignorance indefinitely.
>>>>
>>>>Phebe
>>>
>>>I don't know either, and was starting to get the slightest bit
>curious.
>>>
>>>Stan
>>
>>Well, I'll tell you with a spoiler space for Phebe :-)
>>
>>s
>>p
>>o
>>i
>>l
>>e
>>r
>>s
>>p
>>a
>>c
>>e
>>It's "E.F or F.F" and it's just "Eat first or fuck first?" I don't
>recall
>>anyone ever asking me that exact question but when Dora
>answers, "both", I
>>flash on pineapple yoghurt...but that's another story.....&lr;bg>
>>No mystery about it; it's one of the FAQ's on Jim Gifford's page. No >prudery
>>involved either; when used correctly (as another word for sexual
>intercourse) I
>>don't think anyone on the group would raise an eyebrow. OTOH, if a
>poster uses
>>it as an insult there might be a comment or two as we tend to be
>polite and
>>proud of our extensive vocabulary; lots more challenging to attack
>without once
>>using a swear word :-)
>>
>>Jane
>
>Oh the fuck they wouldn't raise an eyebrow. I can just imagine the
>flurry of emails exploring the netcopping possibilities after one of my
>most recent posts. You know, it didn't take 300+ pages to build up to
>that single apposite expletive either?
>
>It's hard to believe anybody here has to ask about FF/EF. Okay, maybe
>some really young subscribers or the abysmally dense. That it's
>necessary to have it as a FAQ doesn't clear up which group requires its
>spelling out. By way of clarification and reminder, you'll notice the
>first mention was not mine.
>
>With respect to discourse without profanity, I'm not all for it and
>I'll use it once in a while. Overindulgence is laziness and although
>we've been recently reminded that it's possible to be too lazy to fail,
>that was just hyperbole for the sake of characterization.
>
>LNC
>
My apologies for forgetting that reference, It's been 6 months since I
read the complete RAH, guess its time again. should take me about a
week. It was the E that threw me off the first F was plain.
Thanks so much
Stan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: reillocnl@my-deja.com
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 9:26 PM
Message-id: <tb061$q1l$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <slrn8vgveo.6ls.chris@ccserver.keris.net>,
chris@keristor.org (Chris Croughton) wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:17:49 GMT, reillocnl@my-deja.com
><reillocnl@my-deja.com>wrote:
>
>>Pick one. Pick TEFL since that's the next pick for discussion, leaf
>>through it and mentally recast the stories without the inclusion of
>>sexuality. Is there any point to any of them then?
>
>Yes. The whole section on rejuvenating LL and trying to interest him in
>living stands without the sex (that between Galahad and Ishtar is
>irrelevant to that part of the story). The conversations with Ira about
>the society and how it's deteriorating don't have any sex. Nor does the
>tale of David Lamb (except for that which would be in any tale about the
>military; if it contained no mention of sex it would be very
>unrealistic, as would be any wartime story). "The Tale of the Adopted
>Daughter" is a love story, what do you expect? "The Tale of the Twins
>Who Weren't" is a 'Pygmalion' type story, in the main, about bringing up
>a pair of slaves to become free people; again, the sex is irrelevant to
>the point of the story which is a political or sociological one (with a
>bit of medical tech stuff in there), except that it is a normal part of
>the life of adult humans.
>
>Of course, the book as a whole has the theme of 'love', in many
>different forms, and about how it is not the same as 'sex'. So there is
>inevitably going to be sex in the book...
Conversation, eh? Ishtar and Galahad, eh? Conversation? What was that
first thing they talked about? Oh, yeah. You remember, right? "You come
here often and would you like to come here, often?" Adopted daughter?
You mean Rangy Lil? It's your recollection the nickname came from her
lankiness? Right. The twins who weren't...
Objectively, doesn't it strike you that this particular interlude is
the readers' introduction to the topic of incest and how the taboo can
be intellectualized away? Tell me you don't think it's just a mental
exercise in polyhybrid crosses with the proof left to the student.
Ignore the introductory "objectively" if you believe it to be undully
argumentative. Don't tell me the point wasn't sex, though. Don't say
that anybody reading it is going to come away with the principles of
intersellar arbitrage in drygoods or gallactic restauranteurship as the
things they remember the most.
>
>>For that matter, is there any point to the book then since
>
>Since you're assuming that the answer is "no, there's no point to the
>stories"? Assuming your own answer isn't particularly clever...
>
Other than as a passing, gratuitous snicker, your point escapes me here
since all you've done is hamhandedly answer a rhetorical question.
>>the whole
>>thing's a set up to get Woody (great nick, no, considering the
>>context?) into the bed on Benton Boulevard boffing the beautiful babe
>>who bore his body before?
>
>I have no idea what meaning you're attaching to 'Woody', since neither
>that nor the full name (Woodrow) are part of my cultural background (the
>only example I can think of is "Woody Woodpecker" from the cartoon
>series, which doesn't seem to fit).
That was it. Woody Peckerwood, Ozark lad, from down around where they
define "eligible woman" as "physically present." Really, that's all I
mean and you don't have to be hardon me.
>
>But no, that isn't the 'point' of the book. In fact it's a scenario
>which, had it been absent, would have changed the main story almost
not
>at all. LL didn't expect to get to go to bed with his mother, right
up
>to when it happened, and long before that he had decided - for love -
to
>go to war.
Ah, love! I'm going to war for love! You know, that's not the way I
remember it. Shame was more like it but lust was still there. Didn't he
tell gramps about his plan to cool his heels south of the border and
make money on the war and didn't gramps tell him he was a low-down,
spineless, profiteering, anti-American, worthless, son-of-a-bitch and
not to come around anymore? Didn't bumbly boy then decide if he ever
wanted to whiff mom's musky aroma again he better get with the program?
Love, is it? Nah, much more quantifiable emotions and, some say (not
me), less noble.
>
>>There are plenty of mentions in the posts on these boards about the
>>politics and economic theories of RAH but make no mistake, he was as
>>much a determinist as Engels and Marx--only the feature on which he
>>lighted to explain human behavior was sex, not economics. Frankly,
>>I'm
>>attracted to it. It's more basic than greed and more universal. Most
>>greed's probably motivated by the goal of obtaining economic
advantage
>>in order to acquire sexual favor or desirability. I think he actually
>>hit on something but just didn't articulate it as fully as he could
>>have in the form of an organized, non-fiction thesis. He did what he
>>could which was support the proposition by fictional example.
>
>It may be correct, or as correct as any of those theories. But a
>determinist? I don't think so, his writings seem to reflect the
>opinions of Jubal Harshaw who was torn between determinism, free will
>and solipsism while admitting that there might be some outside force.
Whatever but it's a little tautological to say the writer got his
opinions from the creation.
>
>>>>Now, as for whether the sex was good sex. You say it wasn't, I
didn't
>>>>say, I'll say now it was lousy, unimaginative, Puritanical sex
that
>>>>derived it's tittilation from the forbidden. Missionary position,
oh-
>>>>yes-now-now-mommy stuff that took 300 pages to set up the first
time
>>>>and wasn't worth the effort if the sex was all there was.
>
>>>why your whole thesis of "he
>>>was just selling sex" doesn't hold water. No way would the books
have
>>>sold at all just for the sex.
>>
>>That's a little naive, Chris. You know as well as I do that he had to
>>stay mainstream to keep selling.
>
>I know that by that time he /didn't/ have to write juvenile novels
with
>no mention of sex to sell. When was "Lady Chatterley's Lover"
>published? D.H. Lawrence's "Sons and Lovers"? There were plenty of
>book far raunchier by that time.
I'm not going to look them up for you but they were earlier 20th
century, Lawrence wasn't American, he wasn't mainstream, he was banned
and he reads like taking castor oil. I tried to get through one of his
stories, "A Modern Lover," yesterday and I'll swear you have to be
living in rural England 75 years ago to get either any sense and
certainly no tittilation out of him. As regards "mainstream," elsewhere
it's been conceded that this statement is accurate and that
the "mainstream" at issue here is mainstream scifi.
>
>>Further, you're presuming he knew how
>>to write a good sex scene but just didn't.
>
>Where did I presume that? I have no opinion on whether he could have
>written a 'good' sex scene (for some subjective value of 'good', which
>will vary a lot depending who's reading it).
Well, formulate one. You've read him. You think he could have done it?
Not in a backwoods minute.
>
>>I don't think he knew how to
>>do it because he wasn't a particularly good writer when it came to
>>crafting believable scenes showing the way that actual people--not
>>demigods with agendas and prepared lectures--behave when they're in
an
>>informal setting. It just wasn't his way, his style, it wouldn't have
>>fit the pace of his work, and it wouldn't have sold. Invariably, when
>>he throws a couple of characters together in the comfort of a
dwelling
>>place's living room for dinner and light conversation the reader
winds
>>up getting a discourse on morality, politics or religion. That's what
>>his readers wanted and that's what they got: escapism from the
reality
>>that the last time they had friends over for dinner maybe .001% of
the
>>conversation was anything remotely like that.
>
>A discourse? I'd say a discussion (from the point of view of those at
>the dinner table). I don't know about your friends, but the last
time I
>was at the dinner table with some of my friends the subjects did range
>between politics, morality, religion and several other subjects, and I
>don't find this at all uncommon. (Actually, it probably is uncommon
in
>the population as a whole, but I'm talking about people who read - and
>write - for fun.)
I know those guys. They're, off and on, articulate and amusing.
Sometimes things get a little heated. Once we had a guy who sat at the
table and pontificated for two hours on individualism, the loss of
identity attributable to the proliferation of technology, and how much
money certain scifi writers could be making by internet serialization
if they'ed had the chance, how they're probably gnashing their teeth at
the lost opportunity. We won't have him back. Nobody else could get a
word in edgewise and when he stopped to take a breath, each time,
another guest left.
>
>>>(It's revealing just which aspects of the sex and relationships in
his
>>>books people pick on. It reveals more about the person who
complains
>>>than about the author...)
>>>
>>I've got an elipsis key around here someplace and I'm not afraid to
use
>>it, if I can find it... Oh, yeah. There it is... Now what was that
>>bullshit? Oh, yeah... I'm superior because I can "accept" screwing
your
>>mother, father, daughters, sons and any other relative who's
available.
>>Right... Good key, that...
>
>What are you on about? Or should it be "what are you on?"
Bullshit again. You. If you're going to include it to respond, read it
more carefully.
>
>>I didn't include "Cat." I don't like it and probably won't ever read
it
>>again. "Beast" is all about sex--when it's not setting up the, what
do
>>you call it here? Reality as fiction or something like that? That
>>elaborate mechanism for plausible deniability of charges that the old
>>man's just gone wanker happy. Someone suggest that there's a deep
game
>>afoot. That "666" isn't six to the sixth to the sixth but
rather "sick,
>>sick, sick" and a giggle from the grave. Job? Crap. I read it once.
>
>Well, since you've just declared two of them to be not to your taste
and
>thus eliminated them, it doesn't exactly leave much to work on does
it?
>That's your opinion, though, I daresay there are books you like which
I
>think are 'crap' or not worth reading.
More than a couple, betcha? Both ways? Our publishers are happy about
it.
>
>>Lost it.
>
>Ah, yes. It shows.
Like, fuck off.
>
>>Bought another copy, read it and immediately gave it away.
>
>Your choice.
What I said, innit?
>
>>I'm from Missouri, Chris. Literally.
>
>Can one be from Missouri metaphorically? Fascinating concept...
Right there is where I believed you're not from the US. Somebody tell
the boy what "I'm from Missouri" means, please. Just in case nobody
does, I'll tell you, Chris.
It's a famous American saying that comes from the nickname of the State
of Missouri: "The Show-Me State." There's a split of opinion about why
it got that name and what it means. One camp, the traditionalists, say
that it refers to the native skepticism of the Missourian who demands
proof instead of just a representation, i.e., "Show me before I'll
believe it."
The other camp says the story goes that back in 1849, during the
California gold rush days when people from all places poured into the
State of California trying to stike it rich, the absolute dumbest were
from Missouri. Not a one of them knew anything useful and were
constantly asking for instructions about the simplest thing. They came
to be known as "show me's" as in "show me how to pan for gold," "show
me how to tie my shoes."
Got it now? Fascinating...
>
>>I lived in Kansas City for awhile
>>and worked for years a block from the house on Benton Blvd. where the
>>Smiths were supposed to have lived.
>
>Fictionally.
No. I actually did work there. You see that "were supposed to have"
part of the immediately preceding sentence? That mean "fictionally."
>
>>I lived on Rockhill Road two blocks
>>from Maureen's last
>
>Fictional
>
>residence.
You
got
it
now.
>
>>I grew up in Joplin. I got enough goddam biblethumping, come to
Jesus,
>>don't look now but there's a rapture about to happen bullshit (and am
>>still, in Kansas, close enough to experience its effects--remember us
>>and the teaching of evolution?-- just by looking out the window) to
>>give everyone in this ng all the fundamentalist party-line evangelism
>>she or he could take and still have enough left over to pitch a tent
>>and speak in tongues. Job stinks.
>
>In your opinion. I suspect that many of thos bible-bashers would
agree
>with you.
Many would, probably most. You should see what the morons do with their
time. Recently, the State Board of Education ordered a local school
district to take the labels off some of its shelves, such labels
saying "OK for Christians." By the way, get the terminology right or
you're in for a surprise. A "bible-basher" would be one who criticises
the bible, bashes it. A biblethumper's a guy who stands in front of a
room full of marks and shouts at them about how their souls are in
peril unless they give until it hurts, dollar-wise, all the time
pounding on the bible carried as a percussion instrument in the off-
hand.
>
>>>Your emphasis on sex reminds me of I girl I knew years ago who
refused
>>>to read Fred Hoyle's books because of "all the sex" - there was (in
>>>the book about which she was complaining) one scene where the
>>>protagonist met a girl at a party and they went back to her flat.
>>>That was it, no statement even of whether he slept on the couch or
>>>whatever.
>>>
>>My emphasis? I didn't write the damn books.
>
>Your emphasis. You are the one reading them as only being about sex.
>If you weren't so obsessed then perhaps you might actually see the
>stories.
Cool stories. Tame sex, interesting plots, nice exposition, well paced,
entertaining reading. I see the stories, you don't see the sex, that's
the only place we diverge in viewpoint.
>
>>Bubbly Boy did that. Hey, you still know that "girl?" See what she
>>thinks about a little group incest spread out over four novels.
>
>No, I don't. She wouldn't have gone near the books, to her anything
>with any sex (unless God approved it) was eternal damnation. Asking
her
>about some of the scenes in the Bible was fun...
No shit. RAH really got off dredging them up and throwing them in the
faces of the sanctimonious, too. "Hey, Lot! Your daughter busy?" "No
man. Go ahead, invite some friends, leave her clothes here and stop
bothering me, I've got guests."
>
>>Still do. Don't tell me, though, that the sex
>>was just another one of those. You're fooling you, not me.
>
>If you like.
Like, schmike. Doesn't matter to me what you think. You're somewhere on
the other side of the world and I'll never meet you.
>
>>>He was good at that, certainly. The best? I can't comment, I
can't
>>>think of anyone noticably better at that aspect of the craft...
>>Asimov.
>
>I thought of Asimov and Clarke (two of my favourite SF writers), but I
>don't think that they were actually any better at merging tech stuff
>seamlessly with a story. Both of them had a tendency to make the tech
>dominant and marginalise the characters, which Heinlein didn't (with
the
>exception of a couple of the early juveniles). Overall, I wouldn't
like
>to say that any of the three was better, they all had good stories.
I said Asimov thinking about some of the stuff he wrote that was
fiction but not scifi. The stories about the Black Widows, the Wendell
Urth stories, writing as Paul French doing the Lucky Starr series, in
all those I thought his people were more real people. I think it's
difficult to dispute his technical qualifications were far superior to
Bob's. A Ph.D in biochemistry before you're 21 is tough to match.
>
>>Yes, regretfully. I can't get it up anymore and I could never get it
up
>>over a Heinlein novel. I'll ask mom why that is.
>
>I don't think I've ever got it up over a novel, words don't turn me on
>in that way.
I think you better think about that, please. I'm not trying to be
presumptuous here. I'm thinking about the basic power of the word as
compared with anything else I can imagine. If my snippy and
inappropriately discourteous response, quoted above, has caused you to
adopt this position without ample time for circumspection, I sincerely
regret having made it.
>
>>You know, don't you, that that, up there--not the "get it up crap"--
>>was my deference to others' opinions and RAH's writing skills, right?
>
>It was? If that's what you meant, thanks for the explanation.
And my regards to you, sir.
>
>>This is discussion and criticism. I can criticize but I can't write
as
>>well, yet, as he did. I won't wind up writing just like he did,
either,
>>because I'm not him. My commentary suggests that I'm entitled to more
>>than he gave but I don't deserve any more than there is.
>
>'Entitled to'? I don't believe that anyone is entitled to more than
the
>paper they buy. If you don't like it, don't buy it, or sell it to
>someone else.
Well, yeah. I'm entitled to my opinion. I'm entitled to formulate and
express one based on my appreciation of the work. Nobody has to like
me, agree with me, read me, or respond to me. I'm still here and old
enough to know what I like, what I think and that I can change that
opinion if the facts are different that I believe them to have been.
>
>Chris C
>
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: reillocnl@my-deja.com
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 9:32 PM
Message-id: <tb0hb$q5o$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <39F90F13.3591FD1F@texas.net>,
Stanislaw Kansiewicz <StanMann@texas.net>wrote:
>
>
>reillocnl@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>In article <39F8A2DA.C4F1F9B5@netcom.ca>,
>>ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>wrote:
>>>Stanislaw Kansiewicz wrote:
>>>
>>>>pheb@mailbox.bellatlantic.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I have absolutely no idea what these acronyms stand for, or the other
>>>>>permutations. I hope to continue in this ignorance indefinitely.
>>>>>
>>>>>Phebe
>>>>
>>>>I don't know either, and was starting to get the slightest bit
>>curious.
>>>>
>>>>Stan
>>>
>>>Well, I'll tell you with a spoiler space for Phebe :-)
>>>
>>>s
>>>p
>>>o
>>>i
>>>l
>>>e
>>>r
>>>s
>>>p
>>>a
>>>c
>>>e
>>>It's "E.F or F.F" and it's just "Eat first or fuck first?" I don't
>>recall anyone ever asking me that exact question but when Dora
>>answers, "both", I flash on pineapple yoghurt...but that's another story.....&lr;bg>
>>>No mystery about it; it's one of the FAQ's on Jim Gifford's page No
>>prudery
>>>involved either; when used correctly (as another word for sexual
>>intercourse) I
>>>don't think anyone on the group would raise an eyebrow. OTOH, if a
>>poster uses
>>>it as an insult there might be a comment or two as we tend to be
>>polite and
>>>proud of our extensive vocabulary; lots more challenging to attack
>>without once
>>>using a swear word :-)
>>>
>>>Jane
>>
>>Oh the fuck they wouldn't raise an eyebrow. I can just imagine the
>>flurry of emails exploring the netcopping possibilities after one of my
>>most recent posts. You know, it didn't take 300+ pages to build up to
>>that single apposite expletive either?
>>
>>It's hard to believe anybody here has to ask about FF/EF. Okay,
maybe
>>some really young subscribers or the abysmally dense. That it's
>>necessary to have it as a FAQ doesn't clear up which group requires
its
>>spelling out. By way of clarification and reminder, you'll notice
the
>>first mention was not mine.
>>
>>With respect to discourse without profanity, I'm not all for it and
>>I'll use it once in a while. Overindulgence is laziness and although
>>we've been recently reminded that it's possible to be too lazy to
fail,
>>that was just hyperbole for the sake of characterization.
>>
>>LNC
>>
>
>My apologies for forgetting that reference, It's been 6 months since I
>read the complete RAH, guess its time again. should take me about a
>week. It was the E that threw me off the first F was plain.
>
>Thanks so much
>
>Stan
About that "E," what kind of "E" are we talking about here anyway?
Nevermind.
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: StanMann stanmann@not.there.anymore.com
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 5:26 AM
Message-id: <39F97493.F4BA9A8A@not.there.anymore.com>
reillocnl@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>In article <39F90F13.3591FD1F@texas.net>,
>Stanislaw Kansiewicz <StanMann@texas.net>wrote:
>>
>>My apologies for forgetting that reference, It's been 6 months since I
>>read the complete RAH, guess its time again. should take me about a
>>week. It was the E that threw me off the first F was plain.
>>
>>Thanks so much
>>
>>Stan
>
>About that "E," what kind of "E" are we talking about here anyway?
>
>Nevermind.
>
>LNC
DINNER of course, They are honestly hungry.
StanMann
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: ddavitt ddavitt@netcom.ca
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 5:40 AM
Message-id: <39F977B5.3F02D100@netcom.ca>
reillocnl@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>Oh the fuck they wouldn't raise an eyebrow. I can just imagine the
>flurry of emails exploring the netcopping possibilities after one of my
>most recent posts. You know, it didn't take 300+ pages to build up to
>that single apposite expletive either?
>
>
>
>
Paranoid as well as....no, mustn't mock the afflicted.....
Have it your way; we're a bunch of prudish piano leg dressers. (Where's
John A when you need him?!)
Jane
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: pheb@mailbox.bellatlantic.net
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 10:05 AM
Message-id: <39F9B729.5E949084@mailbox.bellatlantic.net>
Stanislaw Kansiewicz wrote:
>
>My apologies for forgetting that reference, It's been 6 months since I
>read the complete RAH, guess its time again. should take me about a
>week. It was the E that threw me off the first F was plain.
>
>Thanks so much
>
>Stan
I take it you are willing to leave me standing alone in the category of the
"abysmally dense."
[:-)
Jane saying, " (Where's John A when you need him?!)" You're right...I
remember John A! He could have handled this --- probably the only person who
could, at least in the given style. But I gather he went to deal with Serbs,
which is pretty advanced work, too.
Phebe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: rahfan@amhuinnsuidhe.cx (Nollaig MacKenzie)
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 11:30 AM
Message-id: <slrn8vji9i.12f.rahfan@amhuinnsuidhe.cx>
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:05:54 GMT, the estimable
pheb@mailbox.bellatlantic.net ...
>
>I take it you are willing to leave me standing alone in the category of the
>"abysmally dense."
>
No - just waiting till we're sure there's company......
Cheers, N.
(who didn't get the "E" or the "F" or the "F" or the "F")
--
Nollaig MacKenzie http://www.amhuinnsuidhe.cx/rahfan/
Oppose renaming Mt Logan!! http://www.savemtlogan.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: dwrighsr@alltel.net
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 11:22 AM
Message-id: <tch56$1re$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <t9q4r$qts$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
reillocnl@my-deja.com wrote:
(snip)
[LNC] DW, where did I say anything but the sex was written badly? What,
you think I slogged through thirty some odd books by one guy just in
case someday there'd be a place to come and whine about what a crappy
writer he was--so bad I had to read that much to prove it to myself?
[DW] 'slogging' sounds to me like you had to 'force yourself' to do it.
I can't imagine why you did it if that is the case. You said that the
main point had to with sex and since the sex was badly written, I
assumed that you meant the book was badly written. How do you have a
'well-written' book for which the part that carries the main point is
'badly written'?
[LNC]Now, he's not the greatest writer I've ever read; his hero, Sam
Clemens, has my vote there. He writes well, though. Believable,
likeable characters, sound storylines with satisfactory resolutions,
good pace, technical accuracy and attention to detail (sometimes too
much) in the science, humor a notch above homespun but seldom jaded,
clean prose uncluttered with extraneous description for the sake of
attempting to evoke more of an aesthetic response than the genre can
bear. You fill in anything you think I've missed. He wrote well, not
great but well.
[DW]About most everything except sex, I gather. You are entitled to your
opinion. And, please note, that these are *your* unsupported opinions.
Personally, I think he rivals or surpasses Twain. But that is only my
opinion.
{more on this below}
[LNC]As for the entire point of TEFL being to pop LL in the sack with
Maureen, yeah, what about it? You ashamed of it or something? .....
[DW] I am certainly not ashamed of it. I simply don't agree with you
that that is the point of the entire novel. Nor would I be ashamed if it
indeed were to be the main point!
[LNC].... It starts
with poor old broken down Woody without a reason to go on and everybody
pining away over how if we lose the Senior who'll write us anymore? It
winds its way through this and that anecdote, each one of them a lesson
in how sex mends and what else it does (like, explain the entirety of
human history)
[DW] I think that I understand you finally. You are equating SEX with
LOVE and apparently see no difference between the two. If that is a
correct assessment of your thinking, then I really do feel sorry for
you.
[LNC]...and lands in Kansas City in time for the Zimmerman note to
enable Bunky to be in bed with mom. Here's a little hypothesis for you:
RAH was stuck for an ending of this novel. Sure, there's sex and then
there's sex with your mother.....
[DW]Heinlein has always presented ideas that run contrary to accepted
customs. I've always considered it an attempt to get people to think
rather than simply accept. But, again, that's my opinion.
[LNC]....What do you do after you've shown your guy getting what he
wanted and what you wanted him to get but you still believe that not
everbody's as "open minded" as you are, your profuse explanations about
"consenting adults," contraceptive precautions and not changing history,
notwitstanding? Kill his ass. It's the only thing you can do. He done
sinned. You know that last letter to Laz and Lor? I'd have made it say
"pecavi."
[DW] But they didn't kill 'his ass'.
[LNC]It's no big deal that the whole point of the book was what it was
unless there's a reason to be ashamed of it and, face it, you're as
ashamed and guilty feeling as the old coot himself was; that's why he
offed himself at the end of TEFL.
[DW] He did *not* off himself. There are 2
more novels in which he plays a prominent part subsequent to his being
wounded in WWI.
I have been assuming that the 'you' in the preceding refers to
a writer, in general, or Heinlein in particular, and not to myself
personally.But, in either case, what allows you to assume what is
someone else's head? Are you telepathic? or are you so intelligent and
knowledgeable that you can automatically tell what everyone else is
thinking?
[LNC]..It's ironic, dude, don't you think, that a guy here can ask, "FF
or EF" and everybody knows instantly what that means but you can scour
each and every post in this newsgroup and nobody, not a single one of
the prudes will spell out that first F? Yet, they'll seemingly freely
swallow their explaining to each other that it's an okay F, even for
little sister, and the big boy didn't say it, why should we?
[DW]. I don't say it in public because that was the way that I was
raised. Nor do I necessarly accept the concepts in the book just because
Heinlein wrote them. As far as I can determine from all that he said and
has been said about him by knowledgeable people, he wanted us all to
make up our own minds about such things.
[LNC]...The last irony is, of course, that if you were to walk down
Benton Boulevard right now the most frequently uttered imprecation cum
endearment (in come subcultures) is a twelve-letter word that sussinctly
sums up the nature of the biological and final interpersonal
relationship between Woodrow Wilson and Maureen Smith. A fine lot of
rugged, individualistic, daring freethinkers this is. Not a motherfucker
in the lot of you.
[DW] I am a free thinker. There you go again. Telling us what is in our
minds. It would appear that your definition of a 'free thinker' is one
who agrees with you.
[DW](original post) As for me, *ALL* mention of sex could have been
eliminated from the books and I would have enjoyed them just as much.
But then, I'm just a person who enjoys a story which *I* consider well
told, so what do I know?
[LNC]Not squat so far, Dave. At least you haven't shown it. You've
displayed your recollection and expressed some unsupported opinions.
[DW]All that you have shown so far are your own 'unsupported opinions'
and theories.An opinion is just that. And even if you were to provide
page after page of references and quotes to back up that opinion (which
you haven't done here), *none* of it would 'prove' that your opinion is
correct. It would simply give more credibility to the validity of the
opinion, but it remains still, your opinion.
[LNC]You just made the air-headed remark that removing the sex would
make you happy with the resulting prose. You've got no theories, no real
opinions other than "I like it," and are occupying bandwidth without an
apparent purpose. You seem to be a nice enough guy but a little
repressed .
[DW] Now we are getting to it. 'My' opinions are air-headed, unreal,
without any theoretical basis and wasting your precious bandwidth. If I
am wasting 'your precious bandwidth and I suppose, your precious time'
why did you even bother to reply. Could it be that you wish to try to
impress me and everyone else with your intellect, real (supported)
opinions, and theories. I'm not making assumptions about what you are
thinking. That's just what it 'seems' to me from what you've written.
Much like what you have assumed about Heinlein from what he wrote.
As to your last comment, Wrong, on both accounts.
[DW](original post) My second favorite section of TEFL, 'The Man Who Was
Too Lazy To Fail' has no explicit mention of sex whatsoever. Of course,
there had to have been some, after all, David Lamb got his girlfriend
pregnant, but *the reader* saw none of it.
[LNC]Like, yawn. Make that lamer book-length and see how many copies it
sells. It does raise an interesting point, though: how Lamb engineered
his retirement. This isn't sex for a change but it's just as
stigmatizing as wanting to do mom although not criminal.
[DW]I see that you are changing the subject and thereby ducking the
question. Then you must be conceding that at least some of the book is
not part of the point of getting Woody in bed with Maureen.
[LNC]...Remember Tom Eagleton on the McCarthy ticket in '72? Remember
why he had to quickly withdraw and Shriver stepped in? Remember Eagleton
was from Missouri? RAH knew that even the hinting that you'd once talked
to somebody about whether counseling might be beneficial for third
parties would brand you a headcase. Why would he let Lamb take this
route? My theory (you knew I had one) is that he was laughing through
his hat at the entire community of mental health professionals, showing
how easily they could be fooled--if you were lazy enough to put your
mind to it.
[DW] Your 'theory' could be right. But again, how does this fit in with
your main thesis?
[LNC]...The corollary is, of course, he had nothing but contempt for
something he thought wasn't subject to empirical analysis. Now, to me,
that's intellectually lazy; but I won't expand on it now.
[DW]Again, I am presuming that you are referring to Heinlein here and
not David Lamb and that he, Heinlein, was intellectually lazy. Well,
not surprisingly, I think that you are wrong again. Yes, his written
works do seem to show contempt for 'sciences' that were on the 'fuzzy'
side. It is my own opinion, based on his great admiration of Korzybski
and his works that he, Heinlein, was hoping that such 'fuzzy sciences'
would some day find the means of becoming less 'fuzzy' through the
invention of mathematics and logics which would take them out of the
realm of 'theory' and more into an 'engineering' realm rather than the
pure realm of 'art'. Yes, that's my own personal, unsupported opinion.
How does it differ from your own personal, unsupported opinions?
[DW] Actually, as far as your 'theories' go. Your 'theories' and your
opinions are really one and the same. Neither is 'provable' since any
such 'proof' depends strictly on *your* interpretation of Heinlein's
written works. An interpretation which you have not documented in
any way and which seems to have little support from any other readers.
Yours very cordially, but disagreeingly so,
David Wright
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: reillocnl@my-deja.com
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 1:29 PM
Message-id: <tcoi8$8qk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <39F977B5.3F02D100@netcom.ca>,
ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>wrote:
>
>Paranoid as well as....no, mustn't mock the afflicted.....
>
>Have it your way; we're a bunch of prudish piano leg dressers.
(Where's
>John A when you need him?!)
>
>Jane
>
Two things, please. First, I'm pleased the prolepsis worked and am
taking your word that there are no such netcopping expeditions
underway. I'm not at all put off at being characterized as paranoid or
afflicted: I'm professionally paranoid and it's surely clinical by now.
Next, what the hell is a "piano leg dresser?" Contextually, it has to
be a Victorian device used to discretely cloak the unseemly limbs of
keyboard instruments in order to avoid the evoking of impure mental
images should the viewer recall the synonymity. That can't be it,
though. Nobody's that, like, sick...are they?
With respect, though, to what you are, you are indeed all just that
although you, personally, have written the word "fuck" in public and
endorsed its substitution for the longer phrase "sexual intercourse"
when the context confines the word to only that meaning.
John A...what? John A
kickmymouthyopinionatedassdownthreeflightsofstairsforsomeoftheshitIsay?
Go get him. Or you can coax Bill out of his hrumphing snit by telling
him I've got his bildung right here and its "Bill dung."
Seriously, though, this is a nice place and you're a nice group of
people and I'm having fun mercilessly taunting all of you. Well, you
know what I mean.
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: Gaeltach gaeltach@fan.net.au
Date: Tue, Oct 24, 2000 8:09 PM
Message-id: <39F64EFA.D17A5FA6@fan.net.au>
reillocnl@my-deja.com wrote:
>Okay. That's cool. Take out the sex and tell me how much saleable
>content or, for that matter, length you've got left. Lemme see...there
>goes all of TEFL, half of NOTB, all of TSBTS and even all of JACOE. I'm
>leaving ISFNE out of this because it's just laughable.
I see Chris has provided a fairly good response to this point (and others
following). I will just add that yours is a fairly common point of view, and
not without some basis. I agree that Heinlein began to write *more* sex in
his novels, but he also began to write more about lots of things that he
previously had been unable/unwilling to write about. IMO, if you took out
all mention of sex (including relationships) from the above titles, there
would still be left a plethora of interesting sub-plots, ideas, action
sequences and novel twists. Remember, all these novels are quite lengthy,
and contain so much more than just sex.
>Now, as for whether the sex was good sex. You say it wasn't, I didn't
>say, I'll say now it was lousy, unimaginative, Puritanical sex that
>derived it's tittilation from the forbidden. Missionary position, oh-
>yes-now-now-mommy stuff that took 300 pages to set up the first time
>and wasn't worth the effort if the sex was all there was.
Hmmm....... Yes, I guess if you were reading the book *only* for was the
sex, then you would be very disappointed. Exactly my point.
>Next, those good stories you mention. Tell me one of them without the
>sex, please. Huh? They're about people and people have sex so the sex
>has to stay? Okay. Tell me one where the sex isn't the whole point and
>the business about "politics to relationships, from leadership to
>medicine, from survival to economics" aren't just little imbedded
>lectures between the most recent copulation and the next.
I see NotB as a good example. Take out any mention of sex and what have you
got left? A rather imaginative oddessy of flight through many different
dimensions/universes, an amazing mode of transport, several twists on old
themes/stories, an enigmatic alien adversary....... I could go on. And the
same could be said of the other novels. You seem to place anything to do
with sex on a higher level of importance/noticeability than any of the many
other issues involved. Why is this?
>Don't get me wrong. I like Heinlein's work. I've read all the fiction
>he's written. I'll read some of it again. Craft-wise he was pretty
>sound and I've seldom read anybody who could make the technical details
>necessary for a tale and weave them into the storyline in a way that
>would make me want to keep reading them--most of the time.
Well, that's nice to know.
Sean
gaeltach@fan.net.au
***************
.... and now for something completely different:
Egad! No bondage!
***************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: majoroz@aol.com (Major oz)
Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 10:52 AM
Message-id: <20001025135253.19502.00002174@ng-fi1.aol.com>
>Next, those good stories you mention. Tell me one of them without the
>sex, please. Huh? They're about people and people have sex so the sex
>has to stay? Okay. Tell me one where the sex isn't the whole point and
>the business about "politics to relationships, from leadership to
>medicine, from survival to economics" aren't just little imbedded
>lectures between the most recent copulation and the next.
>
......reminds me of a sophomoric, but interestingly appropriate, musing from my
early developmental days:
"Did you ever consider that a chicken is just a device that an egg uses to
produce another egg"
cheers
oz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: pheb@mailbox.bellatlantic.net
Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 12:01 PM
Message-id: <39F72F18.6C680502@mailbox.bellatlantic.net>
Major oz wrote:
>"Did you ever consider that a chicken is just a device that an egg uses to
>produce another egg"
>
Very nice.
Did you call these sophomoric musings? Richard Dawkins has built his entire
intellectual career on this idea: we are only bottles for our selfish genes.
Phebe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Book discussions
From: cmaj7dmin7@my-deja.com
Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 3:08 PM
Message-id: <t7ljs$454$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <20001025135253.19502.00002174@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
majoroz@aol.com (Major oz) wrote:
>
>......reminds me of a sophomoric, but interestingly appropriate,
>musing from my
>early developmental days:
>
>"Did you ever consider that a chicken is just a device that an egg
>uses to
>produce another egg"
>
>cheers
>
>oz
>
Monotony recapitulates a lot to me.
I/II
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: OT: But kinda on TEFL (Long)
From: merfilly8@aol.com (Stephanie Vickers)
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 6:05 PM
Message-id: <20001021210537.18688.00000612@ng-fs1.aol.com>
Okay, some of the regular readers may have got this in ab email from Ebon, but
when I read it, I got to thinking about the ongoing discussion of TEFL. They
say wisdom comes from the young, so here is their version of Love's definition.
I don't know where this came from originally, but it's good.
This is long but worth reading.
<<
WHAT IS LOVE?
A group of professional people posed this question to a group of 4 to 8
year-olds, "What does love mean?" The answers they got were broader and
deeper than anyone could have imagined. See what you think:
Love is that first feeling you feel before all the bad stuff gets in the
way.
When my grandmother got arthritis, she couldn't bend over and paint her
toenails anymore. So my grandfather does it for her all the time, even
when his hands got arthritis too. That's love.
When someone loves you, the way they say your name is different. You
know that your name is safe in their mouth.
Love is when a girl puts on perfume and a boy puts on shaving cologne
and they go out and smell each other.
Love is when you go out to eat and give somebody most of your French
fries without making them give you any of theirs.
Love is when someone hurts you. And you get so mad but you don't yell
at them because you know it would hurt their feelings.
Love is what makes you smile when you're tired.
Love is when my Mommy makes coffee for my Daddy and she takes a sip
before giving it to him, to make sure the taste is OK.
Love is when you kiss all the time. Then when you get tired of kissing,
you still want to be together and you talk more. My Mommy and Daddy
are like that. They look gross when they kiss.
Love is what's in the room with you at Christmas if you stop opening
presents and listen.
If you want to learn to love better, you should start with a friend who
you hate.
Love is hugging. Love is kissing. Love is saying no.
When you tell someone something bad about yourself and you're scared
they won't love you anymore. But then you get surprised because not only
do
they still love you, they love you even more.
There are two kinds of love Our love. God's love. But God makes both
kinds of them.
Love is when you tell a guy you like his shirt, then he wears it
everyday.
Love is like a little old woman and a little old man who are still
friends even after they know each other so well.
During my piano recital, I was on a stage and scared. I looked at all
the people watching me and saw my Daddy waving and smiling. He was the
only one doing that. I wasn't scared anymore.
My Mommy loves me more than anybody. You don't see anyone else kissing
me to sleep at night.
Love is when Mommy gives Daddy the best piece of chicken.
Love is when Mommy sees Daddy smelly and sweaty and still says he is
handsomer than Robert Redford.
Love is when your puppy licks your face even after you left him alone
all day.
I know my older sister loves me because she gives me all her old clothes
and has to go out and buy new ones.
I let my big sister pick on me because my Mom says she only picks on me
because she loves me. So I pick on my baby sister because I love her.
Love cards like Valentine's cards say stuff on them that we'd like to
say ourselves, but we wouldn't be caught dead saying.
When you love somebody, your eyelashes go up and down and little stars
come out of you.
Love is when Mommy sees Daddy on the toilet and she doesn't think it's
gross.
You really shouldn't say 'I love you' unless you mean it. But if you
mean it, you should say it a lot. People forget. >>
Filly
http://hometown.aol.com/merfilly8/myhomepage
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out
of focus."
--Mark Twain
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Heinlein wrote to shock as of FF, but why?
From: pheb@mailbox.bellatlantic.net
Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 11:38 AM
Message-id: <39F33520.EA43FC88@mailbox.bellatlantic.net>
kyger saying, "...Heinlein stopped writing for "the
market(s)" (whatever the heck that
is) and started to *write only for himself.* I.e., he wrote
what he
wrote the way he wanted it to be written because only *he*
wanted to do
so."
I think he started writing to shock as of Farnham's
Freehold. That's actually QUITE a shocking book if you
consider some of the things in it that are totally
untouched in literature before Heinlein! And just continued
from there. I have always wondered why he decided to write
to shock...he was certainly playing with limits. Some he
didn't touch! Or some he postponed a long time:
homosexuality, notably.
Phebe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Heinlein wrote to shock as of FF, but why?
From: bpral22169@aol.com (BPRAL22169)
Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 12:28 PM
Message-id: <20001022152850.10058.00000522@ng-bg1.aol.com>
>I think he started writing to shock as of Farnham's
>Freehold.
Not "shock" per se, I think -- but he was trying to get people to step outside
their boxes, and after about 1960 it took bigger and bigger 2x4's to get a rise
out of the American public. But this isn't a "new" thing -- just a
continuation of a trend RAH started with Starship Troopers - which brings us
back to Kyger's thesis.
Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here Begins The Discussion Log
[EDITOR'S Note:] Due to various problems, tonight's session was pretty much OT for
first hour or two. The following is mostly casual rambling conversation]
You have just entered room "Heinlein Readers Group chat."
ddavitt has entered the room.
ddavitt: Hi Dave
SAcademy has entered the room.
SAcademy: Good evening
ddavitt: Hi there. Quiet tonight!
SAcademy: So it seems.
SAcademy: How are you these days?
ddavitt: I know David Silver will probably not be able to make it because
of the sad news about his mother.
ddavitt: Fine thanks, just waiting for the baby. Due in a week and a half
SAcademy: Yes, and I think hhis sister was coming in--so he's likely to be
tied up, too.
ddavitt: Had a false alarm last week and raced off to the hospital but then
it all went quiet again :-(
ddavitt: How are you?
SAcademy: Oh, I'm in good shape, except I'm sleepy now. It's late for me.
SAcademy: I almost went to sleep over the keyboard a few minutes ago.
ddavitt: Yes, i doubt I'll make it to the end of the chat; I'm getting very
tireed these days.
ddavitt: I'm typing with a cat waving his tail in my face :-)
ddavitt: Do you get much seasonal change where you are?
SAcademy: My cat walks across the keyboard--and he waves his tail, too.
ddavitt: Our leaves are on the turn but the weather is crazy; warm one day,
below freezing the next....
SAcademy: Yes, I get the weather reports even here in Florida.
Major oz has entered the room.
ddavitt: Hi Oz.
Major oz: small crowd?
SAcademy: Good e;vening.
ddavitt: Very! But select :-)
Major oz: Hi, Jane.....How's the pains ?
Major oz: Good evening SA
ddavitt: Coming and going..one false alarm last week
SAcademy: How did you find Butler?
ddavitt: Yes, are you going to write up your visit Oz?
Major oz: ....just drove north and there it was. Sorry, couldn't resist. I
expected the house to be a museum, but found much information at the
library, including some photographs of a lovely lady.
Major oz: I also found some information at the county museum that has
pictures of Robert as a high school ROTC cadet.
SAcademy: No, the house Robert was born in is occupied. I expect the
owners find it rather a nuisance that R. was born there.
ddavitt: A younger version of the year book picture? or not much
difference?
Major oz: Yes, Jane. When I get my pictures developed, David has told me
there is a site where my information and the pics can be posted.
ddavitt: Great!
Major oz: Yes, SA; the lady who answered the doorbell was much more
gracious than I would have been in the same circumstance. It must be
irritating to have pilgrims at your door day and night.
SAcademy: Pictures of Robert seem to turn up all over the place.
ddavitt: I think it would be nice to live in a house with a history...but
as you say it could get to be a burden.
ddavitt: I'm sure you were nice Oz:-)
Major oz: And there is a farily new pastel portrait of the two of you in
the library.
SAcademy: People would come up to the door of our house in Colorado and
ask to be shown around. Sometimes it was ready for inspection, but not
always.
SAcademy: Oh, yes, The Kelly Freas portraait that jIM Cunningham ordered
for them.
SAcademy: I've seen a picture of that one.
ddavitt: That's one thing I've noticed about Canada; people don't just pop
in for coffee as we do in England.
Major oz: When I first became a fan, in Denver in the 60's, I didn't know
you were in the Springs. I lived in CS from 88 to 94, but didn't go to the
house for the same reasons
Major oz: I think that is the signature, but I didn't write it down.
ddavitt: Is David wright having problems? His logging alter ego isn't on...
SAcademy: It's Kelly Freas--the wellknown illustrator.
Major oz: That's OK. We don't want some ID's on the log, anyway.
ddavitt: ?
SAcademy: I gave Robert a portrait of his of Nichelle Nichols for a
birthday present once.
ddavitt: He was a fan of hers wasn't he?
Major oz: We don't want SA hounded, Jane.
ddavitt: I think SA disclosed her ID a few chats back....
SAcademy: It was done for the Space Museum in D. C. but I wanated it and
Polly said that Kelly cold do another one. So he did.
Major oz: ....but we purged the log.
ddavitt: But david will always edit anything if asked
SAcademy: Oh, well, I haven't been troubled by others.
ddavitt: Seems like a sad week on afh; Nuclear waste, Ebontress and dave
Silver all with bad news :-)
Major oz: Robert met the cast of Star Trek, didn't he?
SAcademy: And I do live far from anything
Major oz: how, so, Jane?
SAcademy: Oh, yes, Well, at least some of them.
SAcademy: I only heard about David's loss. Not about the others.
ddavitt: NW fell again and narrowly missed foot amputation, Ebon's
remission has stopped and she is in hospital and dave's mother died on
monday...
Major oz: I'm sorry to hear.....so much at once.
ddavitt: I'm surprised it's just us though; labert was supposed to be co
host I think.
Major oz: yes
SAcademy: Oh, I forgot to start a log.
ddavitt: I'm trying to finish an article on red planet for the next Journal
Major oz: David Wright.......are you there, or is that just the log
running?
ddavitt: Never mind SA, none of this is TEFL relevant !!:-)
ddavitt: Dave hasn't spoken so I assume it's a log or he's having problems
as I did a bit ago
Major oz: I very much enjoyed the discussion you were having re: women in
the H novels.
SAcademy: Well, I've seen some of this preliniminary talk on logs before.
Major oz: Congratulations on being civil in the face of temptation.
ddavitt: Hmm... reilloc and Randi in one week....
ddavitt: Oh yes, I enjoy this as a chance to chat as well as discuss the
topic.
Major oz: Is Randi really as redneck as he appears or simply a provacateur?
SAcademy: Were you stationed at NORAD, Major?
ddavitt: I did get a tad worked up now and then....she is digging at me and
cloaking it as compliments; I don't like that subterfuge.
ddavitt: Randi is a she
Major oz: No -- at Lowry. I was an instructor. My time at Colorado Springs
was after retirement.
Major oz: I was at Lowry from 58 -- 64
SAcademy: We lived there then.
ddavitt: And a lesbian so I assume childless, though that's not necessarily
true of course...
dwrighsr: Hi People. Sorry I haven't been here. Was workin on a friend's
computer
Major oz: That was when I first discovered Robert, at the age of 23 or so.
SAcademy: Left in 65--too much altitude.
ddavitt: Hi dave
BPRAL22169 has entered the room.
ddavitt: Hi Bill.
SAcademy: Hello, Bill.
BPRAL22169: Hi, all.
Major oz: An I visited friends at Los Gatos, not knowing you were just down
the road.
ddavitt: Have you been logging this dave?
BPRAL22169: Well -- yes, only about 500 miles.
ddavitt: You Americans:-):-):-):-)
dwrighsr: Yes. It's been on the whole time. I wasn't here myself
ddavitt: Might need to edit here and there...
SAcademy: What? L:os Gatos is on the way to San Jose from Bonny Doon.
BPRAL22169: Yes, but I'm still in Los Angeles.
Major oz: .....right !!
BPRAL22169: You're right at the archives.
SAcademy: Los Gatos is on Highway 17--Blood Alley.,
BPRAL22169: Have you been making a Heinlein circuit of the country?
Major oz: No. I was just remarking that I was always behind as the H's
moved around the country.
ddavitt: I'd like to recreate the Tramp Royale trip and do a comparison on
how things have changed....
SAcademy: Major Oz was in Butler recently.
BPRAL22169: That would be very interesting -- but a lot of work for a
relatively small audience.
ddavitt: If I could get funding I'd make the effort:-)
dwrighsr: Yeah. but the trip would sure be nice.
Major oz: And, Bill, Bam's parentage will have to be researched in Ohio.
SAcademy: They certainly change. The difference is sometimes marked. Such
as Barrow in the 60's and later in the 80's.
BPRAL22169: How's that?
Major oz: That is where her parents, Dr. Lyle and wife, are from.
Major oz: married there
BPRAL22169: Curious. Dr. Lyle must have moved around quite a lot. Bam was
born in Iowa.
BPRAL22169: Do you remember what town in Ohio?
Major oz: beb
Major oz: brb
SAcademy: Blue Mound maybe?
BPRAL22169: Wasn't that in Illinois?
SAcademy: Yes, you're right about that.
BPRAL22169: It would be curious if that fact that floated up out of your
memory was the key to the Lyles.
SAcademy: I don't know--there was supposed to be a family Bible there with
some genealogy
BPRAL22169: I checked quickly in with the alt.fan.heinlein posts and got
the impression that Dave Silver's mother had passed. is that correct?
Major oz: Dr. A.E. Lyle, born in 1858 in Perry county Ohio
ddavitt: Yes sadly.
BPRAL22169: Thanks, Oz. I'll see what I can stir up.
SAcademy: Yes, I wrote you about that.
ddavitt: family bibles are an information source that is fast vanishing I
would think; do people still use them?
BPRAL22169: It has been coming for some time.
ddavitt: Yes, he has mentioned her illness before but it's always a shock
when it happens.
Major oz: Parents, Robert and Anna (Evans) Lyle, born 1808 and 1811 in
Muskingum County OH
SAcademy: It was before vital records were kept, Jane. Robert's birth
wasn't recorded, and we had to get a letter from his mother about it,
before he could get a passport.
Major oz: Anyhow, when AG sets me up with a page (and I get my photos
developed) the whole visit will be posted.
BPRAL22169: Excellent information. Maybe I can track the Lyles to their
lairs. I'm hoping there will be a family history somewhere.
SAcademy: Good. I hope the library was hospitable?
ddavitt: Yes, i suppose in a lot of cases it was the only record of births
and marriages...but now things are more regimented. Neither my husband nor
I have a recollection of our grandparents owning one.
Major oz: Could NOT find any allusion to "Anson".
Major oz: .....but am looking at more g-g-grandparents, also in OH
SAcademy: Anson was a family name.
Major oz: more later.........
Major oz: who?
dwrighsr: That could be similar to my family. Spencer is a big name in the
family, but so far no one remembers where it came from.
SAcademy: I don't remember that part. Just that it was a forebear of some
sort.
dwrighsr: Once it got started it kept being passed down.
ddavitt: Yes; eleanor's middle name is after her great grandmother
ddavitt: Similar tradsition in my husband's family
SAcademy: Jane, can you remember all that stuff aabout ancestors? I can't
ddavitt: Which stuff?
SAcademy: abot ancestors?
ddavitt: names and things?
Major oz: In answer to your Q, SA: yes the library people were exceedingly
gracious and helpful, particularly Linda Hunter, the librarian.
SAcademy: Yes.
BPRAL22169: An acocmplished Southron can keep 7 or 8 generations of a
family tree in his/her/its head.
ddavitt: I knew my great grandmother; died when I was 11
dwrighsr: Egad. I must not be a true Southron then, I have to have all mine
written down :-)
ddavitt: I don't know much about anything further back than that
dwrighsr: I've got all my father's family back to 1800, but don't know much
about my mother's side yet.
ddavitt: Both my great grand mothers had about 12 kids apiece; LOTS of
aunts and uncles and cousins
SAcademy: I sent you some info on the earliest Heinleins in this
country--latest letteer.
ddavitt: Yes, it is something that seems more vital to Americans; back to
the mayflower and all that.
ddavitt: We don't make so much of it in the UK; unless you're royalty or
something :-)
BPRAL22169: I don't recall seeing that one yet.
dwrighsr: Genealogy is great fun. Like a giant puzzle.
Major oz: Out of the blue, ten years or so ago, I received, from a REALLY
distant relative, a photo copy of a late eighteenth ship's registry with my
maternal gp's forebearers names in ink....the trip from Oslo to Montreal
SAcademy: It probably hasn't arrived yet.
ddavitt: The net certainly makes it easier
BPRAL22169: One's relatives, I find, are always puzzles.
ddavitt: And the Salt lake City archives are supposed to be invaluable
Major oz: that is "////18th century....."
ddavitt: I wouldn't know which branch to go for; maternal or paternal
Major oz: Yes, the Mormons have opened it ALL to the public.
ddavitt: Must get hideously complicated
Major oz: ....not just part of it.
ddavitt: Really?
SAcademy: What I've seen of the Salt Lake stuff is likely to be
unreliable.
dwrighsr: Start with what you know the most about.
Major oz: yes....and I am told you can access it on line
Major oz: haven't tried, myself
ddavitt: Or want to know the most about....don't like my paternal granny at
all...
BPRAL22169: They do tend to make up the older genealogy for their own
purposes -- but theyhave also collected copiees of old records, and those
are very helpful.
ddavitt: Couldn't care less where she came from.
Major oz: I would really like to track down some family legends.
BPRAL22169: I feel most connected to the paternal side, but that stops with
my (adoptive) grandmother and her family.
Major oz: .....to see if they are fact based.
BPRAL22169: The maternal side goes back to the Huguenots, but I don't feel
the urge to track that information down.
ddavitt: But I'd love to find out where my ancestors came from, if we've
always been English..
Major oz: Isn't that where you came from?
ddavitt: I can see how it would get quite addictive
ddavitt: Yes but who knows what happened in the past?
Major oz: true.....
SAcademy: The genealogy in the Butler library is a very active section.
ddavitt: People immigrated to England as well as from it.
Major oz: On some of the islands I lived on, there were only a few hundred
people and hundreds of generations were the same people.
BPRAL22169: What was your maiden name?
SAcademy: Maybe Joane Rush would look it up for you, Bill.
ddavitt: Me? Ward.
Major oz: Terrible inbreeding......
ddavitt: Very common name.
BPRAL22169: That's a solidly English name.
ddavitt: Yes, my mother is Jackson.
Major oz: Ah, but you are Norsk, by way of Normandy........:-D
ddavitt: My married name. Davitt is Irish; Michael davitt was a famous
Irish rebel.
BPRAL22169: Suggests petit bourgeois going all the way back to the 14th
century. Jackson doesn't have the petit bourgeois overtones, but it's
English going back to the 8th century.
ddavitt: Not that he's related i think:-)
ddavitt: That's probably why we don't bother as much; we've all been around
for so long it doesn't matter anymore <g>
BPRAL22169: Oh, you English arrivistes!
ddavitt: :-)
SAcademy: Ca't trace it back to the nobility?
Major oz: I was recently filling out some paperwork to substitute teach in
the local HS, and there was a box for "race". I thought that was gone. I
entered "various"
ddavitt: David and I still chuckle over a Canadian restaurant that we
visited on our honeymoon, with a century old window as a decoration....
ddavitt: Our terrace house back in the UK was that old but we didn't see it
as a plus...
Major oz: Interesting how many people here brag about haveing Cherokee
blood, but badmouth the Indians.
BPRAL22169: Anything that old in LA or San Francisco is, like, ancient.
ddavitt: In the UK, it's barely due for it's next paint job!
ddavitt: Yes, Cherokee princesses are cool i gather.
SAcademy: Ron has Cherokee blood--grandfather, I think
BPRAL22169: I had a strange sense of historicity the first time I went to
Boston -- quite different from New York. The Old North Church burial ground
on Tremont put a chill on me -- I paid homage to Samuel Adams.
BPRAL22169: And yet, those 300 year old things are only eggs by comparison
to European buildings and sites.
Major oz: It's quite a tragedy -- the "trail of tears" Many were "adopted"
along the way by locals.
ddavitt: Funny you mention Boston; I only discovered yesterday that it's
about level or even north of me.....i thought it was much further south....
ddavitt: Jane fails Geography 101
BPRAL22169: Trick of the map
Major oz: You must be in S Ontario.
SAcademy: We had a friend in Colo spgs who was pure Cherokee.
ddavitt: It sort of bends up....most peculair
BPRAL22169: Flat projections don't give a good sense of things like that.
ddavitt: Thank you Bill; I'll use that as an excuse :-)
Major oz: Major trivia Q: What country is directly SOUTH of Detroit MI?
Major oz: Canada, of course
BPRAL22169: De Nada
dwrighsr: I live in the middle of the area that the Cherokees were evicted
from. One of them, Chief Vann, built a fine brick house in 1804 which was
stolen from him. It's about a mile from here.
ddavitt: Yes; lots of the US is north of canada...
BPRAL22169: Lots of the US is north of the southernmost parts of Canada.
ddavitt: Hmm...are we going to have a TEFL discussion btw?
BPRAL22169: And Maine belongs to the Maritimes. I say, give it back.
Major oz: You are the volunteer hose, yes?
ddavitt: Uneasy feeling that I'm not being a good cohost here
BPRAL22169: You can have STephen King.
Major oz: host-host-host !!!!!!!!1
ddavitt: If you insist.
SAcademy: Maine's all right. Used to go there to camp in the summers/
BPRAL22169: In the 20's?
BPRAL22169: When you were a leader of fashion?
ddavitt: I've read lots of books set there but usually murder mysteries
which may have given me a false impression.
SAcademy: Yes. Anything wrong with that?
BPRAL22169: not at all. Just placing it chronologically.
ddavitt: At least you got out alive SA :-)
SAcademy: Come on, does everything have to be chronological?
BPRAL22169: Not at all -- but my mind works that way.
dwrighsr: I'm being a lousy co-host. I have some other stuff going on
another computer which keeps interrupting me. Sorry.
SAcademy: I got rid of the hot chats for a while, but it's back again
BPRAL22169: Or at least, it often starts there.
BPRAL22169: I've forgotten what specific aspects of TEFL we were to discuss
this week.
ddavitt: Anyone have any thoughts on TEFL?
SAcademy: It's my bedtime. Nite all.
ddavitt: Well we did Lamb story and twins and touched on the Dora story
BPRAL22169: ciao.
ddavitt: Goodnight SA
dwrighsr: I'm still irritated by reilloc's comments, so I'm not very
objective.
SAcademy has left the room.
BPRAL22169: I do not have the impression that is a serious person, so I no
longer even look at what he/she/it has to say.
Major oz: We left last Thurs (I missed the Sat session) talking about the
unifying theme in all the separate stories.
ddavitt: He's been on the group before i think
Major oz: who is reilloc?
ddavitt: Can't remember if he was this abrasive though
BPRAL22169: L.N. Collier
ddavitt: Male or female?
BPRAL22169: This time, he/she has just been stupid.
Major oz: .....someone who came to the Sat session?
ddavitt: I did in part
dwrighsr: Maybe I shouldn't take him/her/it serious, I just got riled and
have been preparing a long reply to his last post to me, but I may just
forget it.
ddavitt: Yes...I'm getting that way.
Major oz: someone on AFH ?
BPRAL22169: When he/she started passing comments (all of them completely
wrong, btw) about me, I got the impression he/she has no respect for truth.
What is the point in trying to conduct discourse.
ddavitt: Haven't you been there this week Oz?Pretty lively
ddavitt: Acrimoniuos but lively.
dwrighsr: Yes. Claimed that the entire point of TEFL was to get woody into
bed with maureen.
BPRAL22169: At least I believe Randi is sincere, if a little narrow.
Major oz: I concentrated mostly on the "women in Heinlein" threads. The
education thread got boring.
ddavitt: Randi is supposed to be hosting the next chat btw.
Major oz: was that where it was?
ddavitt: i probably won't be here but that's baby not personal :-)
ddavitt: Reilloc is everywhere...
ddavitt: Like a rash.
dwrighsr: You mean you won't have a connection in the hospital ? :'(
ddavitt: :-)
Major oz: was he the guy that was talking with the army woman about
houskeeping, babies, etc.
BPRAL22169: That was Randi -- a she, btw.
ddavitt: I think arguing with Randi in real time might be too much in my
delicate condition:-)
Major oz: Randi is a she ?
ddavitt: Yes; told you, lesbain so definitely.
ddavitt: Not to be confused with nice randy and Cryo Randy
Major oz: I live such a sheltered life........ ::sigh::
BPRAL22169: Jane, you can always exercise the privilege of the enceinte and
have a fainting spell.
ddavitt: Well so far she's refused to debate with me until i read three
philosphy books, said i've been brainwashed into having a career break and
described my posts as charmingly childish and naive.
Major oz: .....must be a liberal arts grad......
BPRAL22169: It used to be when women got the "vapours" they shut up.
Major oz: psych / soch major.....
ddavitt: I may faint from the pain of my gritted teeth; or the contractions
i get from giggling...can't decide
BPRAL22169: Hint: there's a little button underneath the attendance list
that says "Ignore"
ddavitt: Is that a hint Bill? <eg>
Major oz: But wears sensible shoes.......
Merfilly8 has entered the room.
dwrighsr: Are you sure that she and reilloc aren't the same? :-)
Major oz: yo, filly
dwrighsr: Hi filly.
ddavitt: Hi filly, how's it going with Ebon?
ddavitt: Hmm...she has posted under 2 ID's at the same time before...
BPRAL22169: The thought that reilloc might be a hoax has crossed my mind.
Kind of pathetic, if you think of it.
BPRAL22169: Of course, it's even more pathetic to think she might not be.
ddavitt: But Reilloc makes a lot of spelling mistakes which Randi doesn't
dwrighsr: I noticed that. 'susscintly' IIRC was one.
Merfilly8: Hello all. Ebon is in the hospital, and I'm just getting my
nerves in check..I'm just lurking tonight
ddavitt: Glad you could make it...
Merfilly8: thanks
Merfilly8: I'm job hunting, so I can get one that let's me be home when
Kevin isn't
ddavitt: So far we haven't done any TEFL stuff but we're enjoying a
gossip:-)
Merfilly8: ok
Major oz: Does anyone know the army woman <something>"O"?
dwrighsr: JenO?
Merfilly8: I do
Major oz: Has she been invited to these get togethers?
Merfilly8: My ex-roommate
ddavitt: She's posted before i think.
Major oz: Yes, that's her
Merfilly8: I introduced her to AFH last year
ddavitt: She's posting now
Merfilly8: I noticed
ddavitt: Nice to have some more girls; Phebe is back too.
Major oz: Has she been invited by anyone?
Merfilly8: She and her husband, one of them, are in the Army
ddavitt: (I'm allowed to say girls aren't I?)
Major oz: sure
ddavitt: Yes, sounds like she's shipping out soon.
Major oz: .....but I'm not......
Major oz: shows the double standard
ddavitt: :-)
Merfilly8: I say chicks, so you can too MAjor! I don't carry a double
standard
ddavitt: i don't mind...but then I've bought into the male stereotypes of
what a woman is
Major oz: hokay
Merfilly8: I was the only femme in my shop for a while...I'm also the only
one who nearly faced an EO hearing
Major oz: ....does this affliction last approx nine months ?????
|
|
|||||
|
©2001-2010 The Heinlein Society | ||||||
| ||||||